PTRP050608E

Document Sample
PTRP050608E Powered By Docstoc
					PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




APPLICATION No:         07/55234/HH

APPLICANT:                     D. March

LOCATION:                      90 Wellington Street East Salford M7 4DW

PROPOSAL:                      Construction of dormer extension in roof space at front and
                               rear of dwelling

WARD:                          Broughton


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

At the meeting of the panel held on the 6th December 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED for the additional information to be submitted in relation to the impact of the
proposal on the street scene.

A photomontage of the proposed extension has now been submitted.

In addition the second reason for refusal relating to the impact of the proposal has been
withdrawn as agreed by the panel on 6th December 2007.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a terrace (third property from the end) residential property on the south
side of Wellington Street East, Salford M7. The immediate area comprises of residential
properties, the majority of which are terraced.

Permission is sought for the construction of dormer extensions in the roof space to the front and
rear of the property. The following describes the proposed development in detail.

        The front of the property would include two pitched roofed dormers, they would both
        project from the roof plane by a maximum of 3.7m. Each would be 1.7m in width, sited
        0.2m below the ridgeline and 0.6m above the eaves.
        The rear of the property would include two flat roof dormers. In plain view they would
        be joined and „L‟ shaped.
            o One would project from the main roof plain by a maximum of 3.7m. It would be
                 located 0.3m below the ridgeline and 0.4m above the eaves and have a width of
                 approximately 1.8m.
            o The second would project along the roof plain of the two-storey outrigger by a
                 maximum of 3.2m. It would extend the length/projection of the two-storey
                 outrigger, and it would be sited 0.3m above the eaves and it would project
                 approximately 0.6m above the existing ridge of the outrigger roof.



                                                 1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


SITE HISTORY

None

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

        88 and 92 Wellington Street East, Salford
        15 Leicester Road, Salford
        65 Cardiff Street

REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor Conner has requested that the application is determined at Panel, for the following
reason:

        The proposed extension is required to fulfil the needs of the occupants of 90 Wellington
        Road East.

I have received information from the applicant outlining their special circumstance. Furthermore,
I have received a number of points in favour of the development from the applicant‟s agent. The
issues raised will be discussed later in the report, in the section titled „Further Observations‟

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific Policies: None

Other Policies:          DES1 – Respecting Context
                         DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                         DES8 – Alteration and Extension

OTHER LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Housing Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this planning application are: whether there would be an
unacceptable impact on neighbours and residents; the potential impact on the street scene; and
whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and the Council‟s SPD on
House Extensions.

DESIGN

UDP Policy DES1 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.



                                                  2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Policy DES8 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.

Policy HE10 of the SPD states that planning permission will not normally be granted for the
erection of dormers on the roof plane facing an adopted highway, on a hipped side roof plane or
those that wrap around two or more different roof slopes unless they can be designed in a way
which does not have an unacceptable impact on the street scene. Acceptable dormers will need to
be: sited below the ridge of the dwelling; set well back from the eaves line, usually such that the
window sill rests on the roof plane; AND set well in from the eaves line and not built off any
external walls.

        The proposed dormers located to the front of the property would be sited above the eaves
        and below the ridgeline. They would be of an appropriated scale, and given that they
        would match existing dormers located on Wellington Street East it is considered that they
        would be in keeping with the immediate neighbours and would not look out of place or
        have a significant effect on the character of the area or be an incongruous feature in this
        setting. In respect of this, it is considered that the proposal would comply with policies
        DES1, DES8 and HE10.

        The proposed dormers to the rear, would be joined and therefore appear as one from
        Leicester Road. Both would be sited above the eaves and above the ridgeline of the two-
        storey outrigger. Given that the dormers would be visible from Leicester Road and that
        they extend above the ridgeline of the two-storey outrigger, it is considered that the
        proposal, due to its size siting and design would have an unacceptable impact on the
        street scene. In respect of this, it is considered that the proposal would not comply with
        Policy DES1

AMENITY

Policy DES7 states that 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. It states that development will not be permitted where it would have
an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or user of other developments.

Policy HE1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do
not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms;
and a minimum distance of 10.5m between the principal window of any habitable room of the
proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property.

The proposed dormers to the front would serve a bedroom. Directly opposite the proposed
dormers are a row of terrace properties. The proposed dormers would face the roof of the
terraced properties and the distance maintained would be approximately 25m. In respect of this,
it is considered that no unacceptable loss of privacy would be incurred to the occupant(s) of the
properties to the front, in accordance with Policy HE1.

The two dormers to the rear would both include a window serving a bedroom facing the rear.
Directly opposite the named windows would be the rear of a row of terraced properties
(maintaining a distance of approximately 10m). The named windows would face the roof of these


                                                3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


terraced properties and they would not be any closer to the properties than the existing bedroom
windows on the main rear elevation and the two-storey outrigger. They would however, increase
the intensity of overlooking to the occupant(s) of the properties to the rear. In respect of this, it is
considered that an unacceptable loss of privacy would be incurred to the occupant(s) of the
properties to the front.

Policy HE2 states that permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce
windows close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. For the
purposes of this policy „close‟ refers to a window within 5m of the boundary.

The side elevation of the proposed dormer projecting along the roof plane of the two-storey out-
rigger would include two windows facing the common boundary with 88 Wellington Road East
(one serving a bathroom and one serving a W.C.). This in accordance with Policy HE2 would
result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupant(s) of No.88. However, in order to secure
to privacy of the neighbouring property the applicant has indicated that the windows can be
obscured and a condition to ensure this would be attached. In respect of this, it is considered that
no unacceptable loss of privacy would result to the occupant(s) of No.88.

The rear elevation of the proposed dormer projecting from the roof plane of the two-storey out-
rigger would include a window serving a bedroom. This window would be approximately 3m to
the rear boundary, however, because of the alleyway to the rear, it would be in excess of 6m to
the nearest garden (15 Leicester Road). It is therefore considered that no unacceptable loss of
privacy would result to the occupant(s) of No.15.

The proposed dormers to the rear would result in the applicant‟s house appearing to be 3 stories
high. This could well result in a loss of light/overbearing to any ground floor habitable room
windows located in the main rear elevation of the adjoining property (88 Wellington Road East).
However, in this instance No.88 has a single storey rear extension located along the common
boundary, therefore there is no ground floor habitable room window in the main rear elevation.
Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of
light/overbearing to the occupant(s) of No.88, in accordance with Policy DES7.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS

The applicant has submitted details regarding their special circumstances: These include:

        They are an orthodox Jewish family who play a full and active part in the local Jewish
        community.

        They have nine children at present with a further baby due in January. Space is critical,
        the idea is to put two children in each bedroom. This will provide each of them with a
        reasonable amount of space and a good environment to grow up in.

        They have five brothers and sisters who stay at regular intervals, and who live in the
        Manchester area.

        They have grandparents, aunties, uncles who also stay over.

        They are quite poor and they certainly do not have the finances to move to a larger house.


                                                   4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




The SPD on housing extensions states “Personal circumstances, such as a disability, or the
specific requirements of minority groups may make it difficult to provide the necessary facilities
within the standards set out within this document. The council may interpret these standards
flexibly in such circumstances, but proposals that significantly deviate from them are still unlikely
to be appropriate. Consideration of personal circumstances will be assessed on a case-by-case
basis. Standards may be relaxed where an extension would provide basic facilities that are
lacking from a house such as a bathroom.” (Pg 33, Para 14.1)

In this instance it is considered that the applicant could very well lower the height of the proposed
dormer so that it does not extend above the ridgeline, thus, appearing acceptable within the street
scene, whilst still providing the same amount of extra accommodation.

In continuation of the issues raised by the applicant, the applicant‟s agent has also made the
following points:

There are numerous loft conversion and dormers located on Wellington Street East that are
identical to the applicants that have received planning permission.

It is accepted that there are a number of loft conversions and dormers located on Wellington Road
East, which are very similar to the proposed development. Indeed, a number of applications have
been approved with dormers that exceed the height of the two-storey outrigger ridgeline (please
see location slide, which indicate properties within the locality that have received such
permission). It has been identified that these properties are located deep within the terraced
street, and therefore they are less visible from the street scene. Consequently, their impact is less
unacceptable.

The visibility of the dormer from Leicester Road is limited as the roof of 92 Wellington Road East
obscures it.

It has been identified that the proposed dormer would be very much visible from Leicester Road
(a key road with much passing traffic) (Please see location slide, which indicates the approximate
area of visibility). The roof of No.92 would obscure it to some extent but given that the rear of
the applicants property is just 7m from Leicester Road, it is not considered enough to warrant
approval.

There is only a „small window of opportunity‟ on Leicester Road to look up and notice the roof-
scape

Although there is only a small window of visibility, the proposed dormer is still visible from the
street scene, as mentioned earlier the distance from the rear of the applicants property to Leicester
Road is just 7m.

Most of the roof-scape is completely obscured by the properties on Leicester Road

Notwithstanding this, the proposed dormer, as documented, would be visible from Leicester
Road. Consequently, it would have an unacceptable effect on the surrounding street scene.



                                                 5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


The area is a poor area with a lot of social deprivation and it therefore seems rather tenuous that
the dormer could be construed as intrusive within the overall context of the community.

It is considered essential to preserve that character of any street. Therefore, to reaffirm,
considering the dominance of the dormer from Leicester Road its design is considered to be
unacceptable.

There are other dormer loft conversions nearby and they haven‟t affected the visual amenity of
the area (61 Ashbourne Road visible from Leicester Road)

The proposed dormer at 16 Ashbourne Road is sited above the eaves and below the ridgeline. It
is therefore considered not to have an unacceptable impact on the street scene.

CONCLUSION

I am of the opinion that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on occupiers of
neighbouring properties. I also consider that the proposed extension would have an unacceptable
effect on the street scene. The applicant‟s personal circumstances justify the need for extra living
space. However, I am of the opinion that these needs would be met if the applicant was to lower
the height of the dormer so that it was below the ridgeline of the two-storey outrigger.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposed development would by reason of its design, size and siting be an unduly
   obtrusive feature in the street-scene. seriously injuring the visual amenity of the area,
   contrary to Policy DES1.




APPLICATION No:                08/55899/HH

APPLICANT:                     Mrs Gruner

LOCATION:                      16 Hanover Gardens Salford M7 4FQ

PROPOSAL:                      Retention of a single storey side/rear extension.

WARD:                          Kersal


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application relates to a semi detached residential dwelling at Hanover Gardens, Salford. The
site is located at the top of Hanover Gardens. The pair of semi-detached properties including the



                                                 6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


application site are set at an angle the remaining properties on Hanover Gardens. The adjoining
semi fronts Marston Road. Hanover Gardens slopes upwards towards the application site.


DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension. The extension has
been partly constructed but has not yet been completed. The extension would be flush with the
main front elevation. It would project 4.5m from the existing gable. It would have a length of
3.5m towards the back of the property. At an angle it would wrap around the existing property
projecting 4.2m beyond the rear elevation. The front part of the extension would have a height to
the eaves of 3.7m and a height to the ridge of 5m with a steep sloping roof. The remainder of the
extension would have a height of 3.8m with a flat roof. It would accommodate a bedroom,
bathroom, living / dining room and a succah.

The extension is to accommodate the specific needs of a disabled person.

The differences between the extant permission and the current proposal are;

        The width of the extension to the front is 0.2m less than the extant permission
        The height of the front element is 0.5m higher to the eaves and overall 1.8m higher than
        the extant permission
        The height of the flat roof element is 0.6m higher than the extant permission

SITE HISTORY

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension in July
2007 (07/54328/HH). – This permission granted an extension projecting 4.7m from the existing
gable elevation and the same as the current proposal to the rear. The height of the approved
extension was 3.2m with a flat roof.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

Ground Floor Flat, 13 Hanover Gardens
First Floor Flat, 13 Hanover Gardens
13, 14 and 15 Hanover Gardens
13, 15 and 17 Stanley Road
4 Marston Road

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection from a neighbouring occupier has been received, the issues raised are:

        The extension is considerably larger in terms of height than indicated on the submitted
        plans,

        The submitted plans indicate that the site is flat when it in fact slopes,


                                                  7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




        The extension is overbearing and imposing.

An email from Councillor Wilson requesting that the application be determined by the Planning
and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to personal circumstances has been receivedis email is
on behalf of Councillor Wilson and Councillor Connor.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific Policies: None

Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
                       DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                       DES8 – Alteration and Extensions

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Housing Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this planning application are: whether there would be an
unacceptable impact on neighbours and residents; the potential impact on the street scene; and
whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and the Council‟s SPD on
House Extensions.

DESIGN

UDP Policy DES1 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.

UDP Policy DES8 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.

The extension is partly constructed. The front and side elevation of the proposal is visible from
Hanover Gardens. The front element has been designed with a steep sloping roof with an overall
height of 5m. The application site is elevated and Hanover Gardens slopes up towards the
application site. The extension is extremely prominent when viewed from down Hanover
Gardens. The previously approved scheme was lower than the current proposal and therefore had
less of an impact on the street scene. The existing property is of a standard construction with a
hipped roof, as are the majority of other properties within the vicinity. The extension has been
constructed from brick that does not match that of the existing property in terms of colour. The
steep sloping roof to the front of the extension does not respect the general character, scale or
rhythm of the existing property. Due to the height and massing, the extension is an incongruous
feature within the street scene. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have an
unacceptable impact on the street scene in terms of size and massing contrary to DES1 and Des8
of the Unitary Development Plan. The application is to provide facilities for a disabled however
the extension could be re-designed to reduce the impact on the street scene.


                                               8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




AMENITY

Policy DES7 states that 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. It states that development will not be permitted where it would have
an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or user of other developments.

The Council‟s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted in July
2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards to be
maintained when determining householder planning applications. The policies in the House
Extensions SPD seek to strike the correct balance between the needs of people who wish to
extend their home, and the impact of such development on neighbouring occupiers.

Policy HE1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not
maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms; and
a minimum distance of 10.5m between the principal window of any habitable room of the
proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property.

Habitable room windows would be located in the front and rear of the extension. Due to the
orientation of the application site the windows would not directly face windows of neighbourng
properties. These windows were on the previous planning permisison and as such are considered
to be acceptable.

Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the
gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The reasoned justification to this policy considers the term
„close to‟ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome with obscure glazing, except to principle
habitable room windows.

There are two windows located on the boundary with No. 14 Hanover Gardens. These windows
serve a bathroom and as living / dining room. The extension and internal floor level of the
extension is considerably higher than No.14. These windows are in situ and are fitted with
obscure glazing in accordance with condition 3 of planning permission 07/54328/HH and as such
are considered to be acceptable.

Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for single storey rear extensions that project beyond a 45 degree line taken from either the mid
point of any principal ground floor window of a habitable room or a point 3m along the common
boundary from the rear elevation of adjoining or adjacent dwellings, whichever, in relation to a
particular adjoining or adjacent dwelling, allows the longer extension.

The rear element is the same as the extant permission. The rear element does not project beyond
a 45 degree line taken from a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of
adjoining dwelling in accordance with HE5.

Due to the relationship of the side extension to No.14 the principles of Policy HE5 can be used to
assess the impact on No.14. No.14 has a lounge window on the front elevation close to the
application site. The proposal would be within a 45 degree line taken from the mid point of this


                                                9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


habitable room. As part of the site inspection the officer viewed the proposed extension from the
lounge window of no.14. In the majority of this room the extension is not highly visible. It can
be clearly seen only when sat or stood in the north west corner of the room. As such it is not
considered the proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact in terms of loss of light
or overbearing on the occupants of No.14.

OTHER ISSUES

A number of plans have been submitted with the application. The most recent accurately
represent the extension in situ.

The previous application included the removal of one protected copper beech tree. This tree has
been removed. The extant permission has a number of conditions relating to the replacement of
the copper beech tree with two silver birch trees.

The extension is to accommodate facilities for a disabled person. However given its prominence
in the street scene it is not considered that the personal circumstances would not take priority over
the unacceptable impact on the street scene.

CONCLUSION

It is considered the proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene
contrary to DES1 and DES8 of the UDP. It is considered the proposal would not have an
unacceptable impact on the current and future occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of
loss of light and overbearing in accordance with the House Extensions SPD and Policy DES7 of
the UDP, and there are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The extension by virtue of its size, siting and design does not respect the character and scale
   of the existing property and would be an incongruous feature in the street scene contrary to
   policies DES1 and DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.


Note(s) for Applicant

1. Please note this refusal relates to the amended plans received 16th May 2008




                                                 10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


APPLICATION No:                08/56344/FUL

APPLICANT:                     Antonelli Bros Ltd

LOCATION:                      The Bakery 54 Weymouth Road Eccles M30 8FB

PROPOSAL:                      Erection of a single storey side/front extension

WARD:                          Winton


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The site of the proposed development is situated in the Winton area of Eccles, within an
established industrial area. It is bounded to the north by other industrial units, with the M602
motorway beyond, approximately 80 metres distant. To the east, the site is bounded by further
industrial units, with the Bridgewater Canal also approximately 80 metres distant. To the south,
the site is bounded by the rear of residential properties on Lulworth Road, with an electricity sub-
station to the south west. Lulworth Road bounds the site to the west, with residential properties
beyond.

The site itself is occupied by Antonelli Brothers, an ice cream cone manufacturers. The
manufacturing facility is to the eastern quadrant of the site, this application relates to the
administrative element of the building, which is situated in the western quadrant of the site. This
section of the site encompasses a 2.8 metre high, single storey, flat roof building to the
Weymouth Road frontage, with a taller single storey building to the rear, with a ridge height of
5.4 metres.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to re-model and extend the existing single storey element, creating an
additional floor area of 80m². The rear elevation would project east for an additional 4.4 metres,
to the position of the current palisade fencing at the site‟s north eastern boundary. This is
proposed to extend for a distance of 12.2 metres in a south-easterly direction, following the line
of the adjacent pavement. The building would then step west for 0.4 metres then south for 3.9
metres. Here the building line extends for 3.8 metres west to the existing single storey Weymouth
Road frontage.

The extension would appear similar to the existing, using facing brickwork, UPVC windows and
a felted roof. The positioning of the existing access gates on the Weymouth Road frontage is
proposed to be slightly amended, moving 2.4 metres to the east. The width of the gate‟s opening
is proposed to increase from 4.2 metres to 6.5 metres.

SITE HISTORY

93/31699/FUL - Erection of two storey extension for canteen use – Approved 20.10.1993




                                                11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


CONSULTATIONS
Engineering Department

No objections subject to satisfactory drainage provision. State that work on/adjacent to highway
requires highways maintenance approval.

Traffic/Highways Department

No objections
Urban Vision Environment

Recommendation that a contaminated land Preliminary Risk Assessment is submitted due to the
proximity of infilled land (see conditions below).

PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
63 Weymouth Road
52 Weymouth Road
57-61 Weymouth Road (odd numbers)
1-5 Lulworth Road (consecutive numbers)
7-11 Lulworth Road (odd numbers)

REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters of objection were received, including one signed by all three councillors for the
Winton ward. The issues raised include: The application provides no information on the expected
traffic and types of vehicles generated by the proposal, concerns about existing parking problems
in the area and possible damage to the roads by increases in vehicle movements, highway safety
issues due to vehicles reversing out of Weymouth Road, refuse and emergency services already
have difficulty servicing this areas this and this application would add extra pressures. The
councillors requested that the application is taken to Planning Panel.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
E5 – Development Within Established Employment Areas

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document

PLANNING APPRAISAL

DESIGN
UDP Policy DES1 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 assessing the extent to which any development complies with this
policy, regard will be had to the following factors:


                                                 12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


i. the impact on, and relationship to, the existing landscape and any notable landscape or
environmental feature or species;
ii. the character, scale and pattern of streets and building plots, including plot size;
iii. the relationship to existing buildings and other features that contribute to townscape quality;
iv. the impact on, and quality of, views and vistas;
v. the scale of the proposed development in relationship to its surroundings;
ix. the quality and durability of proposed materials and their appropriateness to both the location
and the type of development;

Policy DES8 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.
It is considered that the overall impact of the various extensions and alterations proposed would
not adversely affect the building‟s integrity or appearance as an attractive and coherent whole. It
is considered that the street scene on both Lulworth Road and Weymouth Road would be
enhanced by the development. The buildings on the site presently hold little visual quality. The
side elevation in particular has a poor aesthetic value, with vegetation and a metal container
occupying the intervening space between the building and the boundary fencing. It is considered
that the proposed extension would inject life into this elevation and the building as a whole,
therefore enhancing the quality of the built environment in the locality. As the extension is of a
similar height to the existing building, it is considered that the scale of the development would be
congruous with its surroundings. The proposal is therefore is accordance with policies DES1 and
DES8.

AMENITY
Policy DES7 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
the occupiers or users of other developments.
The separation distance between the furthest extent of the proposed extension and surrounding
properties is considered to be adequate in order to ensure that no negative impacts are created.
The closest properties to the site, number 52 Weymouth Road is 13 metres distant and the front of
61 Weymouth Road is 16 metres distant. The development retains the height of the existing
building and it is not considered that neighbours would suffer from any negative impacts in terms
of the above factors. The application is, therefore, in accordance with Policy DES7.

EMPLOYMENT
Policy E5 states that within established employment areas, planning permission will be granted
for the modernisation and refurbishment of existing buildings where they are consistent with
other relevant policies and proposals of the UDP. The application site is situated within a long-
established employment area, with surrounding employment sites situated to the north and east,
and the proposal conforms to all other relevant policies within the UDP. Although it is
acknowledged that the proposed extension is situated at the western extremity of the industrial
area the extension is small in scale and does not involve any alterations to the manufacturing
element of the site - which will remain unaltered on the east of the site. Therefore, it is considered
that the application is an acceptable form of modernization of the facilities within the site and the
proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy E5.



                                                 13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS
Regarding the letter of objections received, it is considered that the development is only very
minor in scale, and as it only involves improvements and extensions to office accommodation,
with the existing manufacturing facility unaffected by the proposal, it is considered that the
development would not generate any significant increase in traffic in the area. Part of the land
used for the development would be built on an area of hardstanding measuring approximately 5
metres by 7 metres, which could potentially be used for the purposes of vehicle parking.
However, it is considered that vehicle parking outside the application site is not presently a
significant problem, as the site photographs show. There is ample on-street parking to
accommodate the needs of both the bakery and neighbouring dwellings, with no parking
restrictions in place. Many of the dwellings in the area have driveways/in curtilage parking
spaces, further reducing the potential for conflict over parking spaces. Therefore the application is
unlikely to result in any impact upon the availability of car parking in the locality.

As discussed, the development is purely an extension of office facilities and it is considered that
there would be no associated increase in goods vehicle movements. Therefore, it is considered to
be unlikely that any road safety issues or impediments to access for refuse and emergency
services would be created as a result of the development. Further to this, it is considered that the
application would not result in any damage to the roads, pavements and drains above and beyond
normal wear due to the fact that it is unlikely that the extension would result in an increase in
traffic. Moreover, no objections were raised by Urban Vision‟s Traffic department.

Following Councillor Lancaster‟s objection letter, a site visit was requested to coincide with the
Planning Panel‟s visit to the adjacent Creamline Dairies site (application 08/55964/FUL) on 12 th
June 2008. It was suggested to the Councillor via email that this proposal should be put to the
Panel on 5th June for their consideration.

CONCLUSION

The application conforms to all relevant policies within the UDP and there are no other material
considerations. The application is, therefore, recommended for approval.



RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03

2. Standard Condition AD01

3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Preliminary Risk Assessment report,
   including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential risk of land
   contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority. Should a potential risk be identified then:
   I. A 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


                                                 14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


    receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and

    II. The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in
    writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into
    the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the
    development; and

    III. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
    Planning Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works
    undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

    If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination is caused,
    the LPA shall be notified immediately. Where required, a suitable risk assessment shall be
    carried out and/or any remedial action shall be carried out in accordance to an agreed process
    and within agreed timescales in agreement with the LPA.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000

2. Standard Reason R007B

3. Standard Reason R028B


Note(s) for Applicant


1. This application relates to plans submitted on the 1st April 2008.

2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that any work on or adjacent to the public
   highway requires highways maintenance approval.



APPLICATION No:               08/56366/COU

APPLICANT:                    Miss J Woodruff

LOCATION:                     1 Pendlebury Road Swinton M27 4AG

PROPOSAL:                     Change of use from shop to shop for sale of hot food (Class A5)

WARD:                         Swinton South




                                                15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The application site is currently in use as a picture framing shop, situated at the southern end of a
large terrace of properties on the western side of Pendlebury Road, Swinton. It is bounded to the
north by a disused veterinary surgery, with terraced residential properties extending north for a
distance of 98 metres to the Junction with Swinton Hall Road. On the eastern side the property is
bounded by Pendlebury Road, with the Bingham Street Junction beyond. At the north east of this
junction, at 10 Pendlebury Road, there is an off licence/general store, with terraced residential
properties to the north. To the south east of the application site there is a row of four terraced
commercial premises extending from the Bingham Street junction to the junction with Chorley
Road. To the south of the site is an alleyway linking Pendlebury Road with Stafford Road, with a
surgery to the south of the alleyway. The west of the site features an alleyway running to the rear
of properties on Pendlebury Road and Stafford Road.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This is a proposal to change the use class of number 1 Pendlebury Road from its current A1 class
to A5 (hot food takeaway). No hours of opening have been proposed with the application, the
applicant stating that this will be subject to discussion. The rear yard is proposed to be used for
the storage of waste.

SITE HISTORY

None

CONSULTATIONS

Engineering Department
Recommendation that grease traps should be incorporated to prevent drain blockages.

Highways Department
No objections

Greater Manchester Geological Unit

Recommendation that the site should be permitted to operate between the hours of 0700 and 1700
Monday to Friday and that full details of the extraction and ventilation system are submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Urban Vision Environment

No objections in relation to contaminated land.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:
7, 12, 28, 38 Bingham Street
85-89 Chorley Road (odd numbers)
3,5 and 6 Pendlebury Road
95 Chorley Road



                                                  16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


First Floor Part And Second Floor 85 Chorley Road
Ground Floor And First Floor Part 85 Chorley Road
2-10 Stafford Road (even numbers)
2, 4, 7-14 (consecutive numbers) 16, 18 Pendlebury Road

REPRESENTATIONS
9 letters of objection were received, one of which was from the local Councillor Martin O‟Neil.
Issues raised by the letters include:
          The potential for the takeaway to create anti-social behaviour including noise, litter
             and the attraction of people with a predisposition towards anti-social behaviour.
          There are already a number of hot food takeaways in the vicinity and there is no need
             for another.
          The development would result in the creation of further parking problems in the
             surrounding streets.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Policy S4 - Amusement Centres, Restaurants and Cafes, Drinking Establishments and Hot Food
Takeaways


OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Hot Food Take Away Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

PLANNING APPRAISAL
UDP Policy S4 states that proposals for hot food takeaways will not be permitted where the use
would have an unacceptable impact, either in itself or cumulatively, on:
i. the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise,
disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic;
ii. the safety of pedestrians and road users, with respect to car parking, servicing or the effect on
the free flow of traffic;
iii. the vitality and viability of a town centre or neighbourhood centre;
iv. visual amenity; or
v. the drainage system.

Policy HFTA4 states that when considering whether a proposal for a hot food takeaway would
have an unacceptable impact on the safety of pedestrians and road users, regard will be had to the
accessibility of the site by public transport and cycling; The availability of public parking
provision in close proximity to the premises, including on-street parking; The availability of
easily accessible private parking provision; and the implications for the amenity of the
surrounding area (particularly if predominantly residential).

A number of issues relating to parking and highway safety in the vicinity of the site were raised in
letters of objection received. The present situation with parking and parking restrictions is
described below:
Pendlebury Road presently has double yellow line parking restrictions on both sides of the
southern section of the road. On the western side of the road the double yellow lines extend from
the Chorley Road junction to number 3 Pendlebury Road. To the north of the double yellow lines,


                                                 17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Pendlebury Road is then the subject of parking restrictions covered in the Swinton Community
Parking Scheme, which restricts on-street parking to permit holders only. Although it would be
possible for the business to apply for a maximum of four parking spaces within the Scheme, these
would be for the use of staff only and would not be for the use of customers. The eastern side of
Pendlebury Road features similar restrictions to those in place on the east, with double yellow
lines from the Chorley Road junction extending to the Bingham Street junction, with Swinton
Community Parking Scheme restrictions commencing to the north of the Bingham Street junction
and projecting north, terminating close to the Swinton Hall Road junction. The section of Chorley
Road close to the Pendlebury Road junction has various parking restrictions including double
yellow lines and disabled-only parking. Therefore, the only on-street parking which is in close
proximity to the premises is on Bingham Street. This presently has no parking restrictions, with
the exception of a very short stretch of double yellow lines at the Pendlebury Road junction.
However, Bingham Street presently suffers from a degree of congested parking on both sides of
the street, as a consequence of its close proximity to Swinton centre but not being including in the
Swinton Community Parking Scheme. Following consultation with Urban Vision‟s Traffic
Department, it is apparent that Bingham Street is soon to be included in the Swinton Community
Parking Scheme. This would, therefore, further reduce the availability of parking for non-permit
holders in the area.

However, notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the change of use of the application site
would not result in an increase in demand for vehicular parking in the surrounding streets. The
present use of the site as a picture framing/artists‟ shop is a relatively specialised business type,
meaning that customers are likely to be drawn from a wide catchment area. On the other hand, the
proposed business is by its nature likely to attract customers from the surrounding employment
sites, including the Civic Centre which is a short distance (approximately 250 metres) to the east
of the site along Chorley Road. Subsequently, it is envisaged that a significant percentage of the
business‟ clientele will travel to the site on foot. Furthermore, the fact that the site is situated just
outside the area designated as Swinton Town Centre, with the predominant land use to the north,
east and west of the application site being residential, means that local residents, who are unlikely
to need to drive to the site, will have another option for hot food in their area. Moreover, the lack
of parking in the area may potentially discourage customers from traveling to the business by car,
therefore assisting the promotion of sustainable travel.

Although the proposed hours of operation have not been discussed in the application, the nature
of the proposed hot hood takeaway as predominantly a sandwich shop selling a limited number of
hot food items such as baked potatoes, means that the business would only be likely to trade
during daytime hours. Further to this, the consultation response received from Greater
Manchester Geological Unit recommends that the opening hours should be limited to 0700-1700
Monday to Friday. During these hours it is likely that many cars belonging to residents of the
surrounding streets will be parked elsewhere as people drive to work, etc. Therefore, it is
considered that parking stress would be potentially less pronounced than a situation in which the
takeaway was a late-night operation, when many residents may have returned home from work
with their cars.

Although it is acknowledged that the streets surrounding the application do suffer from parking
issues, it is not considered that the change of use proposal would add to these parking problems.
The application therefore conforms to Policy HFTA4.



                                                   18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Having regard to the letters of objection received, it is not considered that the proposal would lead
to an unacceptable increase in noise or anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, no objections relating
to noise were raised in the consultation response from Miller Goodall on behalf of Greater
Manchester Geological Unit. However, to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring residents is not
adversely impacted upon in the future, following consultation with Greater Manchester
Geological Unit it is considered necessary to attach a condition stipulating that the business will
not operate later than 1700, on Mondays to Fridays only. It is considered that this would be an
acceptable form of mitigation against the potential for any of the anti-social acts mentioned in the
neighbour letters to occur. The fact that there are a number of other hot food takeaways in the
vicinity is not a relevant planning consideration, as Policy HFTA2 (Appropriate Concentrations
of Hot Food Take Aways) is only relevant for sites within town and neighbourhood centres,
which the application site is not located in.

Policy HFTA7 stipulates that hot food takeaways should provide a litter bin outside the premises
at all times when the business is open. As the nearest bin is situated opposite the application site
outside the 10 Pendlebury Road, it is considered that the attachment of a condition requiring the
provision a bin is necessary.

It is considered that the application is not in conflict with any of the other creteria contained
within Policy S4 or the policies contained within the Hot Food Takeaway Supplementary
Planning Document.

CONCLUSION
It is considered that the application conforms to UDP Policy S4 and all relevant policies within
the Hot Food Takeaway Supplementary Planning Document. There are no other material
considerations, and the application is therefore recommended for approval.




RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Standard Condition A03

2. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays
   and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 0700 and 1700 on any other day.

3. Use of air extraction equipment shall not commence until detailed plans and specifications of
   the equipment, including measures to alleviate noise, vibration, fumes and odours (and
   incorporating active carbon filters, silencers and anti vibration mountings where necessary),
   have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
   ventilation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
   before the use of the equipment commences and shall be permanently retained thereafter in
   accordance with the approved specifications.

4. Standard Condition AM03


                                                 19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000

2. Standard Reason R027B

3. Standard Reason R005B

4. Standard Reason R004B


Note(s) for Applicant

1. 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.



APPLICATION No:                08/56371/FUL

APPLICANT:                     Stax Trade Centres Plc

LOCATION:                      Formerley Convoys Wardley Industrial Estate Holloway Drive
                               Worsley M28 2LA

PROPOSAL:                      Erection of a cash and carry trade warehouse with two storey
                               internal offices together with associated car parking and
                               construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses (Re-
                               submission of planning application 07/55843/FUL)

WARD:                          Swinton North


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

This application relates to a 3.1-hectare site on the southern side of Holloway Drive in Worsley.
Until recently a series of four B8 industrial sheds occupied the site, however these have recently
been demolished. The site is located on the Wardley Industrial Estate and consequently a mix of
industrial uses occupy the land to the south, east and west of the site. The land immediately to the
north of the site is occupied by a railway line, beyond which there are residential properties.

THE PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 115.5m by 76m industrial shed to be used as a
cash and carry trade warehouse together with new pedestrian and vehicular access. The building
would have a pitched roof measuring 9.4m at the eaves and 13.7m at the ridge and would be set
back at least 135m from the front elevation of the site. The unit is to be used by Stax, a cash and


                                                20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


carry trade warehouse, who currently operate out of the unit opposite. However they have now
outgrown these premises and are looking to expand.

A customer car parking area that provides 201 parking spaces for patrons of the trade warehouse
together with 16 car parking spaces suitable for use by disabled persons would be located to the
front of the unit. A staff car park containing 20 spaces would also be provided in the northwestern
corner of the site. Parking for 3 motorcycles and 24 bicycles would also be provided.

It is proposed to provide a landscaped area to the front of the site that would be at least 6m wide
between the staff car park and Holloway Drive, increasing to 25m in width between the visitor car
park and the south west boundary. These areas would be grassed and planted with trees and
shrubs.

It is proposed to erect a 2.5m high weld mesh paladin fence that would run along the front
boundary of the site, extending for over 60m on the northern and southern boundaries of the site,
to where it joins with the existing palisade fencing. The fencing would incorporate a 7.3m wide
access gate that would be set back 8.5m from the back of the footpath. In order to minimise
impact the paladin fence would be colour treated in green.

SITE HISTORY

Application 08/55843/FUL for the erection of a trade warehouse was withdrawn in March 2008.

CONSULTATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections, recommend that the development is carried out in
accordance with secure by design standards

GMGU – No objections but recommend conditions for a site investigation and a noise assessment

Planning Policy/Legal – No objections. Advised that the use proposed is not a warehouse club for
the purposes of PPS6 as it is not a retail use, it is a B8 use.

Environment Agency – No objections but recommend a condition is attached for a surface water
regulation scheme

United Utilities – No objections

Network Rail – No objections

Economic Development – Support the application

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on the 15th of May 2008
A site notice was posted on the 2nd May 2008

The following neighbours were notified of the proposals –



                                                21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


561 – 567 (odd) Wardley Mews
1 to 28 Cashel Court
Flats 1 to 19 Copplestone Court, Longview Drive
2 to 10 (even) Longview Drive
1 Longview Drive
Flats 1 to 4 Longview Court
1 to 24 Glynrene Drive
Flats 1 to 25 Bellam Court
569 to 625 (odd) Manchester Road
625A Manchester Road
48 and 52 Chatsworth Road
Broadoak Primary School, Fairmount Road
2-10 (even) Wardley Industrial Estate
Units 1, 3, 3a, 11a, 15 Wardley Industrial Estate, Holloway Drive
Units C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5 Wardley Industrial Estate, Holloway Drive
Units B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 Wardley Industrial Estate, Holloway Drive
David South, Cheese Maker, Holloway Drive
PNR Fabrics, Wardley Industrial Estate, Holloway Drive
Amici Clothing, Wardley Industrial Estate, Holloway Drive
K A R Plastics UK, Invar Road
The Studio, Invar Road

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received in response to the application publicity. The following
issues have been raised –

The proposed development would increase the traffic on the road in the vicinity of the application
site, which aren‟t capable of accommodating the additional traffic flow that would be generated.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
                 DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                 DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
                 DES10 – Design and Crime
                 A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none
Other Policies - DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
                 DP3 Quality in New Development
                 SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas




                                               22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to
be of relevance:

DP1 – Regional Development Principles

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and noise

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Design and Crime SPD
Trees and Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of development is
acceptable, whether the design of the proposed development is acceptable, whether there would
be a detrimental impact on residential amenity and whether the proposed level of parking is
acceptable. The issues are considered in turn below.

Principle -

Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is re-
iterated in Draft Policy DP1.

Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.

The proposed development site is a brownfield site and consequently the proposals to redevelop
the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.

According to PPS6 new retail, leisure and office development should be located within existing
centres. It goes on to state that in the absence of any appropriate site in established centres, edge
of centre sites are considered most appropriate followed by out of centre sites, with preference
being given to locations that are accessible, close to an existing centre and have a high likelihood
of forming links with the centre.




                                                 23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Legal advice has been sought on whether the proposed use of the unit as a cash and carry trade
warehouse is classed as a retail use for the purposes of PPS6. According to paragraph 1.8 of PPS6




                                                                 “
the main town centre uses to which PPS6 applies includes retail (including warehouse clubs
and factory outlet centres), leisure, offices and arts/culture/tourism. PPS6 goes on to describe



                     “
warehouse clubs as large businesses specialising in volume sales of reduced priced goods. The




                                                                                              ”
individual may limit accesses to businesses, organisations or classes of individuals . The
information submitted with the planning application and that given on the applicants website


                              “




                                                                  ”




                                                                                   “
define the proposed use as a cash and carry trade warehouse and state that there will be no
retail sales . The applicant‟s proposed operations do not include retail sales rather the business
           ”




is one of a wholesale operation. It is therefore concluded that the use proposed is not a retail use
rather that it is a wholesale operation that falls into use class B8. As such the proposed location is
deemed appropriate for the proposed development without having to demonstrate compliance
with PPS6. Moreover, given the floor area planning permission would be required in the future
for any material change from the operations set out above.

Design

Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.

The proposed building would have a footprint of 115.5m by 76m and it would measure 9.4m at
the eaves and 13.7m at the ridge, with a pitched roof. The building would be constructed using
brick and Kingspan cladding panel in silver/grey and grey profiled metal roof panels. The design
of the building would be simple, similar to an industrial shed, however interest is added to the
elevations via the insertion of glazing and a full height glazed front entrance. A front canopy is
also proposed to give some depth to the building.

Having regard for the industrial nature of the area within which the building would be located and
the low visibility of the building within the street scene it is considered that the design of the
building is acceptable and that its appearance would not have an adverse impact upon the visual
amenity of the area.

It is recommended that a condition is attached to any permission granted that requires samples of
materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development in order to
ensure that they accord with those of surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitably high
quality.

Amenity

Policy DES7 states that development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

The land to the north, east of west of the site is used for industrial purposes.

The railway line occupies the land immediately to the north of the application site, however
beyond this there are a series of residential properties. Given the previous industrial use of the site



                                                  24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


and the 60m separation that would exist between the dwellings and the proposed trade warehouse
there are no „in principle‟ objections to the proposed development. It is however considered that
there is the potential for noise to emanate from the loading bay and affect neighbouring residents.

However, advice from the Council‟s acoustic consultant is that the nature of the noise and
disturbance could be adequately mitigated against in order to prevent neighbouring residents
experiencing a reduction in the level of residential amenity. In order to ensure that the use of the
loading bay is satisfactorily controlled and necessary mitigation measures incorporated/put into
place it is recommended that a condition requiring a further noise assessment is attached should
the application be approved as this will ensure that the proposal would not have an adverse
impact upon the residential amenity neighbouring residents can reasonably expect to enjoy.

Car Parking

Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council‟s maximum standards.

It is proposed to have 20 staff car parking spaces and 201 parking spaces for patrons of the trade
warehouse (69 for cars and 132 for vans). It is also proposed to have 16 car parking spaces
suitable for use by disabled persons. According to the Council‟s maximum standards a B8 unit of
this size (9943m2) should have a maximum of 221 car parking spaces, excluding spaces suitable
for use by disabled persons. The proposed car parking is therefore in accordance with the
Council‟s maximum standards, and as such it is deemed to be sufficient for the size of unit
proposed. The proposed car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have
any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider that
there would be any long term issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in the vicinity
of the site.

It is proposed to provide 3 motorcycle spaces and 24 cycle spaces. This level of provision is in
accordance with the Council‟s standards.

Trees

There are a number of trees on site including a row of beech trees on the front boundary, a series
of pioneer species trees and rhododendrons that have established themselves on the railway
embankment and several smaller trees that are scattered throughout the site. None of the trees on
site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

A tree survey has been submitted within the application. It is proposed to remove the trees along
the front boundary and the smaller trees scatted across the site in order to facilitate the
development, however it is proposed to retain the pioneer species and the rhododendrons that
have established themselves on the railway embankment in order to maintain the screening to the
properties in the north. It is proposed to replace the trees that have been removed on the front
boundary with a series of 10 ornamental trees. The Council‟s consultant arborist has inspected the
trees and does not have any objections to their removal as the trees only provide an insignificant
level of amenity value to the site, which can be replaced within a landscape scheme. In order to
protect the remain trees it is recommended that a condition be attached that requires a scheme for
protective fencing to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to the commencement of development.


                                                25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




Sustainable Development

PPS1 sets out the Governments agenda for delivering sustainable development. The Council have
recently adopted the new Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (March 2008), which
recognises the aims of PPS1. For major developments such as this, policy SDC1 sets out a full
criteria of measures that applicants need to demonstrate they have made full effort to comply
with. The applicant has identified a number of sustainable measures which would be incorporated
into the development further to the submitted travel plan:

Mechanical and Electrical Services:

1.    High frequency control to all luminaries to provide more energy efficient consumption.
2.    Presence sensing controls to lighting installations within cellular offices, toilets, store
      rooms etc. to avoid unnecessary use of electricity.
3.    Daylight linking dimmable warehouse lighting to mitigate unnecessary energy
      consumption.
4.    Sub-metering of all items of individual supply from the main LV panel distribution board
      covering approximately 90% of the total load consumption of the development. This will
      allow efficient managing and monitoring of the power consumption.
5.    A high velocity warm air ventilation system within the warehouse in lieu of non-efficient
      high level gas warm air blowers.
6.    VRF air conditioning systems throughout the cellular offices providing energy efficient
      means of heating and cooling.
7.    Gas burner modulation to optimise gas usage.

Building Envelope:

1.    CFC free insulation.
2.    Re-use of materials on site for hardcore.
3.    Permeable tarmac car parking surface to reduce surface water outfall.

Developer Contributions

Policy OB2 of the planning obligations SPD requires a contribution of £20 per square metre
towards improvements to the public realm, infrastructure or heritage features within the vicinity
of the application site.

Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to construction training. It states that major
developments should contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst Salford
residents. The contribution that should be sought from a new development to feed into schemes
that provide construction training is £1.50 per square metre

Policy OB4 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to climate change. It states that unless
schemes achieve a very good BREAM rating major developments should make a contribution of
£2 per square metre towards projects aimed at reducing and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions.

Policy OB5 of the Planning Obligations SPD states that developers should pay all reasonable
expenses incurred by the City Council in drawing up and administrating legal agreements. In


                                               26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


order to ensure this happens an additional charge of 2.5% will be added to cover the
administrative costs of ensuring that the commuted sums are directed towards appropriate
schemes.

Prior to the submission of application 08/55843/FUL there were four B8 industrial sheds on site,
which had a floor area of 8,303m2. With refurbishment, Stax could have occupied these units.
The purpose of the planning obligations SPD is to mitigate against the impact a development and
consequently it is deemed reasonable only to require a contribution to offset the impact of the
additional 1640m2 that would be created on site. On this basis a total payment of £38,540
(£39,553.50 included administration fee) would be required which can be broken down in the
following table:–

Type            of                                                              Cost
contribution
Public Open Space  N/A as the scheme is non
                   residential

Public        realm,   £20 per m2 non-residential £20 x 1640                    £32,800
Infrastructure and     floorspace
heritage
Construction           £1.50 per m2 non-residential £1.50 x 1640                £2,460
training               floorspace
Climate change         £2 per m2 non-residential £2 x 1640                      £3,280
                       floorspace
Sub total                                                                       £38,540
Plus 2.5% administration fee                                                    £1,013.50
Total                                                                           £39,553.50


A 2.5% administration fee is also required to cover costs.

The developer is aware of the level of contributions required and they have agreed to the
attachment of a condition to secure these monies and the 2.5% administration fee.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that the principle of the redevelopment of the site is acceptable.
The proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP and there are no material
considerations that outweigh this finding. It is therefore recommend that the application be
approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of a commuted sum of £38,540
towards public realm improvements, construction training and scheme to offset climate change
together with an additional charge of 2.5% to cover the administrative costs of ensuring that the
commuted sums are directed towards appropriate schemes.


                                                27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008



Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03

2. Standard Condition AD03

3. Prior to the commencement of the development

    I      A 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 and the wider environment; and

    II. The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in
    writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into
    the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the
    development; and

    III. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
    Planning Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works
    undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

4. Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application an assessment of the impact
   of the proposed development on neighbouring sensitive premises on Longview Drive shall be
   submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
   commencement of development. The assessment shall address the potential for any noise
   nuisance to occur which may impact upon the amenity of neighbouring sensitive premises
   during the operational phase of the proposal. The assessment shall identify fully all control
   measures which are required to control the impact of the nuisance. All approved measures
   identified shall be implemented and retained throughout the duration of any works during the
   construction phase. All approved measures for the operational stage shall be retained and
   maintained thereafter. No works shall be permitted on site until the control measures have
   been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. A verification report shall be
   submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority confirming that all measures
   recommended by the noise report have been implemented in full prior to the final occupation
   of the site.

5. Within a period of three months of the occupation of the unit, the tenant/landlord shall
   undertake a travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within a period of 6
   months from the first date of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for
   the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall as a minimum
   include the broad areas of actions, objectives and timescales for review and monitoring.
   Within twelve months of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the
   written approval of the Local Planning Authority, which shall include a review of targets,
   measures, staff survey data and a monitoring survey. Annually from the occupation of the
   building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning
   Authority for a period of 5 years and then at a time agreed in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority.


                                               28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




6. Standard Condition AC03

7. The 221 car parking spaces, the 16 disabled parking spaces and the vehicular access shown in
   the approved plan (02 Rev D) shall be constructed and marked out within the curtilage of the
   site. The spaces shall be made available for occupants of the development hereby approved at
   all times whilst the premises are in use.

8. Standard Condition AD05

9. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
   undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and
   Country Planning Act 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Act 1990
   has been prepared and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The planning
   obligation will provide that commuted sums as required by Policy DEV5 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan and the policies contained within the Planning Obligations
   SPD, will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for improvements to and maintenance of
   existing public realm, infrastructure and heritage and training programmes for local
   construction workers, and schemes to offset climate change.

10. Unless otherwise agreed in writing within 12 months of commencment of development the
    site shall be treated in accordance with the landscape scheme as detailed on the submitted
    plans Drawing No. 735/463 Rev C and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local
    Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced
    to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.


(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000

2. Standard Reason R004B

3. Standard Reason R024B

4. Standard Reason R005B

5. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
   Policy A1 of the UDP.

6. Standard Reason R009

7. Standard Reason R026B

8. Standard Reason R004B

9. To ensure that the development hereby approved is sustainable and meets the need for new
   and improved facilities and infrastructure it generates. This is in accordance with Policy
   DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the provisions of the



                                               29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


    adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document

10. Standard Reason R004B


Note(s) for Applicant

1. The permission shall relate to the following plans

    Proposed site plan - 2725 02 Rev D
    Proposed elevations - 2725 04 Rev C
    Proposed floor plans - 2725 03 rev D



APPLICATION No:                08/56290/HH

APPLICANT:                     Mr And Mrs Pollard

LOCATION:                      18 Sapling Road Swinton M27 0BZ

PROPOSAL:                      Erection of a single storey rear extension

WARD:                          Swinton South


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application relates to a detached bungalow situated on the east side of Sapling Road in a
predominantly residential area. The adjacent property No.16 is also a bungalow and there is
currently no boundary treatment between the two properties. The application property currently
has a conservatory to the rear, close to the boundary with No.16 that would be demolished to
accommodate the proposal. There is also a detached garage to the rear of the application site
along the boundary with No.16 that would be demolished. The application site is approximately
1m higher than No.16.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The existing kitchen / dining room is currently „L‟ shaped, the existing conservatory is situated to
the rear of this room and projects a maximum of 4.5m and is approximately 4.5m from the
boundary with No.16. The proposal would square off the existing dining room / kitchen. It
would project 4.2m beyond the dining / kitchen area with a proposed utility area infilling the „L‟
shape. The extension would provide a utility room and a conservatory.

SITE HISTORY

01/43367/HH - Demolition of existing porch and conservatory and erection of single storey side
and rear extensions, new front porch, conservatory at rear and construction of pitched roofs over
existing bays – Approved - 16.01.2002, this permission appears to have been implemented.


                                                30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




CONSULTATIONS

N/A

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

33,35,16,20,29 and 31 Sapling Road
35-43 Folly Lane

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received in response to the above application and a letter from
Councillor Conner has been received requesting this application be referred to the Panel due to
the issues raised within the objection letter as detailed below:

            Loss of light to no.16
            Loss of privacy to no.16

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Site specific policies:   None

Other policies:           DES1- Respecting Context
                          DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                          DES8- Alterations and Extension

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Supplementary Planning Document: House Extensions


PLANNING APPRAISAL

Design

UDP Policy DES1 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.

UDP Policy DES8 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.



                                               31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


The extension would located to the rear and may be partly visible from the highway to the front
of the property. A condition has therefore been attached to ensure the materials match those of
the existing building. The extension would be subordinate to the main house and would not be an
incongruous feature in the street scene in accordance with the above policies.

Amenity

UDP Policy DES7 states that 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. It states that development will not be permitted where it would have
an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or user of other development.

There are no principal habitable room windows on the side elevation of No.16, there is a
secondary dining room window towards the front of the property.

Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal
windows of habitable rooms and a minimum distance of 10.5m between the principal window of
any habitable room of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property
(if applicable).

Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the
gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The reasoned justification to this policy considers the term
„close to‟ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome with obscure glazing, except to principle
habitable room windows.

The proposal would be no closer to the rear boundary than the existing conservatory. This would
be approximately 10m away and has a 1.5m fence located upon it. There would be a utility room
window located to the side of the proposed extension facing No.16. This proposed window
would be within 2m of this boundary, which has no boundary treatment. It has been agreed with
the applicant that this window would be obscure glazed and a condition has been attached to
ensure this. There would also be windows in the proposed conservatory facing No.20
approximately 12m from this boundary. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not
have an unacceptable impact in terms of privacy on the occupiers of neighbouring properties in
accordance with the above policies.

Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for single storey rear extensions that project beyond a 45 degree line taken from either the mid
point of a principal ground floor window of a habitable room or a point 3m along the common
boundary from the rear elevation of adjoining or adjacent dwellings.

Policy HE4 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for a single storey extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between its blank
gable end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring
dwellings. This same distance applies for proposed single storey extensions facing existing blank
gable end wall and extensions at the same floor level as neighbouring windows.




                                                32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


The rear elevation of No.16 has a number of windows located upon it. Closest to the boundary
with the application site is a kitchen door and window. Next to this is a bedroom window.

There was a detached garage to rear of the application site that was 1.9m from the side common
boundary with no.16 and it projected 6.9 beyond a 45 degree line taken from the mid point of the
bedroom window at no.16.

The proposal would project approximately 1.2m beyond a 45-degree angle taken from the mid-
point of this bedroom window. (5.4m less than the existing garage) The element of the proposed
extension that projects beyond the 45-degree angle would be approximately 14m away from this
habitable room window. Policy HE4 would allow a single storey extension to be built 9m in front
of this window. Whilst the proposal is not in compliance with Policy HE5 it is considered the
relationship of the proposal and the bedroom window to be acceptable even taking into
consideration the difference in levels.

The proposal would not project beyond a 45 degree line taken from a point 3m along the common
boundary from the rear elevation of No.20 or adjacent dwellings .It is therefore considered the
proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of No.16 or No.20 in terms of
loss of light and overbearing in accordance with HE5 and DES7.

Conclusion

It is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street
scene or the amenity of neighbours and future occupiers in accordance with all relevant policies
within the Unitary Development Plan and House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document,
and that there are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Standard Condition A03

2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the
   development hereby approved being brought into use, the window in the southern elevation
   facing No.16 sapling Road of the development shall be provided with and permanently
   glazed, in textured glass whose obscuration level is 5 on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 is clear and 5
   is completely obscure).

3. Standard Condition AD01

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000

2. Standard Reason R005B



                                                33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


3. Standard Reason R004B


Note(s) for Applicant

1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
   should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
   Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
   operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
   adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.        Property specific
   summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining
   activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal
   Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk

2. Please note this permission relates to the plans received 26th march 2008 Drawing No.1 and
   2.



APPLICATION No:                08/56307/FUL

APPLICANT:                     Lynwood Presting Homes Ltd

LOCATION:                      30 Egerton Road Eccles M30 9LR

PROPOSAL:                      Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3 dwellings

WARD:                          Eccles


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

No. 30 Egerton Road is a bungalow constructed of brick, render and tile, situated on a site of
approximately 0.07 hectares measuring 33.3m wide and 30.9m deep in its major dimensions.
Egerton Road is an established residential area located off Rocky Lane in Monton. The dominant
house type is detached and semi-detached properties of a variety of designs. Egerton Road
comprises large dwellings and a church is located at the entrance to Egerton Road. The
application site is opposite a small wooded area (located on the western boundary), which
separates Egerton Road from Folly Brook and the rear of properties in Hardy Grove. To the east
are the properties along Rocky Lane. To the north are no. 21 and 23, both of which are single
storey but are set back in excess of 21 metres from the application site. To the south of the site is
no. 28 Egerton Road.


DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The application proposes the demolition of an existing cottage and replacement with three two
and a half storey.



                                                 34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


The new residential property would each have integral garage, kitchen and study at ground floor,
two bedrooms, bathroom and lounge at first floor level, and a master bedroom with en-suite at
second floor.

The three proposed properties would be positioned 1m apart. Their front elevations would be
staggered. The front elevation of the proposed dwelling adjacent 28 Egerton Road would be level
with the building line of No. 28 but would sit 4 metres forward of the front elevation of the
proposed central dwelling with the third dwelling sitting a further 2.3 metres back. All three
proposed properties would sit approximately 6 metres forward of the building line of the current
bungalow.


The footprint of each of the proposed dwellings would measure 11.6m x 7m approximately. The
new dwellings would measure 9.5 metres in height to the ridge and 5.6 metres to the eaves.

Within the ground floor rear elevation there would be two sets of French doors leading to the rear
garden and three rooflights located in the kitchen/family room. One window would be in the
study to the front elevation at ground floor. There would be a canopy above the front doorway,
which would stand at a height of 3.2 metres. One side would be open, the other side would be
attached to the single integral garage.

At first floor there would be four lounge windows in the rear elevation. A further four windows
would be located at the front servicing two windows, the two located above the garage look like a
double window. To the front of the property would be a dormer window serving the master
bedroom located within the roofspace on the second floor.

The northern/side elevation would have three rooflights also serving the master bedroom, one
window on the stairway at first floor level and a door from the garage to the side pathway. The
southern/side elevation would also have three rooflights located on the second floor serving the
master bedroom, one window on the first floor for the bathroom and another window at ground
floor for the cloakroom.

SITE HISTORY

None

CONSULTATIONS

Greater Manchester Police – 24/04/08 - No objections, however, due to the remote location of
the proposed dwellings I would highly recommend that this development is designed and
constructed in line with the principles of the „Secured by Design‟ (SBD) scheme
(www.securebydesign.com).

Millar Goodall Environmental Services – 22/04/08 - No objections. This site is in a residential
area with Worsley Golf Club some 120m to the west. There are no noise issues.

Engineering & Highways – 23/04/08 - No objections

United Utilities – 21/04/08 - No objections.


                                               35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




Environment Services – 24/04/08 - Prior to the commencement of development, a Preliminary
Risk Assessment report, including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential
risk of land contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

88 Rocky Lane, Eccles, MANCHESTER, M30 9LY
90 Rocky Lane, Eccles, MANCHESTER, M30 9LY
92 Rocky Lane, Eccles, MANCHESTER, M30 9LY
94 Rocky Lane, Eccles, MANCHESTER, M30 9LY
96 Rocky Lane, Eccles, MANCHESTER, M30 9LY
98 Rocky Lane, Eccles, MANCHESTER, M30 9LY
100 Rocky Lane, Eccles, MANCHESTER, M30 9LY
19 Hardy Grove, Swinton, Manchester, M27 0DA
21 Hardy Grove, Swinton, Manchester, M27 0DA
23 Hardy Grove, Swinton, Manchester, M27 0DA
25 Hardy Grove, Swinton, Manchester, M27 0DA
27 Hardy Grove, Swinton, Manchester, M27 0DA
29 Hardy Grove, Swinton, Manchester, M27 0DA
31 Hardy Grove, Swinton, Manchester, M27 0DA
5 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
7 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
9 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
11 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
21 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
22 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
23 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
24 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
26 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
27 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
28 Egerton Road, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LR
98A Rocky Lane, Eccles, Manchester, M30 9LY

REPRESENTATIONS

Eleven objections have been received, issues raised are outlined below:

    1.   Lack of parking for three properties
    2.   Three properties considered too many
    3.   Safety of children and adults with increased traffic
    4.   Effect on drains and infrastructure
    5.   Height of proposed dwellings
    6.   Loss of view / negative visual impact
    7.   Road congestion during construction
    8.   Access road to narrow at only 3.6m in width


                                                 36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


    9. Overdevelopment of site
    10. Detrimental to the character and amenity value of the area
    11. Refuse and recycle collection on narrow road not possible

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site Allocation

None

Other Policies

A10   Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 Landscaping
EN13 Protecting trees
EN16 Contaminated land
H1    Provision of New Housing Development
HE1 Facing Principal Windows of Habitable Rooms
HE3 Principal Windows of Habitable Rooms Facing Two Storey Gable Elevations
ST11 Location of New Development

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS3 Housing
HOU1 – Housing Planning Guidance
HOU2 - Housing Planning Guidance
HE3 – House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document

PLANNING APPRAISAL

HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that within West Salford, Broughton Park,
Claremont, and the northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large majority of dwellings within
new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments, in order to protect the
existing character of the areas and reflect the generally lower levels of accessibility compared to
other parts of the city. The application is for sizeable family housing and therefore the provision
of just 3 houses would be appropriate in this suburban area.

Policy H1 states that all new housing development will be required to contribute towards the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and
affordability and be built at an appropriate density, which will be no less than 30 dwellings per
hectare. The application consists of detached properties that are similar to the detached and semi-
detached located along Egerton Road. The proposal offers a density of 42 dwellings per hectare
and as such accords with policy H1 and PPS3.




                                                37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


HOU2 of the Housing planning Guidance states that the majority of houses should have three
bedrooms. The proposal offers three houses each of which have three bedrooms to comply with
this policy.

Policy DES1: Respecting context states that development will be required to respond to its
physical context, respecting the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and
contributing towards local identity and distinctiveness. The existing bungalow, whilst of low
proportions, with an average length frontage and uncomplicated architecture, does respect the
building line of Egerton Road. It is located 12m back from the highway and the proposed new
builds would be located 6m forwards of the existing property, 6m from the back of highway.
Nevertheless, although the proposed dwellings will move forward they would remain level with
the building line along Egerton Road. It is not considered therefore that the proposed dwellings
would not have a detrimental impact on the local character and is in accordance with policy
DES1.

The proposed dwellings would be two and half storey buildings. The properties in the immediate
vicinity, along Egerton Road comprise large two storey properties, both detached and semi-
detached properties of varying styles. To the north of the site are no. 21 and 23 Egerton Road,
both of which are single storey dwellings. To the east is Rocky Lane, which comprises large two
storey, detached and semi-detached properties which sit at a higher level than the application site.
It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with policy DES1 in terms of the
general massing of dwellings in the locality.

Policy DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours states that all new development, and 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
the occupiers or users of other developments. In addition policy HE1 of the House Extension
Supplementary Planning Document states that planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows
of habitable rooms. The average distance from the proposed site to the rear elevations of 98,
98a, 100 Rocky Lane, would lie in excess of 24m from the rear elevations of the proposed
dwellings, therefore the minimum distance of 21m would be maintained. As such, while the new
buildings would be excessively tall in terms of design, height and location would not substantiate
a reason for refusal in terms of its impact on residential amenity as the surrounding properties sit
on slightly higher land than the application site.

Policy HE1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do
not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms.
The proposed dwellings will be at a distance in excess of 21m from the properties situated to the
east along Rocky Lane.

Policy HE3 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey or first
floor extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between its gable end wall and
facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. The
proposed properties would lie at an acceptable distance to the properties to the north, and
proposed windows to the front of the properties would overlook a wooded area and therefore
would not adversely affect amenity of the surrounding area.



                                                38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Policy EN13 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. The application proposes the loss of two trees towards the
front of the western boundary. The Tree Officer has requested a tree survey before the felling of
the two trees. This shall be conditioned in the decision notice to ensure that a tree survey is
received and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development on the site.

With regards to the wider landscaping issues relating to the development policy DES 9 states that
developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft landscaping provision
where appropriate. The Design and Access statement proposes that each dwelling will have
private rear gardens with further access gained to the rear of the properties via gates along the
eastern boundary. To the front of the properties would be a private driveway and pedestrian
access from Egerton Road. The design incorporates disabled access to the properties. The
application is silent with regard to the relocation of existing trees. It is not clear if existing trees
and hedge along the southern boundary, which lies adjacent to No. 28 Egerton Road, would or
could be retained. However, an acceptable landscaping scheme could be devised if existing trees
on the southern boundary were retained.

Policy A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments states that
car parking provision in residential development will be assessed on a case by case basis, having
regard to the type of accommodation, locality and existing level of on-street parking. The
development allows for adequate parking for the new properties with a driveway to the front of
each garage measuring between 5m and 6m in length.

Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known to be contaminated will require
the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application. Urban Vision:
Environment has confirmed that prior to the commencement of the development a Preliminary
Risk Assessment report, including a conceptual model and site walk over, to assess the potential
risk of land contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.

Policy SDC1 of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD requires that developments
incorporate sustainable design and construction measures. The siting and layout of the proposed
dwellings has sought to make most use of sunlight and solar gain and provides areas of shelter
and shade. This policy is aimed at larger, major developments, however it is considered that this
proposal would suitably address the requirements of the above SPD.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

None

CONCLUSION

The proposal offers a development of three houses at an appropriate density to comply with
policy H1 and PPS3 and satisfy the aims of the councils wider housing policies as set out in the
adopted Housing Planning Guidance. In addition the development would not harm neighbouring
residential amenity and would satisfy highway and parking requirements.



                                                  39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


The proposal is deemed to be in accordance with policies A10, DES1, DES7, DES9, EN13,
EN16, H1 and ST11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy HOU1 and
HOU2 of the Supplementary Planning Document „Housing‟ and policy HE1 and HE3 of
Supplementary Planning Document Housing Extensions.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03

2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Preliminary Risk assessment report,
   including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential risk of land
   contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority. Should a potential risk be identified then:

    I. A 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 risk to human health and the wider environment; and

    II. The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in
    writing by the Local Planning Authority. such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the
    development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the
    development; and

    III. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by , the Local
    Planning Authority. the Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken
    on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

3. Standard Condition D03Y

4. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular
   access from Egerton Road is constructed and laid out in accordance with the approved plans.

5. Standard Condition G06F

6. Prior to the commencement of development a tree survey shall be submitted to and approved
   in writing by the Local Planning Authority. this survey will outline the reasons for the felling
   of two trees to the front of the site on the western boundary.


(Reasons)


1. Required to be imposed pursuant of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Standard Reason R024B


                                                40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




3. Standard Reason R004B

4. Standard Reason R026B

5. To ensure that site working only takes place during normal working hours in order to restrict
   the times during which any disturbance and nuisance may arise.

6. Standard Reason R019


Note(s) for Applicant

1. Greater Manchester Police suggest that due to the remote location of the proposed dwellings,
   they would highly recommend that this development is designed and constructed in line with
   the principles of the „Secured by Design‟ (SBD) scheme (www.securebydesign.com).

2. If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination is caused,
   the LPA shall be notified immediately. Where required, a suitable risk assessment shall be
   carried out and/or any remedial action shall be carried out in accordance to an agreed process
   and within agreed timescales in agreement with the Local Planning Authority.

3. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
   should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
   Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
   operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
   adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.        Property specific
   summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining
   activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal
   Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk

4. A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicants expense and all
   internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.

    The development is shown to be adjacent to/include electricity underground cables. The
    applicant should be aware of the potential difficulties caused by trees and should consider this
    when carrying out planting near to the underground cables. The applicant should be advised
    that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any
    personnel working in its vicinity. A relevant document produced by the Health and Safety
    Executive – HS (G) 47 – avoiding danger from underground services. The applicant should
    also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the
    proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant.




                                                41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


APPLICATION No:                08/56418/HH

APPLICANT:                     Mr And Mrs MacDonald

LOCATION:                      24 Worsley Road Worsley M28 2GQ

PROPOSAL:                      Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling

WARD:                          Worsley


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on Worsley Road, Worsley. The property is
set in large gardens and has an existing two-storey element to the rear and an existing single
storey detached garage to the side/rear. The area is residential in nature and is dominated by large
detached and semi detached dwellings. Boundary treatment to the rear consists of large conifers
and trees (these would not be affected by the proposal). Boundary treatment to the rear/side
boundary with 26 Worsley Road consists of a dwarf wall and fencing totalling 1.8m in height.
The rear elevation of the adjoining property (26 Worsley Road) projects approximately 0.6m
beyond the rear elevation of the application property.


DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the erection of a conservatory at the rear of the dwelling.

The proposed conservatory would be set in approximately 0.15m from the side boundary with 26
Worsley Road. It would project 3.3m from the main rear elevation of the existing dwelling and
would be 3.6m in width becoming flush with the existing two-storey element to the rear.

It would be approximately 3.2m in height at its highest point and would incorporate a hipped
roof.

SITE HISTORY

The site has no previous planning history.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

22 and 26 Worsley Road, Worsley
2A and 2 Woodstock Drive, Worsley
6 Sefton Drive, Worsley

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.


                                                 42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




The application is to be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel as the
application has been made by Councillor MacDonald.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Site specific policies: None
DES1 (Respecting Context)
DES7 (Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 (Alterations and Extensions)

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed extension on
the amenity of the surrounding and future residents and the impact of the proposed development
on the character of the area and whether the proposal accords with all relevant policies of the
Unitary Development Plan and the Council‟s Supplementary Planning Documents on House
Extensions.

DESIGN

UDP Policy DES1 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.

UDP Policy DES8 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.

The proposed single storey conservatory would not be visible from the street. However it is
considered that the design of the development would be in keeping with the existing property
and would not look out of place or have a significant effect on the character of the area, nor
would it be an incongruous feature in this setting in accordance with policies DES1 and DES8.

AMENITY

UDP Policy DES7 states that 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. It states that development will not be permitted where it would have
an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or users of other developments.


                                                43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the
gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The term „close to‟ refers to 5m, however this can be
overcome with obscure glazing, except to principle habitable room windows.

Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for single storey rear extensions that project beyond a 45 degree line taken from either the mid
point of a principal ground floor window of a habitable room or a point 3m along the common
boundary from the rear elevation of adjoining or adjacent dwellings.

The proposal would not introduce any habitable room windows and would maintain a distance of
approximately 22m from the rear boundary. There are no properties to the rear, which would
directly face the proposal.

The side elevation of the proposal would introduce windows approximately 0.15m from the side
boundary with 26 Worsley Road. In order to protect the privacy of the occupants of 26 Worsley
Road the applicant has agreed to obscure glaze these windows and a condition ensuring this
would be attached.

The proposal would not project beyond a 45-degree angle taken from a point 3m along the
common boundary from the main rear elevation of 26 Worsley Road. Due to the orientation of
the application site and surrounding properties and the existing two storey element to the rear of
the application site the proposal would not be visible from the rear elevation of 22 Worsley Road.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact
in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light or be overbearing to the occupants of surrounding
properties in accordance with policies HE2, HE5 and DES7.

CONCLUSION

The proposal would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene or the
amenity of neighbours and future occupiers in accordance with all relevant policies within the
Unitary Development Plan and House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document and there
are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Standard Condition A03 – Three year time limit

2.       Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the
development hereby approved being brought into use, the windows in the side elevation of the
development facing the boundary with 26 Worsley Road shall be provided with and permanently
glazed, in textured glass whose obscuration level is 5 on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 is clear and 5 is
completely obscure).


                                                44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




Reasons

1. Standard Reason R000 - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and
   Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DES 7 of the
    City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.


Note(s) for Applicant

1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
   should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
   Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
   operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
   adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.        Property specific
   summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining
   activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal
   Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk

2. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
   that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress
   of landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed
   design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill
   gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990
   Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated
   land"

3. Please note this permission relates to drawing number 0800-01 received 25th April 2008.




                                                 45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


APPLICATION No:                08/56014/FUL

APPLICANT:                     Wilkinson Star

LOCATION:                      Buile Hill Mansion Buile Hill Park Eccles Old Road Salford
                               M6 8GL

PROPOSAL:                      Demolition of the existing courtyard buildings to provide a
                               two-storey extension, plus basement and underground link to
                               Buile Hill Mansion to form a 93 bedroom hotel, function rooms
                               and leisure suite and associated carparking facilities.

WARD:                          Weaste And Seedley


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application site is located within the centre of Buile Hill Park. Eccles Old Road bound the
park itself to the north and beyond that residential properties and Pendleton College, to the east by
a range of residential properties and Seedly Terrance and Lower Seedly Road, to the south by
more residential properties and to the east by Weaste Lane.

The application site includes the vehicle access road to the park, accessed from Eccles Old Road
and the immediate area surrounding the mansion house. This area includes a pavilion, banqueting
suite, the mansion house, public toilets, parks depot, offices, NHS consortium building and the
Greenhouses.

Both the mansion house and the park are of a high historic importance to Salford and are Grade II
listed. The historical context of the site is set out further in the panel report for the supported
listed building consent.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of variety of courtyard buildings to provide a
two-storey extension plus basement and underground link to the mansion house to form a 93-
bedroom hotel, function rooms and leisure suite along with associated carparking facilities.

Demolition

There are a number of buildings within the curtilage of the dwelling house, which are proposed to
be demolished as part of this application. The Buile Hill Park Hall, the Salford Skills Centre and
the historic greenhouse are to remain as existing.

The remaining buildings are a mix of single and two storey red brick buildings, which include the
public toilets, parks depot and offices.




                                                 46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Alterations to mansion house

The alterations to the mansion house itself are predominantly internal and therefore covered by
the listed building consent, which also appears on this panel agenda (ref: 08/56016/LBC)

It is proposed that the mansion house would be connected to the proposed new build element by
an underground passageway, therefore disconnecting the extension from the mansion house at
ground level.

The extension to the hotel takes the form of two blocks, the most northern block is in line with the
existing mansion house, whilst the southern block follows the form of the consortium buildings to
the south of the proposed development.

The northern block is set 12m from the mansion house at its closest point. The building is then
staggered, for the first 21m the block is set 2m back from the main building line of the mansion
house, fir the remaining 47m the block would project 2m beyond the main building line of the
mansion house. However extensions to the mansion house already project beyond the main
building line. The depth of the block for the most part is 12m, increasing to 18m at the point of
the stagger.

The southern block is set 10m at its closest point with the northern block and 16m at its furthest
point. The southern block is set 20m from its closest point to the mansion block. The length of
block in total is 69m and it has a depth of 12m.

Use of the building

Bedroom accommodation – 89 rooms would be accommodated within the new extension to the
mansion house with and additional 4 suites being provided within the existing mansion. The
rooms will include 8 bedrooms with bunk beds for children, and 5 rooms specifically catering for
disabled people. All bedrooms are at upper ground, first and second floor level and would be
accessed from the central stair and lift leading from the foyer at lower ground level.

Function room – a function suite is intended at lower ground level and has been designed to
accommodate either one large event or partitioned to provide two or three spaces. There is the
potential for this area to be used for a variety of events including conferences and private events.

Restaurant – there is a restaurant located at lower ground level near the entrance and a private
dining suite within the mansion house. A central kitchen would serve both the function room and
restaurant with a separate kitchen for the mansion house.

Leisure suite – a small leisure suite is intended to be provided containing a 25 x 8m swimming
pool, two gyms and changing accommodation. There would also be associated sauna and steam
rooms, with additional beauty therapy rooms.

SITE HISTORY

07/54341/FUL - application for the demolition of existing courtyard buildings, the park offices,
the modern greenhouses and the toilet blocks and the erection of a single storey pavilion building
to provide public WCs and community meeting rooms and a four storey extension and glazed link


                                                47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


building to Buile Hill Mansion to form an 80 bedroomed hotel, function rooms and leisure suite
together with the creation of car parking for the hotel, function rooms, leisure suite, the HNS
Consortium, the Buile Hill Banqueting Suite and the wider park was withdrawn in May 2007.

CONSULTATIONS

English Heritage – pleased to be involved in the previously withdrawn application and the
extensive pre-application discussions that have followed. Throughout the discussion advice has
been given regarding the need for a contemporary design of extension to complement the original
villa. The application proposed the welcome conservation and refurbishment of the Grade II listed
building and the demolition of a substantial proportion of its outbuildings and their replacement
with a contemporary extension. Content that the application addresses English Heritages
concerns and recommends approval subject to conditions.

Environment Agency – original objection withdrawn during the course of the application.
Request that any planning approval includes a condition for a surface water regulation system has
been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Design and Heritage Team – consider that the alterations to the main mansion building are
appropriate to the new use and would maintain the historic integrity of the building. Considers
that the proposal represents the best that can be achieved to bring the mansion back into good
repair and most of all use. The proposed hotel is considered to be an acceptable distance from the
mansion; it is lower in height and would be faced with contemporary materials, which would
direct attention to the mansion house. Only adverse comment is in relation to the materials and it
is considered that a more organic facing material such as timber would be more appropriate.

Spatial Planning – conclude that the supporting statement largely meets the requirements of
PPS6. Consider that there are significant regeneration benefits of reusing a currently vacant Grade
II listed building.

United Utilities – no response to date

Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company - application lies within Central Salford and
considers that it is of significance given its scale and location within the city‟s largest historic
park.

Consider that the revised scheme represents a significant improvement in design terms. The
extension is now clearly secondary to the mansion building in scale, particularly from the
northern elevation, which is clearly the most significant in terms of the mansion‟s setting. The
natural slope of the ground level serves to conceal the lower ground floor level leisure suite, and
this represents an effective design solution. The overall design approach is more contemporary in
style, which represents a more positive design treatment than the pastiche approach of the former
scheme. Given the simplicity of form of the new development, ensuring the highest possible
quality of finish will be critical to the success of the scheme in design terms. Encourage the
approval of materials to be subject to detailed consideration.

Consider that this revised scheme represents the standard of facility that this location deserves.
We note with interest the proposals for the single aspect penthouse suites with balconies,
affording panoramic views south toward the Ship Canal and Salford Quays. With high quality


                                                48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


management we are confident that this hotel and leisure suite could represent a significant
addition to Central Salford‟s accommodation offer.

In summary, the URC wishes to express it support for this scheme but would emphasise the
importance of securing the support of English Heritage and the Georgian Group in order to
support the future Heritage Lottery Fund application for improvements to the wider park

The Victorian Society Northern – no response to date

The Georgian Group - Considers the building to be of high local significance and along with its
parkland setting is greatly valued by the local community. The casework panel are disappointed
that a hotel remains the preferred use and are concerned over the scale of the new development
and the volume of carparking proposed. Considers that the extension and carparking would have
an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and registered landscape. The panel felt
strongly that the reuse of the site should centre on the listed building, footprints of the existing
structures/ buildings to be removed and existing carpark layouts.

No objection is raised to the removal of the outbuildings, however the panel thought that the
footprint of the courtyard represented a good opportunity for an appropriately subservient new
development.

The panel considers that the scale of the hotel extension is disproportionate in relation to the
mansion house and therefore could detract from its setting. It is acknowledge that the current
proposals are reduced in height and are designed to reflect former ancillary buildings in terms of
design and material.

Concerns over the increased number of bedrooms proposed and feel that the increase has not been
adequately justified or explained.

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings – no response to date

Ancient Monuments Society – welcome the implication that the previous proposals have been
dropped. Consider that the new proposal has greater architectural character although it is deemed
to be an emphatic and uncompromising neighbour to the villa.

Cannot find any evidence in the paperwork of this application as to why there is an increase in
bedroom numbers, consider that this must result in a 50% increase in the footprint and height of
the extension. The breaking up of the block foes someway to reducing its dominance but consider
the extension to still be assertive.

Do no consider that the need for the new build has been explained or defended, until this has been
done the new wing should be regarded as unnecessarily damaging and important listed building
and therefore an objection is to be registered.

The Council for British Archaeology – no response to date

Government Office for the North West – has no comment to make on the proposal although if
Salford City Council is minded to approve the application then it may decide to refer it as a



                                                49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


departure. Noted that Councillor Ainsworth has contacted the Government Office for the North
West to request that the application be „called-in‟ for determination by the Secretary of State.

Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection in principle to the hotel
development but are concerned that the development will be a magnet for crime and antisocial
behaviour and therefore adversely targeted.

Twentieth Century Society – no response to date

Marketing Manchester – no response to date

The Chief Executive, Economic Development – no response to date

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – resubmitted comments to original
application. The original comments stated that the site is well located in regards to public
transport. In order to maximise the benefits of the sites location in relation to the public transport
facilities it should be ensured that the pedestrian environment is as safe and convenient as
possible. GMPTE hope that the applicant has fully justified the level of carparking on the site.

It is suggested that any development, submission, implementation and monitoring of a travel plan
be attached as conditions of planning consent.

Garden History Society – no response to date

Public Rights of Way – there is a footpath (right of way) claim through the site, which will
require diversion.

Landscape – suggest that a more detailed landscape proposal is the subject of a condition.
Consider that details of the brickwork, samples/ colour and materials of metal roof, samples/
details of the solar shading to the southern windows, samples of the spandrel panel glazing,
details of the balcony glazing, details of roof drainage and reuse of materials from the demolished
buildings should be submitted prior to determination.

Suggest that 1:50 scale elevations should be provided showing how key elevations are to be
constructed. These should show brickwork detail and how cills, copings and lintels will be treated
as it is suspected that the brickwork above the windows is too slim in practice.

Concerns regarding the brown brick plinth to the north elevation, it tapers from 800mm to
2000mm. Suggest that the ground could be tapered or low level planting be introduced.

Urban Vision Environment – recommend a land contamination condition be attached due to the
proximity of the site to potentially in filled land. The development is within Buile Hill park and
approximately 200m from Eccles Old Road and therefore it is not anticipated that local residents
would be adversely affected by the development and that the patrons of the hotel itself by design.
External noise from the public using the surrounding park would be no greater that people
walking past a high street hotel and therefore is not considered to be a problem. There are no
objections to this development on the grounds of noise or air quality.




                                                 50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


PUBLICITY

Site notices were displayed on 29th February 2008
A press notice was displayed in the Salford Advertiser 21st February 2008

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

        Hepburn Court, Monroe Close
        Garbo Court, Monroe Close
        Flynn Court, Monroe Close
        Bogart Court, Monroe Close
        1-5,11,15 - 19, 21, 23-30 Brentwood
        2 - 4, 7,8 – 60 (e), 11 – 27 (o) Princeton Close
        41 - 69 (o), 64, 110 – 118 (e), 120 –142 (e), 146 Eccles Old Road
        All Hallows RC High School, Weaste Lane
        Pendleton College, De La Salle College, Weaste Lane
        2-10 Harvard Grove
        Spring Bank, Brentwood
        Worsley Court, Lower Seedley Road
        118 – 122 (e), 129 – 139 (o) Weaste Lane
        8-17 Weaste Drive
        15-21 (o) Southgarth Road
        117, 190 Derby Road
        23-29 Southgarth Road
        1 - 22 Cheviot Close
        189 Claremont Road
        32 –124 (e), 91 – 117 (o), 106 – 112 (e) Seedley Terrace
        1 Seedley View Road
        1- 16 Buile Hill Drive
        117 – 123 Lower Seedley Road
        38 Lostock Road
        1-3 Hart Hill Drive
        1-17 Brentwood
        2 Seedley Park Road
        1 Manor Road
        15 Spring Bank
        Buile Hill High School
        Hope High School
        Brentwood Villas, Brentwood
        4-18 (e) Hart Hill Drive
        1-11, 12-16 (e) Gore Drive
        City Centre Learning, 2 Manor Road
        1-11 Gore Crescent
        1-10 Garner Drive
        12 Lullington Road




                                               51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 9 individual letters, 2 circular letters of 10 and 5 letters, and a petition of 425
signatures in objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:-

        Increase in traffic in the park
        Pollution (air, noise and light)
        Limitation of public access to the park
        Disturbance from hotel users
        Land should not be sold off for a private venture
        Detriment to the grade II listed building
        Other sequentially preferable sites could be used
        Development could reduce future events in the park
        Impact on wildlife
        Increase in vandalism
        Drainage problems
        Development may lead to the selling off of more of the park
        Increase in the number of bedrooms
        Mansion should be retained for another use
        Impact on park users
        Servicing and delivery
        Contrary to the greenspace strategy
        City Council should not be determining their own application
        Design of extension
        Not enough consultation on proposals before they were submitted
        Loss of Sensory Garden
        Lottery Bids should be used to secure the mansions future

Representation has also been received from Councillor Ferrer who has requested that this
application is heard before panel and that panel members make a visit to the site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Site specific policies:

        CH6/1 Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest

Other policies:

        ST4 Key Tourism Areas
        ST6 Major Trip Generating Development
        ST8 Environmental Quality
        ST9 Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
        ST11 Location of New Development
        ST14 Global Environment
        ST15 Historic Environment


                                                52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


        DES1 Respecting Context
        DES2 Circulation and Movement
        DES4 Relationship of Development to Public Space
        DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
        DES8 Alteration and Extensions
        DES9 Landscaping
        DES10 Design and Crime
        DES11 Design Statements
        S2 Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres and Neighbourhood Centres
        A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
        A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
        A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
        EN13 Protected Trees
        EN16 Contaminated Land
        EN17 Pollution Control
        EN19 Flood Risk and Surface Water
        CH1 Works to and Demolition of Listed Buildings
        CH2 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
        CH6 Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest
        DEV5 Planning Conditions or Obligations

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Other policies:
       DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
       EC8 Town Centres – Retail, Leisure and Office Development
       UR4 Setting Targets for Recycling of Land and Buildings
       ER1 Management of the North West‟s Natural, Built and Historic Environment
       ER3 Built Heritage
       ER8 Development and Flood Risk

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy

        DP1 Regional Development Principles
        RDF1 Main Development Locations
        W6 Tourism and the Visitor Economy
        W7 Principals for Tourism Development
        RT7 A Regional Framework for Walking and Cycling

There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents, which are also relevant to the
development of the site. These include the Design and Crime, Trees and Development,
Sustainable Design and Construction and Planning Obligations all of which have been subject to
public consultation.

There are also a number national planning policy statements and guidance which are considered
to be relevant including, PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS6 Planning for Town



                                             53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Centres, PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment and PPS23: Planning and Pollution
Control.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of redeveloping the site, the
suitability of a leisure use outside of a town centre, the demolition of listed buildings, the design
of the proposed extension and the setting of the listed buildings, the impact on trees, the
suitability of the proposed landscaping, the accessibility of the site, the potential for pollution for
the development, the sustainability of the proposed development, the potential need for planning
obligations payable in respect of the site and whether the application constitutes a departure from
the local plan.

Principal of redevelopment of the site

Policy ST11 requires a sequential approach to new development, with priority being given in the
following order; the reuse and conversion of existing buildings, previously developed land in
locations that are sustainable and accessible, previously developed land in other locations
provided that adequate levels of accessibility could be achieved and finally on previously
undeveloped land in accessible locations.

The proposed development would propose the reuse of a currently vacant building and an
extension to an existing building. The development therefore fulfils the highest level of
sustainability having regard to efficient use of land and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Leisure use outside of a town centre

Policy ST4 states that Salford Quays, Chapel Street and Worsley Village will be protected and
enhanced as tourism destinations and tourism development will be focussed primarily within
them.

Policy ST9 states that the provision of a comprehensive and accessible range of retail, leisure,
social and community facilities will be secured by protecting and enhancing the vitality and
viability of existing town centres and adopting a sequential approach to development.

Policy S2 relates to retail and leisure development outside town and neighbourhood centres and
states that planning permission will only be granted where all of the following criteria are met:
         It can be clearly demonstrated that there is a quantitive and where appropriate a
         qualitative need for development
         It can be clearly demonstrated that there are no more appropriate sites or buildings
         available, for part or all of the development
         It can be clearly demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact on the vitality
         or viability of any town or neighbourhood centre
         The site is, or will be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport
         The development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or have
         an adverse impact on highway safety
         The development would be of a scale appropriate to the location
         In edge of centre locations the siting and layout of the development maximises the
         potential for linked trips


                                                  54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


        The development would be of a high standard of design
        The development would not have an unacceptable impact on environmental quality or
        residential amenity.

Planning Policy Statement 6 sets out the national policy on planning for town centres. It requires
that new development should be focussed in existing centres in order to strengthen them.
Paragraphs 3.3-3.27 of this document set out the considerations, which should be taken into
account by local planning authorities in determining application for town centre uses.

The application proposes to develop „town centre uses‟ of a hotel and associated function and
leisure facilities outside of a town centre and therefore justification has to be provided to assess
the impact of the development. The applicant has submitted a need and impact assessment and a
sequential test appraisal in support of the application.

Need for development

Both S2 and PPS6 require consideration of the quantitive and qualitative need for the
development. Having regard to quantitive need PPS6 states that a period of no longer than 5 years
ahead should be considered and the catchment area that is used to assess future need is realistic
and well related to the size and function of the proposed development. For leisure uses qualitative
need should consider whether an appropriate distribution of locations would be achieved by the
development and whether provision has been made to allow for genuine choice to meet the needs
of the whole community.

The applicants have assessed the likely future demand for such a development by looking at the
average hotel occupancy figures across the Greater Manchester region, which have continued to
increase since 2003. Evidence has been provided from Marketing Manchester which states that
Salford has sustained an increase of tourism to the borough over the last 5 years and in order to
sustain this growth Salford will need to continue to increase the capacity of hotel bed stock. In
addition the data from the International Visitor Survey has been submitted which shows an
increase in visitor numbers of 242,000 people to Manchester over the last 4 years.

Having had regard to qualitative need the applicants consider that a key consideration for the
application should be providing consumer choice. From data provided by Salford Tourist
Information, there are only 3 four star plus rated hotels within Salford, these are the Copthorne
Hotel, The Lowry Hotel and the Marriott Hotel and Country Club (Worsley Park). None of the
recently approved planning applications would address a need for further luxury accommodation.
The applicants conclude that with developments such as Mediacity, the number of people
requiring high quality hotels will expand and therefore this development would not only
regenerate the park, but also create a high quality hotel in beautiful surroundings.

Sequential Test

Paragraphs 3.13 to 3.19 of PPS6 provide further guidance in regards to the sequential approach to
site selection. It states that the sequential approach should be applied to all development
proposals for sites that are not in an existing centre nor allocated in an up to date development
plan. The order for selecting sites should be as follows:
         Locations in appropriate existing centres where suitable sites or buildings for conversion
         are, or likely to come available within the development plan period


                                                55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


        Edge of centre locations with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected
        to the centre
        Out of centre sites with preference given to sites, which are or will be well served by a
        choice of means of transport which are close to the centre and have high likelihood of
        forming links with the centre.

The sequential test undertaken by the applicant focussed on identifying alternative sites within the
regional, city or town Centres as well as areas on the edge of these areas. The areas within Salford
considered were Salford Precinct, Eccles, Swinton, Walkden and the MX allocated areas, in
addition the whole of Manchester city centre was considered.

Within the existing town centres of Salford no sites were considered to be available to meet the
brief of a luxury hotel development, nor were there considered to be suitable site available on the
edge of centre.

Within the primary mixed-use areas of the city the applicant identified many vacant buildings and
empty building plots, which could be considered suitable for a wide range of development.
Having regard to the proposed development then only sites which would be potentially
appropriate for a hotel in terms of the size of the site and availability have been considered.

Vacant sites were considered at Ordsall Lane, the Lowry coach park site and Middlewood Locks.
Whilst the applicant recognised that all of these vacant sites in principle could be considered
suitable for a hotel development, they consider that none of the sites would meet their client‟s
brief of a high quality hotel within a rural setting.

In addition to the vacant sites considered a number of potential redevelopment, demolition and
new build opportunities were considered, but not considered to be a viable solution by the
applicant for the following reasons:
        None of the opportunities in the areas are in line with the client brief
        The land values in this area of the city would make acquisition difficult
        The purchase price for building in this areas are extremely high
        Any redevelopment for Ordsall Hall would inevitably either a substantial element of
        enabling development being required or a large extension, which would compromise the
        setting of a Grade I listed building.

In addition areas within Manchester City Centre have been considered and discounted as being
not suitable due to land values being so high, not conforming to the client‟s brief, extant planning
consents, lack of sites available, compact nature of sites and other regeneration initiatives in
place.

Paragraph 3.15 of PPS6 requires developers to demonstrate that in seeking to find a site in or on
the edge of existing centres they have been flexible about their proposed business model in terms
of the following planning considerations:
         The scale of their development,
         The format of their development
         Car parking provision; and
         The scope for disaggregation




                                                56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


The applicants have stated that the sequential test has shown appropriate flexibility in approach to
the sites that have been considered. The scale of the proposed development has been determined
based on the level of development required to make a viable business venture. Flexibility in car
parking has been taking into consideration with thought given to underground car parking on
constrained site where there is no opportunity for surface car parking. With regards to the scope
for disaggregation this is inappropriate to consider for this type of development.

Impact

Paragraphs 3.20-3.23 of PPS6 provide further guidance on assessing the impact of development
on town centres. It states that authorities should have regard to the impact of the proposal on the
vitality and viability of town centres within the catchment area of the proposed development,
including the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and
completed developments.

The applicants consider that
       The proposals are in keeping with the Council‟s broad regeneration strategy for focusing
       regeneration proposals within central Salford.
       There would be no wider impact on any particular centre given the „unique‟ nature of the
       proposals.
       The viability or vitality of any existing centre would not be detrimentally affected by the
       proposals, given the increase of visitors to the area.
       The current proposals for Buile Hill mansion would promote wider investment in the
       area.
       The wider area of Greater Manchester would not be detrimentally affected by the
       proposals and the impact would be a positive one given the luxury nature of the facility
       and the evidence of need for such an activity.
       The range of facilities provided by the development would not affect or impact on the
       range of services provided by the centres within the catchment area.
       The development would have a positive impact on the vacant properties within the
       primary shopping areas would be positive, due to the increased spending power.
       The proposals will result in employment opportunities both within the construction phase
       and after, increasing local spending power
       The ancillary features to the hotel, including the function suite and restaurant would not
       result in any detrimental impact to existing facilities.

The remaining criteria as identified within policy S2 relating to impact on highways, the design of
the proposed building and the impact of the development on environmental and residential
amenity will be discussed elsewhere in this report.

It is considered that the applicant has undertaken a sufficiently detailed sequential test to
demonstrate that the preferred site is the most feasible for the brief that the applicant has
prepared, for a „high quality country house style hotel‟. The requisites of PPS6 are noted in terms
of considering alternative sites and the need for applicants to be flexible in their business model
have been taken into consideration by the applicant. It is acknowledged that for any of the sites
discounted (with the possible exception of Ordsall Hall) to be redeveloped for a hotel, a total re-
think of the format of the scheme would be needed.




                                                57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


With regards to the disaggregation of the development, whilst the development does propose
significant additional facilities to the hotel development, including function suites, restaurants,
bars and leisure facilities, these facilities are considered to be ancillary and clearly linked to the
main use of the development as a hotel and therefore it would be inappropriate to disaggregate
elements of this proposal

Given the demonstrable need for such a hotel format at the higher end of the market, which has
been corroborated by Salford‟s Tourist Information Manager, it is considered that sufficient
consideration has been given to alternative sites. The analysis of the existing provision and
planning permissions for hotels within the Salford and Manchester area demonstrate that there is
a proven gap in the market for this style of hotel.

It is recognised that due to the nature of the end use it is difficult to define a catchment area,
however it does not seem realistic that visitors would originate from locales beyond Greater
Manchester. It is considered that a satisfactory level of work has been undertaken on trying to
establish exactly where custom for the development is likely to originate from and it would be
unreasonable for the applicant to look at the entirety of the North West (and possibly beyond).

It is considered that the applicant‟s assumption that the development would result in increased
spending power in the local community and therefore vacant units being returned to active use to
meet demand for goods and services is an unrealistic expectation.

Demolition of Listed Buildings

Policy ST15 states that historic and cultural assets that contribute to the character of the city will
be preserved and wherever possible and appropriate enhanced.

Policy CH1 states that proposals involving the alteration, extension, change of use or partial
demolition of a listed building will be permitted only where they would preserve or enhance the
character and features of special architectural interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing.

Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have
an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.

Policy CH6 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have
an unacceptable impact on the historic character or setting of any part of a historic park or garden
defined on the proposals map.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment sets out national
policy for listed buildings. It identifies that any object or structure fixed to the building or within
the cartilage of a building, but forms part of the land and has done since 1 st July 1948 is
considered to be listed along with the main building. Within PPG15 paragraphs 3.16 to 3.18
provide further guidance to Local Planning Authorities when dealing with works relating to the
partial demolition of listed buildings.

The demolition of these courtyard buildings has been considered in more detail in the application
for listed building consent. In conclusion, since these outbuildings relate little to the main
mansion house either in style or period then it is not considered the demolition of such would



                                                  58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


have an adverse impact on the main mansion house, the development allows for the removal of
such buildings and the site to be reconfigured more sympathetically.

Design

Policy DES1 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 a local
identity and distinctiveness.

Policy DES4 outlines that development that adjoins public space shall be designed to have a
strong and positive relationship with that space.

Policy DES8 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.
Furthermore it requires that the design of alterations must ensure that the resultant building
appears as an attractive and coherent whole and that any modifications resulting in an
unacceptable impact on the appearance of the building or failing to retain the buildings key
features will not be permitted.

Policy DES11 requires the submission of a design statement with all major applications
explaining how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design principles
and design concept and how these are reflected in the development‟s layout, density, scale, visual
appearance and landscaping, the relationship of the development to its site and the wider context
and how the development will meet the Council‟s design objectives.

A design and access statement has been submitted in accompaniment with the application. The
design and access statement has identified several key design factors that have influenced the
final design of the proposed extension, these include the following:
         The recommendation by English Heritage respecting the layout, orientation and building
         line of the house and the original stable courtyard.
         The need to keep a reasonable distance from the mansion
         The need to orientate geometry to align with both the mansion and the consortium
         building
         The need to leave sufficient space for the adequate car parking and have a main entrance
         clearly visible from it
         To allow all the leisure facilities, function rooms, restaurant/ kitchen areas to be provided
         on the lower ground floor to allow efficient servicing
         To enable a lower level link through to the mansion
         To be set at least 10m from the consortium building
         To avoid the loss of significant trees.

Layout

The layout of the building results in the main entrance being located within the mansion house,
therefore clear signage is proposed for those accessing the development via the car park. There is
an additional entrance provided centrally on the eastern elevation of the extension.




                                                 59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


The leisure suite is positioned along the northern edge of the extension at lower ground level,
utilising the natural slope of the land and taking advantage of the fact that these facilities do not
require natural light.

When viewed from the north the extension to mansion house would appear as two shallow stories
of bedroom floors above ground level, separated from the main dwelling house. The leisure suite
would not be visible.

The southern bedroom wing is located above the function room and restaurant together with two
more storeys, of similar proportions to the northern block and a row of penthouses. The proposed
penthouses are single aspect facing the southwards to take advantage of the sites elevated
position.

The two bedroom wings would create an external central garden space, which will be treated with
contemporary landscaping. The two wings would be connected by a minimalist glass bridge,
allowing views to the mansion house to be retained.

It is considered that the layout of the development maximises the use of the topography of the site
and respects the setting of the mansion house and the remaining consortium buildings on site.

Scale

The proposed hotel extension is designed to be viewed as a subsidiary building to the main
mansion and perceived as subservient to the mansion house when viewed from the park. By
setting the elements with the largest footprint, underground and placing the height of the
penthouse on the southern wing of the building, the massing of the extension is reduced
considerably.

Windows will extend vertically to include both stories and have a pronounced vertical emphasis
directly related to that on the mansion house. The fenestration of the mansion contains a typically
wider windows flanked by much narrower ones with a pronounced vertical emphasis. This has
been reproduced but in a contemporary way in the new building where the windows follow and
alternating pattern of wider and narrower proportions.

Comments received by English Heritage during the course of the application expressed concern
regarding the tallest element of the hotel suggesting that this might dominate the mansion house.
Following on from these comments the applicant submitted amended plans to address the
concerns raised. The amended plans include the reduction in penthouse units from 9 to 8 and the
glazing of the stair areas to either end of the penthouses. These changes would result in the
distance between the closest point of the penthouse from 13m to 21m, with this distance being
increased further to 25m at the main bulk of the dwelling house.

Materials

The appearance of the hotel has been designed to be comprised of three visual layers. The lowest
layer consists of the large public and plan spaces forming a plinth to the building and faced with a
dark grey/brown brick. This is intended to give a solid appearance to the building and root it to
the ground. The bedroom wings are intended to be faced in a modern soft red brick and be
consistent over the two storeys. The penthouses would be curved in section and clad in a warm


                                                 60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


brown copper to the roof and north elevation the penthouses would be predominantly glazed to
the south with some timber detailing to privacy screens between the balconies.

Amenity

Policy DES7 requires all alterations and extensions to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

The proposed development is located over 200m away from the nearest residential property and is
therefore unlikely to give rise to any amenity issues to these residents.

In these circumstances the main issues of amenity to consider with this application are the impact
of the proposed development on the existing and future park users and the impact of the future
park users on the patrons of the proposed development.

Several letters of objection have been received from park users regarding the impact of the
development on the park users and in particular the events that are currently held within the park,
for example bonfires, fairgrounds and firework displays. This development would bring a
„sensitive‟ end use into the park environment, which occasionally hosts noisy and potentially
disruptive events. As part of this application the applications have submitted a statement, which
states:

„We propose that when prior notification of events is received, hotel patrons would be provided




                                                                                    …
with full information on the nature of the event and possibility for any disturbance It would not
be in the best interest of the hotel for guests to be discouraged form repeat visits due to
                                       …




unexpected disruption from such events

It is wholly appreciated that the events held by Salford City Council and others, e.g. community
groups within Buile Hill Park are popular with both the local community and visitors from
further a field. As local residents ourselves, we are keen to see that these events continue and
would welcome the opportunity to work with and support, such events in the future‟

In addition the layout and built specification of the proposed extension would take into account
the particular needs of the environment in relation to noise attenuation, thereby ensuring that
minimal disruption would be had to future patrons of the hotel.

It is considered that overall the hotel would give rise to few issues of amenity and that events
within the park would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of future patrons of the
development.

The existing site currently contains some public toilets to the north of the depot, which are in a
poor state of repair. It is therefore recommended that if minded to approve the application a
condition be attached requiring the submission and approval of new public toilets prior to
development starting on site and that the approved toilets are open available to use prior to the
occupation of the hotel development. To ensure minimum disruption to the public.




                                                61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Trees

Policy EN13 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to
protected trees will not be permitted.

An Arboricultural survey has been submitted in support of the application.

The site is currently within the ownership of Salford City Council ownership and therefore none
of the trees on site are afforded the weight of statutory protection.

The Arboricultural Consultant has submitted a Site Plan (Ref. No. 7867/RG) in Appendix 5 of the
report; indicating the trees on the site, their crown spreads and their retention categories. Keppie
architects have submitted a Tree Removal & Protection Measures Plan (Dwg. No. KD-
Z(90)XX_002), detailing the trees on the site which have been highlighted in the tree report for
removal, and the trees which would need to be removed as part of the proposed development.

Appendix 1 of the tree report details 156 trees, or groups of trees; of which 16 individual or
groups of trees require removal on structural, health or safety grounds. The submitted Tree
Removal & Protection Measures Plan has included another 32 trees, which are required for
removal, as part of the proposed development

The tree report fails to address a group of trees at the western end of the development, which is
proposed as a lower terrace garden area. No information has been supplied for these trees, and
their crown spreads and Root Protection Areas have not been shown on the plans. Further
information is required to establish if ground level in this area is to be altered, and how will it
affect the mature trees in this location.

At the eastern end of the site, adjacent to a row of parking spaces, four trees (T113, T114, T115 &
T117) have been outlined for removal. The reason for this removal is unclear, and as these trees
are of a moderate to high retention category it is considered that this tree removal requires further
clarification.

In general the remaining trees outlined for removal to facilitate development are considered to be
acceptable, provided adequate tree replacements fulfil the requirements of the SPD. However,
further information is required for the lower terrace garden and the car parking at the eastern end
of the site, where the existing trees do not appear to have been given adequate consideration
within the hard landscaping scheme.

The Tree Removal & Protection Measures Plan illustrates the position of the protective fencing;
however in order to fulfil policy TD4 a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement is required.
This requirement is outlined in section 6.12 of the JCA Arboricultural Survey. This Method
Statement will need to detail the requirements of section 7 of BS5837:2005, outlining amongst
other things; the protective fencing requirements; the phasing of the works; the locations of plant,
site huts, etc. and any special root protection requirements, along with other site restrictions and
considerations.

Policy TD5 can be fulfilled as part of a planning condition, and further information is required to
demonstrate that policy TD6 (2 for 1 tree replacement) has been fulfilled.



                                                 62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Landscaping

Policy DES9 requires developments to incorporate appropriate hard and soft landscaping
provision where appropriate.

The existing landscaping within the application site is currently in a poor condition, despite being
located within a park environment.

There are several key elements to the landscaping of the site each of which is described in detail
below:

A landscape design statement has been submitted in accompaniment with the application, which
sets out the principles of the intended landscape design on the site.

It is proposed that the landscaping for the hotel will create a variety of landscaped areas from
smaller intimate spaces to open public areas, allowing movement between the spaces from the
more traditional formal terrace garden to contemporary modern spaces. A semi enclosed walled
garden will connect the mansion to the new hotel building.

Of primary importance is the setting of the mansion building, the area in front of the mansion
would be improved by the upgrading the road surface and the creation of a turning circle. It is
intended that this would give the mansion a grand entrance in keeping with other historical
houses.

The formal terraced garden to the rear is proposed to be restored in the style of its strongest
known historical context as an Italian garden. The design will focus on symmetry and geometry,
due to the flat nature of Italian gardens vertical elements will be added to provide interest and
variety.

A feature at the southern boundary of the site within the terrace area will provide a visual link
between this and the upper terrace. This area would have strong geometry and form and would
comprise of a hard surfaced area to the east and provide access to the plant space of the hotel and
a link between bar and function rooms.

A semi enclosed wall garden is proposed to be provided in the space, which is currently occupied
by the garden for the building and will provide a link between the original mansion and the new
hotel building. It would reflect a secret walled garden.

Between the hotel wings would be green roofs and contemporary areas, these areas would have
strong design geometry with clean lines and the materials used would reflect those used in the
new building, such as copper and bronze.

It is proposed that a condition be attached requiring the detailed landscaping arrangements for the
site to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.




                                                63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




Access

Policy ST6 states that development with would generate major travel demands will only be
permitted in locations that are currently or will as a result of the development be well served by a
choice of means of transport.

Policy DES2 requires the design of new development is required to ensure that development is
fully accessible to all people including the disabled, maximises pedestrian and cycle movement,
enables pedestrians to orientate themselves, enables safe and convenient access to public transport
and minimise pedestrian conflicts with cyclists and other road users.

Policy A1 requires developments likely to give rise to significant transport applications to be
accompanied by a transport assessment and where appropriate a travel plan.

Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists.

Policy A10 states that development is required to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards, not exceed the maximum
carparking standards and provide parking facilities in a manner consistent with the provision and
maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.

The application has been accompanied by both a transport statement and a travel plan.

Pedestrian

The main access road would act as a shared surface for both pedestrian and vehicular access. This
reflects the existing arrangements, as there currently existing no separated pedestrian and vehicle
access. It is considered that the shared surface would help to ensure that low vehicle speeds are
maintained within the park. Low speeds would be reinforced by removing the existing speed
bumps and replacing them with longer speed tables.

Disabled Access

The development has been designed to be as inclusive as possible for all sectors of society.
Measures would be put in place to ensure that there are level accesses to the entrances of the
development, access to all floors of the proposed development both in the extension and the
mansion house, there are specifically designed bedrooms to accommodated wheelchair users and
that the facilities within the leisure suite are accessible to all.

The proposed carparking on site will provide for 6% of car parking spaces to be allocated for
disabled drivers. A total of 10 disabled bays would be provided as part of this development.




                                                64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Cyclists

The proposed parking layout would accommodated for parking for cyclists with a minimum of 6
spaces being made available for the hotel and leisure suites.

Public Transport

The development site can be accessed by bus from Eccles Old Road, where bus stops are located
within 40 – 50m from the entrance of the site. The bus services along this route are frequent with
a total of 359 busses a per day on a weekday and 353 on a Saturday.

In addition Weaste Metrolink stop is located approximately 1000m to the south of the site via
Weaste Lane and rail transport is available at Salford Crescent railway station located 2km away.

Carparking

The adopted Salford Unitary Development plan sets a standard of 1 car parking space per
bedroom for hotel developments, no further guidance is provided for calculating the level of car
parking appropriate for the ancillary facilities of the restaurant, function suite and leisure suite.
Car parking also has to accommodate parking for the garden centre, skills centre and the
additional function suite.

The applicants have based their calculations of the maximum car parking standards identified
within the draft regional spatial strategy. The regional spatial strategy sets a maximum number of
car parking spaces as 163 parking spaces, the proposed development proposes 138 formal spaces
which is within the maximum policy guidance and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

The mixed use of the site with the current uses and proposed development promotes shared use
parking provision as supported by PPG13. The current and proposed development uses will have
different peak levels of use as the peak demand for various uses are unlikely to collide. This
would help ensure and efficient use of car parking spaces are provided.

Travel Plan

A travel plan has been submitted as part of the application which sets out interim measures to be
put in place for the occupation of the development and a process of review.

The interim travel plan identifies ways of reducing the use of cars from the start of the
development, this includes information packs for weddings and corporate events advising of
limited carparking and public transport provision, the introduction of a parking permit system,
promoting the use of public transport for hotel staff and promoting car sharing.

It is considered that the proposed development would provide a level of carparking provision
below the maximum standards suggested and therefore is considered to be acceptable in principle.
The measures that would be introduced in the interim travel plan and the processes identified for
the review of this plan would help realise a commitment to reducing the dependency on the motor
vehicles and support more sustainable forms of travel.




                                                 65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Crime

Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.

A number of policies contained within the adopted Design and Crime SPD are also relevant to
this proposal. Policy DC1 relates to the provision of a crime prevention plan, policy DC2 seeks to
ensure that footpaths, walkways and dedicated cycle routes reduce the risk of crime, DC4 relates
to private spaces at the rear of buildings being secure, policy DC5 relates to the maintenance of
spaces, policy DC8 promotes natural surveillance, policy DC9 relates to building entrances and
policy DC11 relates to the proposed materials to be used in the development.

Detailed comments have been received from the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison
Unit regarding the proposed development. They consider that the proposed development would
improve the footfall on the park and help to reduce the probability of criminal activity, but
express concerns that the complex will become a target of crime in this remote location.

The remote nature of the park results in no natural surveillance from the adjacent busy roads, this
would place the new complex under stress from potential criminal activity, The new complex will
need to consider the provision of permanent security staff patrolling the external environment of
the complex enhanced with good CCTV and monitoring facilities.

The GMPALU state that the records for this area indicate high levels of theft from motor
vehicles. The development proposes new car parking for the hotel, it is not considered to be
appropriate to permit open boundaries where numerous parking spaces are proposed on a surface
car park. In the long term the borders of the car park may need to incorporate physically
impermeable boundaries.

The GMPALU acknowledge that the vehicular access road is unlit and lacks pedestrian refuge/
footways. The new development would increase road traffic use and potentially raise the risk of
vehicles and pedestrians in conflict. The road will require traffic calming measures including
speed tables and vehicles chicanes to limit the speed of traffic.

Within the submitted design and access statement details of how the development has been
designed to reduce the risk of crime have been submitted. These measures include:

Site Security- to the south and east of the development there would be a 1.8m high security fence
protecting both the existing building and consortium buildings. To the north of the site the
buildings act as physical barrier to the park. The gap between the new building and the mansion
would be secured by metal railings with a hedge to the park side. The entrance to the car park
would be secured by a controlled gated barrier, which would be open during the day but at night
could be locked.

The fences and buildings would be supplemented with CCTV and would be difficult to climb.
There are some low level windows cills along the northern elevation but the entire floor level is
lifted 1.2m above ground level making access very difficult and in addition the glass at the lower
levels of these windows would be obscured to reduce visibility.




                                                66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


It is considered that the proposed security measures as set out within the design and access
statement would address the concerns raised by the GMPALU and the presence of a hotel facility
within the park would create more footfall and surveillance within the park helping to reduce
problems of crime and antisocial behaviour.

Pollution

Policy EN16 states that planning permission for development on or near to contaminated land
will only be granted where the development would not expose the occupiers of the development
to unacceptable risk, threaten the structural integrity of any existing or proposed building on or
adjoining the site, lead to the contamination of a watercourse, or cause the contamination of
adjoining land or allow such contamination to continue.

Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute
towards a significant increase in pollution to the air, water or soil, or by reason of noise, odour,
artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include adequate mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.

The development is within Buile Hill park and approximately 200m from Eccles Old Road and
therefore it is not anticipated that local residents would be adversely affected by the development
nor would the patrons of the hotel itself by virtue of its design and construction. External noise
from the public using the surrounding park would be no greater that people walking past a high
street hotel and therefore is not considered to be a problem. The potential for contamination from
nearby infilled ground has been identified and therefore it is recommended that a condition be
attached requiring a site investigation condition be attached to any permission

Policy EN19 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.

A Floor Risk Assessment has been submitted as part of the development. The development site
lies within flood zone 1 and has a low risk of flooding. The Environment Agency have been
consulted as part of the application and request that any planning approval includes a condition
for a surface water regulation system has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Sustainability

Policy ST14 states that development will be required to minimise its impact on the global
environment and major development will be required to demonstrate how they will minimise
greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy ST8 requires new development to contribute towards enhanced standards of environmental
quality through, design, amenity, safety and environmental management.

In March 2008 Salford City Council adopted the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. The
SPD sets out to promote the highest practical standard of resource and energy efficiency in new
developments, encourage the use of renewable energy, reduce the proportion of waste that goes to
landfill, enhance biodiversity and to promote sustainable forms of travel.



                                                67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Within the design and access statement submitted as part of the application the applicant has
included a section on sustainability and a strategy to enable the development to achieve at least a
very good BREEAM rating.

         Proposed sustainability measures include:
         Minimising energy consumption – through a zoned heating system, high levels of
    insulation to external walls, roof and floor, allowing as much natural light as possible, but
    where needed using high efficiency low energy light sources and controls and sourcing local
    materials.
         Maximising renewable and low carbon energy sources – consider the use of biomass
    boilers, maximising natural lighting, orientate the building to benefit from solar gain.
         Incorporating open spaces with natural shading
         Minimising noise and air pollution
         Minimising water consumption – consider the use of low volume flushing for WCs, high
    efficiency showers, collecting rain water for use in toilet flushing and spray taps with
    automatic shut off.
         Minimising speed and quantity of surface water run off – incorporating the principles of
    SUDs, roofs over the entrance foyer, reception bats and plant rooms would be green roofs,
    permeable material used within carparking areas so that surface water run off would be
    diffused.
         Minimising flood risk
         Incorporating responsibly sourced materials
         Minimising construction waste
         Incorporating waste recycling facilities

It is considered that the proposed development has fully explored a variety of measures to ensure
the long-term sustainability of the scheme and the impact of the development on the environment.
If minded to grant consent it is recommended that a condition be attached.

Planning Obligations

Policy DEV5 requires development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of
acknowledges 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 scale of development is such that a contribution in line with the SPD Planning Obligations as
follows:

Type              of                                                      Cost
contribution
Public        realm, £20 per m2 non-residential floorspace                £20 x 8562 m2
Infrastructure and                                                        £171,240
heritage
Construction         £1.50 per m2 non-residential floorspace              £1.50 X 8562 m2
training                                                                  £12,843




                                                68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Climate change         £2 per m2 non-residential floorspace                 £2 x 8562 m2
                                                                            £17,124
Sub total                                                                   £201,207
Plus 2.5% administration fee                                                £5030
Total                                                                       £206,237

        Public realm and infrastructure £20 per sq m
        Construction training £1.50 per sq m
        Climate Change £2 per sq m

The development proposes 8,562 sq m of commercial floorspace, which would result in a
contribution of £201,207 being paid in contributions.

The Planning Obligations SPD states that it is recognised that the impact of any planning
obligations, when coupled with other policy requirements, may affect the viability of some
development proposals. In such circumstances, the city council will consider whether the benefits
of the proposed development would outweigh the disadvantages of a more limited planning
obligation, or no obligation at all. However, this will only be possible where the developer
provides evidence of the likely impact of a proposed planning obligation on the viability of their
development.

The Planning Obligations SPD recognises that there may also be circumstances where a
development would secure major benefits for the local area beyond what might normally be
expected, for example through the provision of large-scale public realm. In such circumstances,
those additional benefits may be balanced against any mitigation that would normally be sought
through a planning obligation, and the need for a contribution to, or the provision of, other
infrastructure, services and / or facilities may be reduced or waived accordingly, provided that the
overall scheme would be acceptable in planning terms.

Considering first the contribution towards heritage and infrastructure, the proposed development
would result in a currently derelict listed building being brought back into use, as well as
significant landscaping and infrastructure works to the vicinity of the mansion house. The
development of this site would also enable the city council to apply for heritage lottery funding
for the improvement of public realm works to the rest of the park. It is considered that the level of
works proposed and the benefit of bringing a vacant listed building back into use would be a great
asset to the city and would omit the need for the developer to contribute towards this element.

With regards to construction training, the developer is involved within the construction training
scheme and therefore no contribution would be payable in this regard.

The applicant has committed to achieving a BREEAM rating of very good in respect of the
development and if this were to be achieved it would negate the need to provide a contribution
towards climate change.

It is considered that the development itself represents a significant benefit to the wider heritage of
the city by bring a vacant listed building back into use and therefore it is not considered that a
planning obligation should be sought in response to this development.




                                                 69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Departure

The application has been advertised as a departure since the development proposes a leisure
development outside of a town centre, which could potentially be contrary to policy S2. As
discussed elsewhere in the report in order to satisfy policy S2 all of the criteria must be met. It is
considered that the application demonstrates that all the criteria of S2 have been met and therefore
the development does not constitute a departure under policy S2 and does not have to be referred
to the Government Office North West.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

This application is the response of lengthy pre-application discussions between the applicant, the
city council and English Heritage. Many improvements have been made to the design and scale of
the building over the course of these discussions and the application process.

CONCLUSION

The principle of the development of a hotel and leisure use outside of a town centre has been
clearly demonstrated and justified. In these terms the development is considered to be acceptable,
as has the principle of the demolition of the listed outbuildings within the curtilage of the mansion
house. The design of the proposed extension is considered to be subservient to the main mansion
house and is of a very high quality and has been developed in line with the recommendations of
both Conservation Officers and English Heritage. The development seeks to be as sustainable as
possible by the promotion of a travel plan and an emphasis placed on accessibility by public
transport together with a commitment to achieved a BREEAM rating of very good. It is
considered that the development would have significant benefits to the wider park by stimulating
regeneration within it and helping to reduce crime. The reuse of the vacant listed building would
be of great benefit to the city.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03

2. Prior to the commencement of development, sections and elevations at a scale of 1:50
   providing details of windows, cills, copings and lintels profiles shall be submitted to and
   approved in writing. The approved plans shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter.

3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
   materials for all external elevations, solar shading, spandrel panels, balcony glazing, of the
   development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
   The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in
   writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted demonstrating how
   materials from the demolished courtyard buildings could be incoporated into the
   development. Where feasible materials should be incorporated as set out in the scheme and


                                                 70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


    retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Preliminary Risk Assessment report,
   including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential risk of land
   contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority. Should a potential risk be identified then:
   I. A 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 and the wider environment; and

    II. The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in
    writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into
    the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the
    development; and

    III. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
    Planning Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works
    undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

6. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be submitted to
   and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such
   scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
   surface treatment and shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the hotel. Any trees or
   shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be with the same species within twelve
   months.

7. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 10 disabled car
   parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site and such spaces shall be made
   available at all times the premises are in use.

8. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use no more than 138 car parking
   spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site and such spaces shall be made
   available at all times the premises are in use.

9. Standard Condition AE06

10. Standard Condition AL03

11. Standard Condition AL01

12. Standard Condition AK01

13. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
    provision and implementation, of a surface water regulation system has been approved by the
    Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved
    plans.

14. Standard Condition AQ03



                                                71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




15. Prior to the commencement of development, including site clearance and site remediation, a
    scheme for replacement toilet facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
    Local Planning Authority. The replacement toilet facilities shall be constructed entirely in
    accordance with the approved scheme and be made available for use prior to the closure of
    the existing facilities to the general public. Toilet facilities shall be retained at all times
    thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

16. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be
    pruned in any manner, be it branches, stems or roots, other than in accordance with the
    approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the LPA. All tree works shall
    be carried out in accordance with BS3998. If any retained tree is cut down, uprooted,
    destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such
    size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the LPA.
                        “




                                       ”

    In this condition a retained tree is an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance
    with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect
    until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the (occupation of the building/commencement
    of use of the approved development) for its permitted use.

17. No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained
    trees (section 7, BS5837, the Tree Protection Plan) and a site supervisation scheme has been
    submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Plannig Authority. The scheme hereby
    approved shall be implemented thereafter and retained in full for the agreed period unless
    otherwise agree in writing with the Local Planning Authority

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000

2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area and to safeguard
   the setting of a listed building in accordance with policies DES 1, CH1 and CH2 of the City
   of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area and to safeguard
   the setting of a listed building in accordance with policies DES 1, CH1 and CH2 of the City
   of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area and to safeguard
   the setting of a listed building in accordance with policies DES 1, CH1 and CH2 of the City
   of Salford Unitary Development Pl

5. Standard Reason R028B

6. Standard Reason R004B

7. Standard Reason R012B

8. Standard Reason R012B


                                                 72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




9. In accordance with policy A1 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

10. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability. This is in
    accordance with Policies ST1 and ST14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
    2004-2016 and Policy OB4 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
    Document

11. Standard Reason R045

12. Standard Reason R004B

13. To reduce the increased risk of flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of
    Salford Unitary Development Plan

14. Standard Reason R005B

15. To ensure the amenity of the users of the park in accordance with policy DES7 of the adopted
    City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

16. Standard Reason R010B

17. Standard Reason R010B


Note(s) for Applicant


1. The scheme for the protection of retained trees shall include:
   a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, specifying
   pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard
   abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance
   with BS3998, 1989, Recommendations for tree work.
   the details and positions of any Ground Protection Zones (section 9.3 of BS5837).
   the details and positions of the Tree Protection Barriers (section 9.2 of BS5837), identified
   separately where required for different phases of construction work (e.g. demolition,
   construction, hard landscaping). The Tree Protection Barriers must be erected prior to each
   construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that
   phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are
   repositioned for that phase.
   the details and positions of the Construction Exclusion Zones (section 9 of BS5837).
   the details and positions of the underground service runs (section11.7 of BS5837).
   the details of any changes in levels or the position of any proposed excavations within 5
   metres of the Root Protection Area (para. 5.2.2 of BS5837) of any retained tree, including
   those on neighbouring or nearby ground.
   the details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained
   trees (section 10 of BS5837), (e.g. in connection with foundations, bridging, water features,
   surfacing)
   the details of the working methods to be employed with the demolition of buildings,


                                               73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


    structures and surfacing within or adjacent to the RPAs of retained trees.
    the details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of drives and paths
    within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No-Dig” construction.
    the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to the access for and use of
    heavy, large, difficult to manoeuvre plant (including cranes and their loads, dredging
    machinery, concrete pumps, piling rigs, etc) on site.
    the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to site logistics and storage,
    including an allowance for slopes, water courses and enclosures, with particular regard to
    ground compaction and phytotoxicity.
    the details of the method to be employed for the stationing, use and removal of site cabins
    within any RPA (para. 9.2.3 of BS5837).
    the details of tree protection measures for the hard landscaping phase (sections 13 and 14 of
    BS5837).
    the timing of the various phases of the works or development in the context of the tree
    protection measures.

2. The applicant shall give written notice to the LPA of 7 days prior to carrying out the
   approved tree works and any operations that present a particular risk to trees (e.g. demolition
   within or close to a RPA, excavations within or close to a RPA, piling, carnage).

3. The following activities must not be carried out under any circumstances:
   No fires shall be lit within 10 metres of the nearest point of the canopy of any retained tree.
   No works shall proceed until the appropriate Tree Protection Barriers are in place, with the
   exception of initial tree works.
   No equipment, signage, fencing, tree protection barriers, materials, components, vehicles or
   structures, etc. shall be attached to or supported by a retained tree.
   No mixing of cement or use of other materials or substances shall take place within a RPA, or
   close enough to a RPA that seepage or displacement of those materials or substances could
   cause then to enter a RPA
   No alterations or variations to the approved works or tree protection schemes shall be carried
   out without the prior written approval of the LPA

4. No works or development shall take place until a scheme of supervision for the arboricultural
   protection measures has been approved in writing by the LPA. This scheme is to be
   administered by a qualified arboriculturist approved by the LPA, but instructed by the
   applicant. This scheme will be appropriate to the scale and duration of the works and should
   include details of:
   induction and personnel awareness of arboricultural matters.
   identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel.
   statement of delegated powers.
   timing and methods of site visiting and record keeping, including updates.
   procedures for dealing with variations and incidents.




                                               74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


APPLICATION No:                08/56016/LBC

APPLICANT:                     Wilkinson Star

LOCATION:                      Buile Hill Mansion Buile Hill Park Eccles Old Road Salford
                               M6 8GL

PROPOSAL:                      Refurbishment of Buile Hill Mansion, along with the
                               demolition of the existing courtyard buildings to provide a two-
                               storey extension, plus basement and underground link to Buile
                               Hill Mansion to form a 93 bedroom hotel, function rooms and
                               leisure suite.

WARD:                          Weaste And Seedley


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application site is located within the centre of Buile Hill Park. Eccles Old Road bound the
park itself to the north and beyond that residential properties and Pendleton College, to the east by
a range of residential properties and Seedly Terrance and Lower Seedly Road, to the south by
more residential properties and to the east by Weaste Lane.

The application site includes the vehicle access road to the park, accessed from Eccles Old Road
and the immediate area surrounding the mansion house. This area includes a pavilion, banqueting
suite, the mansion house, public toilets, parks depot, offices, NHS consortium building and the
Greenhouses.

Historical Context

Both the mansion house and the park are of a high historic importance to Salford and are Grade II
listed.

Buile Hill Park

Due to the success of Seedly Park and the overwhelming demand for more public parks
negotiations began with the owners of the adjoining Buile Hill estate, the gardens of which were
eventually added to Seedly Park after the purchase of the estate by Salford Council in 1902. In
1925 the grounds of the adjoining Hart Hill estate were bought and in 1927 the grounds of
Springfield added.

The park is a Grade II listed park of National Historic Importance.

Buile Hill Mansion

The house was built between 1825-7 under the designs of Sir Charles Barry; an English architect
best known for is role in rebuilding the House of Parliament after the 1834 fire. The house is
Barry‟s first recorded complete domestic commission, and also his only recorded Greek villa.



                                                 75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Strong parallels existing between the house and the Royal Manchester Institution (Manchester Art
Gallery), his only Greek public building.

The building was constructed for Thomas Potter, the first Mayor of Manchester, who following in
the common practice of many middle/ upper class individuals, decided to build a new house on
the outskirts of a city, away from the rising levels of pollution. His family then occupied the
house until the end of the 19th Century when the house passed to the ownership of the Bennett
family.

Edward Walters, the architect of the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, made many additions to the
house in the 1960s. The alterations completely changed the character and appearance of Barry‟s
original villa. A third storey was added to the main house, the simple Greek porch was replaced
with a very substantial carriage porch, a and the two storey west wing was replaced with a deeper
three storey wing. A large ballroom was also added to the northwest corner of the house

Salford Corporation purchased the mansion house and 80 acres of adjoining parkland in 1902.
The building was subsequently opened as a Natural History Museum in 1906. In 1959 in 1959 in
collaboration with the National Coal Board, the building was excavated and the Buile Hill no. 1
pit constructed in the basement. Extensive dry rot forced the pit‟s closure in the early 1970s and
in 1975 Buile Hill Mansion was reopened as a Museum of Mining. The museum closed in 2000
and the building has remained vacant since.

The mansion house was listed as Grade II in 1980. The listing relates not only to the main
mansion house but also to the structures within its curtilage, which includes the stable and
courtyard areas to the east of the main house.

Formal Terrace

There is a formal terrace area located to the rear of the mansion house which provides a setting
for the house. Historical evidence suggests that this area was previously planted and designed as
an Italian style garden, more recently it has been developed as a rose garden, with modern
additions of a brick/ concrete balustrade retailing wall and asphalt paths.

Garden for the Blind
The current garden for the blind is a 20th century addition to the park and is situated immediately
to the east of the mansion. It occupies the footprint of the former conservatory/ glasshouse, which
was previously attached to the mansion. The garden is currently closed to the public.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of variety of courtyard buildings to provide a
two-storey extension plus basement and underground link to the mansion house to form a 93-
bedroom hotel, function rooms and leisure suite along with associated carparking facilities.

Demolition

There are a number of building within the curtilage of the dwelling house which are proposed to
be demolished as part of this application. The Buile Hill Park Hall, the Salford Skills Centre and
the historic greenhouse are to remain as existing.


                                                76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




The remaining buildings are a mix of single and two storey red brick buildings, which include the
public toilets, parks depot and offices.

Alterations to mansion house

The alterations to the mansion house itself are predominantly internal and therefore covered by
the listed building consent, which also appears on this panel agenda (ref: 08/56016/LBC)

It is proposed that the mansion house would be connected to the proposed new build element by
an underground passageway, therefore disconnecting the extension from the mansion house at
ground level. This would entail the removal of a section of basement wall under the existing rear
doorway.

The extension to the hotel takes the form of two blocks, the most northern block is in line with the
existing mansion house, whilst the southern block follows the form of the consortium buildings to
the south of the proposed development.

The northern block is set 12m from the mansion house at its closest point. The building is then
staggered, for the first 21m the block is set 2m back from the main building line of the mansion
house, fir the remaining 47m the block would project 2m beyond the main building line of the
mansion house. However extensions to the mansion house already project beyond the main
building line. The depth of the block for the most part is 12m, increasing to 18m at the point of
the stagger.

The southern block is set 10m at its closest point with the northern block and 16m at its furthest
point. The southern block is set 20m from its closest point to the mansion block. The length of
block in total is 69m and it has a depth of 12m.

In addition to the extension of the mansion house the following works are intended to be
undertaken:

External

The existing windows are generally in a good condition and are to be retained. Each window is to
be surveyed and repaired as necessary. Any replacements are to match the existing ones. Sash
cords are to be replaced and all windows left in full working order. Glazing is to be replaced
throughout with new double glazed seal units. These will be clear glass, toughened at ground
floor where the cills are lower than 800mm. For bathrooms frosted glass will be used.

All window frames, doors, eternal timber to eaves, rainwater goods and the like are to be rubbed
down and repainted to a colour scheme and paint specification to be agreed.

Lead work is missing in some areas on the building. All flashings, roofing to turret, copings,
gutters and cornices are to be checked and replaced as required with new lead sheet of a gauge
consistent with the original.

Roofing is generally in good condition both in terms of timber structure and natural slate finish.
This will be thoroughly checked and any missing or loose slates rectified with matching ones.


                                                77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




Stone-work is generally in good condition and any damage stones replaced or repaired with
matching material as appropriate

A new ramp is required at ground floor to enable access for wheelchair users to the terraces and
lawns. The ramp would be of minimal modern design with ashlar stone facing and steel handrail.

External doors would be refurbished. Ironmongery would be retained if appropriate or replaced
where necessary and details submitted for approval.

Rainwater goods would be retained as existing cast iron and lead but are to be subject to a full
survey. Any badly deteriorated items would be replaced with matching material.

Render on the existing dining room extension is generally in fair condition. Any cracked or loose
areas are to be repaired and the whole repainted.

Internal

Modern internal doors and frames are to be removed and replaced with new frames and leaves.
The traditional skirting and frames are to be replicated with a hardwood finish.

All plaster to walls to be checked for soundness and loose or addled material is to be hacked off
and replastered with a compatible material.

New partitions supported on timber floors are to be built in stud partition with proprietary metal
framework and 2 layers of plasterboard each side, where are required to be acoustically enhanced
will meet the requirements of building regulations part E.

All existing ceilings are to be subject to a detailed survey once any suspended ceilings are
removed. Where original cornices, plaster roses and coverings are present, these are to be repaired
and retained. Any missing pieces are to be replaced with cast plaster inserts. New partitions in
sensitive areas are have been kept to a minimum to avoid conflict with ceiling details.

All existing heating pipes are to be removed; some of the traditional cast iron radiators would be
retained. The new pipe work is intended to be run below floor level.

Existing electrical systems are to be removed and new wiring to be chased into the plasterwork
without damaging the existing features.

All original floors are of timber joist and board construction. A structural and condition survey is
proposed to be undertaken to establish the level of repair work needed. Due to the ornate cornices
in some rooms the floors would need to be upgraded to me appropriate sound and acoustic
performance, this would involve the removal of all boards.

A new staircase is to be formed under the existing one. The structure at basement level is to be
altered to meet structural engineers requirements and a new beam inserted at ground floor level.
The new basement stair is to be a minimalist modern design to separate detail; it would have thin
steel place treads and risers with a toughened glass balustrade.



                                                78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Retaining walls would be made good and altered as shown on the drawings and rendered with
proprietary waterproof render.

A new 8-person lift is to be incorporated over the full height of the building. This would be a
motor room less type and a new brick shaft is to be constructed to engineer‟s requirements.

Use of the building

Bedroom accommodation – 89 rooms would be accommodated within the new extension to the
mansion house with and additional 4 suites being provided within the existing mansion. The
rooms will include 8 bedrooms with bunk beds for children, and 5 rooms specifically catering for
disabled people. All bedrooms are at upper ground, first and second floor level and would be
accessed from the central stair and lift leading from the foyer at lower ground level.

Function room – a function suite is intended at lower ground level and has been designed to
accommodate either one large event or partitioned to provide two or three spaces. There is the
potential for this area to be used for a variety of events including conferences and private events.

Restaurant – there is a restaurant located at lower ground level near the entrance and a private
dining suite within the mansion house. A central kitchen would serve both the function room and
restaurant with a separate kitchen for the mansion house.

Leisure suite – a small leisure suite is intended to be provided containing a 25 x8m swimming
pool, two gyms and changing accommodation. There would also be associated sauna and steam
rooms, with additional beauty therapy rooms.


SITE HISTORY

07/54341/FUL application for the demolition of existing courtyard buildings, the park offices, the
modern greenhouses and the toilet blocks and the erection of a single storey pavilion building to
provide public WCs and community meeting rooms and a four storey extension and glazed link
building to Buile Hill Mansion to form an 80 bedroomed hotel, function rooms and leisure suite
together with the creation of car parking for the hotel, function rooms, leisure suite, the HNS
Consortium, the Buile Hill Banqueting Suite and the wider park was withdrawn May 2007

CONSULTATIONS

English Heritage – pleased to be involved in the previously withdrawn application and the
extensive pre-application discussions that have followed. Throughout the discussion advice has
been given regarding the need for a contemporary design of extension to complement the original
villa. The application proposed the welcome conservation and refurbishment of the Grade II listed
building and the demolition of a substantial proportion of its outbuildings and their replacement
with a contemporary extension. Content that the application addresses English Heritages
concerns and recommends approval subject to conditions.




                                                79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


Environment Agency – original objection withdrawn during the course of the application.
Request that any planning approval includes a condition for a surface water regulation system has
been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Design and Heritage Team – consider that the alterations to the main mansion building are
appropriate to the new use and would maintain the historic integrity of the building. Considers
that the proposal represents the best that can be achieved to bring the mansion back into good
repair and most of all use. The proposed hotel is considered to be an acceptable distance from the
mansion; it is lower in height and would be faced with contemporary materials, which would
direct attention to the mansion house. Only adverse comment is in relation to the materials and it
is considered that a more organic facing material such as timber would be more appropriate.

Spatial Planning – conclude that the supporting statement largely meets the requirements of
PPS6. Consider that there are significant regeneration benefits of reusing a currently vacant Grade
II listed building.

United Utilities – no response to date

Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company - application lies within Central Salford and
considers that it is of significance given its scale and location within the city‟s largest historic
park.

Consider that the revised scheme represents a significant improvement in design terms. The
extension is now clearly secondary to the mansion building in scale, particularly from the
northern elevation, which is clearly the most significant in terms of the mansion‟s setting. The
natural slope of the ground level serves to conceal the lower ground floor level leisure suite, and
this represents an effective design solution. The overall design approach is more contemporary in
style, which represents a more positive design treatment than the pastiche approach of the former
scheme. Given the simplicity of form of the new development, ensuring the highest possible
quality of finish will be critical to the success of the scheme in design terms. Encourage the
approval of materials to be subject to detailed consideration.

Consider that this revised scheme represents the standard of facility that this location deserves.
We note with interest the proposals for the single aspect penthouse suites with balconies,
affording panoramic views south toward the Ship Canal and Salford Quays. With high quality
management we are confident that this hotel and leisure suite could represent a significant
addition to Central Salford‟s accommodation offer.

In summary, the URC wishes to express it support for this scheme but would emphasise the
importance of securing the support of English Heritage and the Georgian Group in order to
support the future Heritage Lottery Fund application for improvements to the wider park

The Victorian Society Northern – no response to date

The Georgian Group - Considers the building to be of high local significance and along with its
parkland setting is greatly valued by the local community. The casework panel are disappointed
that a hotel remains the preferred use and are concerned over the scale of the new development
and the volume of carparking proposed. Considers that the extension and carparking would have
an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and registered landscape. The panel felt


                                                80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


strongly that the reuse of the site should centre on the listed building, footprints of the existing
structures/ buildings to be removed and existing carpark layouts.

No objection is raised to the removal of the outbuildings, however the panel thought that the
footprint of the courtyard represented a good opportunity for an appropriately subservient new
development.

The panel considers that the scale of the hotel extension is disproportionate in relation to the
mansion house and therefore could detract from its setting. It is acknowledge that the current
proposals are reduced in height and are designed to reflect former ancillary buildings in terms of
design and material.

Concerns over the increased number of bedrooms proposed and feel that the increase has not been
adequately justified or explained.

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings – no response to date

Ancient Monuments Society – welcome the implication that the previous proposals have been
dropped. Consider that the new proposal has greater architectural character although it is deemed
to be an emphatic and uncompromising neighbour to the villa.

Cannot find any evidence in the paperwork of this application as to why there is an increase in
bedroom numbers, consider that this must result in a 50% increase in the footprint and height of
the extension. The breaking up of the block foes someway to reducing its dominance but consider
the extension to still be assertive.

Do no consider that the need for the new build has been explained or defended, until this has been
done the new wing should be regarded as unnecessarily damaging and important listed building
and therefore an objection is to be registered.

The Council for British Archaeology – no response to date

Government Office for the North West – has no comment to make on the proposal although if
Salford City Council is minded to approve the application then it may decide to refer it as a
departure. Noted that Councillor Ainsworth has contacted the Government Office for the North
West to request that the application be „called-in‟ for determination by the Secretary of State.

Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection in principle to the hotel
development but are concerned that the development will be a magnet for crime and antisocial
behaviour and therefore adversely targeted.

Twentieth Century Society – no response to date

Marketing Manchester – no response to date

The Chief Executive, Economic Development – no response to date

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – resubmitted comments to original
application. The original comments stated that the site is well located in regards to public


                                                81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


transport. In order to maximise the benefits of the sites location in relation to the public transport
facilities it should be ensured that the pedestrian environment is as safe and convenient as
possible. GMPTE hope that the applicant has fully justified the level of carparking on the site.

It is suggested that any development, submission, implementation and monitoring of a travel plan
be attached as conditions of planning consent.

Garden History Society – no response to date

Public Rights of Way – there is a footpath (right of way) claim through the site, which will
require diversion.

Landscape – suggest that a more detailed landscape proposal is the subject of a condition.
Consider that details of the brickwork, samples/ colour and materials of metal roof, samples/
details of the solar shading to the southern windows, samples of the spandrel panel glazing,
details of the balcony glazing, details of roof drainage and reuse of materials from the demolished
buildings should be submitted prior to determination.

Suggest that 1:50 scale elevations should be provided showing how key elevations are to be
constructed. These should show brickwork detail and how cills, copings and lintels will be treated
as it is suspected that the brickwork above the windows is too slim in practice.

Concerns regarding the brown brick plinth to the north elevation, it tapers from 800mm to
2000mm. Suggest that the ground could be tapered or low level planting be introduced.

Urban Vision Environment – recommend a land contamination condition be attached due to the
proximity of the site to potentially in filled land. The development is within Buile Hill park and
approximately 200m from Eccles Old Road and therefore it is not anticipated that local residents
would be adversely affected by the development and that the patrons of the hotel itself by design.
External noise from the public using the surrounding park would be no greater that people
walking past a high street hotel and therefore is not considered to be a problem. There are no
objections to this development on the grounds of noise or air quality.


PUBLICITY

Site notices were displayed on 29th February 2008
A press notice was displayed in the Salford Advertiser 21st February 2008

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

        Hepburn Court, Monroe Close
        Garbo Court, Monroe Close
        Flynn Court, Monroe Close
        Bogart Court, Monroe Close
        1-5,11,15 - 19, 21, 23-30 Brentwood
        2 - 4, 7,8 – 60 (e), 11 – 27 (o) Princeton Close
        41 - 69 (o), 64, 110 – 118 (e), 120 –142 (e), 146 Eccles Old Road
        All Hallows RC High School, Weaste Lane


                                                 82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


        Pendleton College, De La Salle College, Weaste Lane
        2-10 Harvard Grove
        Spring Bank, Brentwood
        Worsley Court, Lower Seedley Road
        118 – 122 (e), 129 – 139 (o) Weaste Lane
        8-17 Weaste Drive
        15-21 (o) Southgarth Road
        117, 190 Derby Road
        23-29 Southgarth Road
        1 - 22 Cheviot Close
        189 Claremont Road
        32 –124 (e), 91 – 117 (o), 106 – 112 (e) Seedley Terrace
        1 Seedley View Road
        1- 16 Buile Hill Drive
        117 – 123 Lower Seedley Road
        38 Lostock Road
        1-3 Hart Hill Drive
        1-17 Brentwood
        2 Seedley Park Road
        1 Manor Road
        15 Spring Bank
        Buile Hill High School
        Hope High School
        Brentwood Villas, Brentwood
        4-18 (e) Hart Hill Drive
        1-11, 12-16 (e) Gore Drive
        City Centre Learning, 2 Manor Road
        1-11 Gore Crescent
        1-10 Garner Drive
        12 Lullington Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 9 individual letters, 2 circular letters of 10 and 5 letters, and a petition of 425
signatures in objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:-

        Increase in traffic in the park
        Pollution (air, noise and light)
        Limitation of public access to the park
        Disturbance from hotel users
        Land should not be sold off for a private venture
        Detriment to the grade II listed building
        Other sequentially preferable sites could be used
        Development could reduce future events in the park
        Impact on wildlife
        Increase in vandalism
        Drainage problems
        Development may lead to the selling off of more of the park


                                                83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


        Increase in the number of bedrooms
        Mansion should be retained for another use
        Impact on park users
        Servicing and delivery
        Contrary to the greenspace strategy
        City Council should not be determining their own application
        Design of extension
        Not enough consultation on proposals before they were submitted
        Loss of Sensory Garden
        Lottery Bids should be used to secure the mansions future

Representation has also been received from Councillor Ferrer who has requested that this
application is heard before panel and that panel members make a visit to the site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Site specific policies:

        CH6/1 Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest

Other policies:

        ST8 Environmental Quality
        ST15 Historic Environment
        DES1 Respecting Context
        DES8 Alteration and Extensions
        DES9 Landscaping
        CH1 Works to and Demolition of Listed Buildings
        CH2 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
        CH6 Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest
        DEV5 Planning Conditions or Obligations

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Other policies:

        ER1 Management of the North West‟s Natural, Built and Historic Environment
        ER3 Built Heritage

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy

        DP1 Regional Development Principles




                                              84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


There are also a number national planning policy statements and guidance which are considered
to be relevant including, PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and PPG15 Planning and the
Historic Environment.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

This is an application for listed building consent only; the principal of the redevelopment of the
site has been examined within application 08/56014/FUL, which appears elsewhere on this
agenda. The full planning application in association with this listed building accepts the principle
of the redevelopment of this site and concludes that the application should be approved.

Demolition of Listed Buildings

Policy ST15 states that historic and cultural assets that contribute to the character of the city will
be preserved and wherever possible and appropriate enhanced.

Policy CH1 states that proposals involving the alteration, extension, change of use or partial
demolition of a listed building will be permitted only where they would preserve or enhance the
character and features of special architectural interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing.

Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have
an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.

Policy CH6 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have
an unacceptable impact on the historic character or setting of any part of a historic park or garden
defined on the proposals map.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment sets out national
policy for listed buildings. It identifies that any object or structure fixed to the building or within
the cartilage of a building, but forms part of the land and has done since 1 st July 1948 is
considered to be listed along with the main building. Within PPG15 paragraphs 3.16 to 3.18
provide further guidance to Local Planning Authorities when dealing with works relating to the
partial demolition of listed buildings.

Having regard to the proposed development and the advice given within PPG15 it is considered
that the outbuildings surrounding the mansion house are also considered to be Grade II listed and
therefore careful consideration needs to be given regarding their demolition.

A full historic survey has been undertaken for the development site, carried out by Architectural
History Practice. The survey assessed the significance of the existing buildings and intended to
inform decisions regarding future development on the site. Whilst the main mansion house has
significant architectural merit the report concluded that:

 „….Buile Hill courtyard buildings have little architectural significance. They are not associated
within the design of Buile Hill House by Charles Barry, nor do they have more than very modest
design merit. The buildings original design as the stable courtyard for the house has been largely
lost due to the substantial remodelling in the 1930s as a parks depot depot and partial demolition
in the 1980s. The 1930s phase of the building has little architectural merit.



                                                  85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




PPG15 provides further guidance in relation to issues that should be considered when dealing
with listed buildings, each of these are discussed in detail below:

         the importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity,
         in both national and local terms.

         The main mansion house is considered to be of prime importance both local and
         nationally. The associated outbuildings are not considered to be of any significant
         historical or architectural value and have mostly been subject to alteration since their
         original construction. It is not considered therefore that the loss of the associated
         courtyard buildings would have a negative impact on the setting of the main mansion
         house.

         the physical features of the building which justify its inclusion in the list.

         The outbuildings are not included on the statutory listing details for the mansion house.

         the buildings setting and its contribution to the local scene which may be important e.g.
         where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or
         where it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby.

         The courtyard buildings are not from the same period of the mansion house, nor do they
         appear to have been specifically planned to complement the main house. It is not
         considered that the courtyard buildings contribute or enhance the setting of the main
         house.

         the extent to which proposed works would bring substantive benefits for the community in
         particular by contributing to the economic regeneration or the enhancement of the area
         including other listed buildings.

         The demolition of the courtyards would enable an extension to the mansion house which
         would bring a vacant listed building back into use.

The above view has been supported by both English Heritage and Salford City Council‟s
Conservation Officer who have no objections in principle to the loss of the outbuildings within
the curtilage of this site. Since these outbuildings relate little to the main mansion house either in
style or period then it is not considered the demolition of such would have an adverse impact on
the main mansion house, the development allows for the removal of such buildings and the site to
be reconfigured more sympathetically.

Design

Policy DES1 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 a local
identity and distinctiveness.

Policy DES4 outlines that development that adjoins public space shall be designed to have a
strong and positive relationship with that space.


                                                   86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




Policy DES8 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.
Furthermore it requires that the design of alterations must ensure that the resultant building
appears as an attractive and coherent whole and that any modifications resulting in an
unacceptable impact on the appearance of the building or failing to retain the buildings key
features will not be permitted.

Policy DES11 requires the submission of a design statement with all major applications
explaining how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design principles
and design concept and how these are reflected in the development‟s layout, density, scale, visual
appearance and landscaping, the relationship of the development to its site and the wider context
and how the development will meet the Council‟s design objectives.

A design and access statement has been submitted in accompaniment with the application. The
design and access statement has identified several key design factors that have influenced the
final design of the proposed extension, these include the following:
         The recommendation by English Heritage respecting the layout, orientation and building
         line of the house and the original stable courtyard.
         The need to keep a reasonable distance from the mansion
         The need to orientate geometry to align with both the mansion and the consortium
         building
         The need to leave sufficient space for the adequate car parking and have a main entrance
         clearly visible from it
         To allow all the leisure facilities, function rooms, restaurant/ kitchen areas to be provided
         on the lower ground floor to allow efficient servicing
         To enable a lower level link through to the mansion
         To be set at least 10m from the consortium building
         To avoid the loss of significant trees.

Layout

The layout of the building results in the main entrance being located within the mansion house,
therefore clear signage is proposed for those accessing the development via the car park. There is
an additional entrance provided centrally on the eastern elevation of the extension.

The leisure suite is positioned along the northern edge of the extension at lower ground level,
utilising the natural slope of the land and taking advantage of facilities, which do not require
natural light.

When viewed from the north the extension to mansion house would appear as two shallow stories
of bedroom floors above ground level, separated from the main dwelling house. The leisure suite
would not be visible.

The southern bedroom wing, located above the function room and
restaurant there are two more storeys of similar proportions to
the northern block and a row of penthouses. The proposed




                                                 87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


penthouse are single aspect facing the                               southwards        to    take
advantage of the sites elevated position.

The two bedroom wings would create an external central garden space, which will be treated with
contemporary landscaping. The two wings would be connected by a minimalist glass bridge,
allowing views to the mansion house to be retained.

It is considered that the layout of the development maximises the use of the topography of the site
and respects the setting of the mansion house and the remaining consortium buildings on site.

Scale

The proposed hotel extension is designed to be views as a subsidiary building to the main
mansion and perceived as subservient to the mansion house when viewed from the park. By
setting the elements with the largest footprint, underground and placing the height of the
penthouse on the southern wing of the building, the massing of the extension is reduced
considerably.

Windows will extend vertically to include both stories and have a pronounced vertical emphasis
directly related to that on the mansion house. The fenestration of the mansion contains a typically
wider windows flanked by much narrower ones with a pronounced vertical emphasis. This has
been reproduced but in a contemporary way in the new building where the windows follow and
alternating pattern of wider and narrower proportions.

Comments received by English Heritage during the course of the application expressed concern
regarding the tallest element of the hotel suggesting that this might dominate the mansion house.
Following on from these comments the applicant submitted amended plans to address the
concerns raised. The amended plans include the reduction in penthouse units from 9 to 8 and the
glazing of the stair areas to either end of the penthouses. These changes would result in the
distance between the closest point of the penthouse from 13m to 21m, with this distance being
increased further to 25m at the main bulk of the dwelling house.

Materials

The appearance of the hotel has been designed to be comprised of three visual layers. The lowest
layer consists of the large public and plan spaces forming a plinth to the building and faced with a
dark grey/brown brick. This is intended to give a solid appearance to the building and root it to
the ground. The bedroom wings are intended to be faced in a modern soft red brick and be
consistent over the two storeys. The penthouses would be curved in section and clad in a warm
brown copper to the roof and north elevation the penthouses would be predominantly glazed to
the south with some timber detailing to privacy screens between the balconies.

Internal Works

It is considered that the schedule of works submitted as part of this application are appropriate
and would help to ensure that the historic fabric of the building is protected and enhanced
wherever possible.




                                                88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

This application is the response of lengthy pre-application discussions between the applicant, the
city council and English Heritage. Many improvements have been made to the design and scale of
the building over the course of these discussions and the application process .

CONCLUSION

The principle of the development of a hotel and leisure use outside of a town centre has been
clearly demonstrated and justified and is therefore acceptable. As has the principle of the
demolition of the listed outbuildings within the curtilage of the mansion house. The design of the
proposed extension is considered to be subservient to the main mansion house and is of a very
high quality and has been developed in line with the advice given by both Conservation Officers
and English Heritage. It is considered that the development would have significant benefits to the
wider park by stimulating regeneration within it and helping to reduce crime. The reuse of the
vacant listed building would be of great benefit to the city and therefore it is recommended that
the application be approved.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03

2. No development / demolition should be undertaken until the applicant has secured the
   implementation and completion of a programme of historic building recording in accordance
   with a written scheme of investigation approved in writing by Salford City Council.

3. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to
   be used for the roof, external elevations and windows of the development have been
   submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be
   carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local
   Planning Authority.

4. No works shall begin on site until a detailed schedule of all works, construction methods and
   materials to be used within the Mansion House has been submitted to and approved in writing
   by the Local Planning Authority. All development shall be carried out in accordance with the
   approved schedule of works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R038

2. To make a detailed record of the upstanding external and internal historic building fabric


                                                89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008


   and fittings and create an account of the building, its history and use for archive and
   research purposes in accordance with policy CH1 of the City of Salford UDP.

3. To protect the character of the listed building in accordanc with policy CH1 of the City of
   Salford UDP.

4. To protect the character of the listed building in accordanc with policy CH1 of the City of
   Salford UDP.




                                             90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




                                 91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




                                 92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 5th June 2008




                                 93

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:11/11/2011
language:English
pages:93