Get documents about "Division - DOC 1
Document Sample
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 October 2009
APPLICATION No: 09/57915/FUL
APPLICANT: Salford City Council
LOCATION: Higher Broughton Community Hub, Rigby Street, Salford, ,
PROPOSAL: Erection of a new-build community facility to contain a library, meeting
rooms, changing facilities for adjacent sports pitches, a childrens centre,
ancillary spaces and a trampoline hall
WARD: Broughton
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The site is rectangular in shape and slopes from the direction of Wellington Street East in the north to
Devonshire Street to the south. It is approximately 1 hectare in size with the majority overgrown and
unkempt in appearance. To the south of the site is the existing Sure Start facility which is single storey
in appearance and bounded by railings.
Immediately to the north (adjoining the application site) is a piece vacant land. Residential properties
once occupied the land, but they were demolished in line with the Higher Broughton regeneration
aspirations. Beyond that is Wellington Street East where three storey properties front the street and
which form part of the Broughton Green development. In addition, the Talmud Torah Chinuch
N'Ormin Jewish Orthodox School also fronts Wellington Street East.
To the east of the site are playing fields surrounded by high metal railings. Beyond the playing fields,
on the opposite side of Tully Street, are further terraced houses, which are currently being demolished
as part of the wider regeneration programme.
To the south of the site is an area of two storey residential houses.
To the west of the site across Rigby Street are large-scale plots of land fronting Bury New Road. In
close proximity to the application site are; a three-storey block of 1960's flats (Stoney Knoll), a library
and a vacant office block (formerly occupied by British Telecom). Further to the north is the Grade II
listed Greek Church of the Annunciation and attached former presbytery.
Members will recall that a similar proposal within this general locality was considered by the Panel in
April 2009. The item was deferred from consideration and following the deferral the applicant
withdrew the scheme for further consideration so that the concerns raised by local residents could be
addressed.
Description of Proposal
This application therefore, seeks consent for the erection of a new, part single, part two storey
community centre (whilst single storey the trampoline hall would be similar in appearance to a three
storey building) comprising office accommodation, library, meeting room, children's centre; sure start
1
facility, youth club, and trampoline hall, computer suite together with associated car parking and
construction of new access and alteration to existing vehicular access.
The proposed building would be H shaped, incorporating two wings on either side of the trampoline
court. The main pedestrian entrance to the building would be from Rigby Street through a central
courtyard although secondary entrances to particular elements are also incorporated. Whilst the
footprint of the building is a H shape the maximum dimensions would be approximately 76.6 metres
wide, 45 metres deep and 7.8m metres high across the main building. The trampoline hall would be
12.4 metres high and the library 4.2m high. The proposed floorspace totals 3,494 square metres.
Car parking facilities are proposed in two separate car parks. The majority of the provision would be
provided within the main car park, which would be accessed from Devonshire Street. This car park
would comprise of 70 car park spaces, 2 disabled spaces, 4 minibus spaces and 4 motorcycle spaces.
A separate small car park of 5 disabled spaces would be provided adjacent to the library, which would
be accessed from Rigby Street. Bicycle parking facilities are proposed in front of the main entrance
off Rigby Street.
Proposed boundary treatments consist of the retention of existing fencing adjacent to the existing
sports pitches and a mixture of 2.4m high mesh fencing around the car park, a low retaining wall,
stainless steel bollards, 2m high red brick wall to match existing and retention of existing 2m high red
brick wall.
A play area would be provided to the north of the site. The proposed hours of operation of this outside
play area are 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday. The hours of operation of the community hub in
general would be 08:00 to 22:00 Monday to Friday.
Recent Significant Changes
Whilst this proposal is similar to that which has been reported to members of this Panel in September
2008 (application 07/55361/DEEM3), it is considered that the main changes between that scheme and
the current proposals can be summarised as follows:
1 An alternative (albeit incorporating part of the previous area) site boundary which now provides for a
building fronting Rigby Street rather than Wellington Street East and including the existing Sure Start
facility
2 A redesigned building of a similar scale
3 Access to the main car park from Devonshire Street
The site remains adjacent to the existing playing pitches and would provide a similar mixture of uses
as the earlier scheme.
Site History
03/47158/OUT - Outline application for the creation of community hub, outline application for means
of access of residential development and full application for the construction of natural turf pitches and
artificial mini pitches. Consent was granted in December 2003 and including provision of a
community hub on a large proportion (approximately two thirds) of the application site.
2
05/50310/OUT - Outline application for the creation of community hub, outline application for means
of access of residential development and full application for the construction of natural turf pitches and
artificial mini pitches without complying with condition 16 (provision of sports pitches) on planning
permission 03/47158/OUT. Consent was granted in June 2005 and included provision of a community
hub on a large proportion (approximately two thirds) of the application site.
An application for a community hub was submitted in April 2007 (07/54507/DEEM3). This was
withdrawn.
Members will also recall that a similar scheme was deferred from consideration by this Panel in
September 2008. However, the application was withdrawn following the panel meeting at the request
of the application to enable the applicant's team to seek to revise the scheme to address the objections
received in response to the application publicity surrounding that scheme (07/55361/DEEM3).
Publicity
Site Notice: Affecting highway Date Displayed: 29 July 2009
Reason: Wider Publicity
Press Advert: Salford Advertiser Date Published: 30 July 2009
Reason: Article 8 Standard Press Notice
Press Advert: Salford Advertiser Date Published: 30 July 2009
Reason: Article 8 Affect Public Right of Way
The affected highway, Bradshaw Street North, has now been formally closed.
Neighbour Consultations
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-19 Vincent Street
Higher Broughton Children's Centre, 48 Rigby Street
Talmud Torah Chinuch Norim School, 11 Wellington Street East
Flats 1-8, 14 Wellington Street East
16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30 Wellington Street East
Flats 1, 3 & 4 Wellington Street East
Flats 1-24 Topfields, 19 Wellington Street East
Flats 1-3, 26 Wellington Street East
1-15 Greencroft Way
1-36 Stoney Knoll, Bury New Road
1-15 (odds) Wellington Street East
11A, 11B, 11C & 11D Wellington Street East
Inpartnership Ltd
3
The applicant has also presented the scheme to the Blackfriars and Broughton Community Committee.
The following questions were raised by the committee:
When will the building be open to the public?
Is rainwater harvesting / grey water to be used?
How much is it (the development) costing?
Is it funded by Salford City Council or other sources?
How is the building managed & operated - (is it 'a Council' building)?
Who is going to use the building?
How many square feet does the building cover?
Is the Children's Centre separated from the reception?
Will planning consent be granted?
The applicant was able to provide answer to the questions raised although the discussion highlighted
local concerns that the Hub would never be delivered. The presentation provided the community
committee with an update on the position as a whole, which was well received by the committee.
Representations
One representation has been received in response to the application publicity, which relates to dog
fouling of the existing landscaped areas adjacent to the playing fields. This letter has been forwarded
to the applicant's agent. No specific comments have been raised in relation to this application.
Consultations
Design For Security - This development has been assessed against and is consistent with the principles
of CPTED [Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design] , thus reducing the opportunities for
crime and the fear of crime. Subject to the above measures [detailed measures set out in the crime
impact statement] being included within the scheme, we are happy to endorse this development.
Should the applicant with to apply for the development to achieve SBD [Secured By Design]
accreditation, it should achieve it .
United Utilities - No objection to the proposal in principle. However, a public sewer crosses this site
and building over it will not be permitted. The proposed building is not situated over the position of
the sewer or its associated easement..
Head of Engineering and Highways - Drainage Engineer Advises that a separate system is needed for
the storage of surface water which limits discharge to 15l/s to the approval of United Utilities. No land
drainage must drain in to sewers and that any sewer diversions will require United Utilities approval.
They also advised that the floor levels should be 300mm above the level of the adjacent road.
However, given the change in levels across the site parts of the finish floor level would be below the
level of that part of the Rigby Street, which adjoins the building. As such, a condition is suggested
which requires drainage details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Highway Engineer - No objections. Advice is also provided regarding the need for minor signing and
carriageway markings for the disabled bays (shown on the Proposed External Footway / Carriageway
Works drawing No. D10538_ED_300_002) to be provided on street near to the new reception access.
4
In addition, a prescribed route sign opposite the off street disabled car park will be required. All
redundant vehicular access points to the site will need to have footways reinstated.
Urban Vision Environment - In relation to issue of noise and general amenity, they have no objection
subject to the inclusion of a condition limiting noise from any fixed plant.
In relation to issues of site investigation and remediation Urban Vision Environment have produced
the Preliminary Risk Assessment for the site. As such, The City Council's Director of Environmental
Health is reviewing the PRA who will provide further advice regarding suitability worded conditions.
Environment Agency - The Agency has no objection in principle and provides advice regarding
surface water run-off.
Central Salford Shadow Urban Regeneration Company - No comments received to date.
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Assoc. - No comments received to date.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society - No comments received to date.
Ramblers Association Manchester Area - No comments received to date.
The Open Spaces Society - No comments received to date.
Sport England - The proposed development would not affect land considered to fall within the
definition of a playing field as defined by the Town and Country Planning (General Development
Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996 as amended by the 2009 Statutory Instrument No.453 and I have
therefore considered this consultation as 'non-statutory'
The consultee highlights the relevant planning history and how this proposal would provide facilities
for the new playing fields. They conclude that the proposed development is consistent with the
following Sport England planning policy objective to prevent the loss of facilities or access to
resources. Consequently, no objection is raised to the development.
Planning Policy Framework
Development Plan Policy
RSS DP1 - Spatial Principles
RSS DP2 - Promote Sustainable Communities
RSS DP3 - Promote Sustainable Communities
RSS DP5 - Manage Travel Demand
RSS DP9 - Reduce Emissions, Adapt to Climate Change
RSS W1 - Waste Management
UDP DES1 - Respecting Context
UDP DES2 - Circulation and Movement
UDP DES3 - Design of Public Space
UDP DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
UDP DES9 - Landscaping
UDP DES10 - Design and Crime
5
UDP A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
UDP A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Park
UDP EN17 - Pollution Control
UDP EHC3 - Provision, Improve of Health, Community
UDP A8 - Impact of Development on Highway Network
Other Material Considerations
PPG PPG13 - Transport
PPG PPG24 - Planning and Noise
PPS PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development
SPD SPD5 - Design and Crime
SPD SPD11 - Sustainable Design Construction
SPD SPD12 - Design
SPG SPG6 - Flood Risk
Appraisal
The main planning issues relating to this development are: whether the principle of development is
acceptable; whether the design and appearance is acceptable; the impact on the amenity of local
residents; and highway safety issues.
Principle of Development
Members will note from the planning history and the outline planning permission granted in 2003 and
2005 that the principle of a community hub has been established within this area through the granting
of the original mixed use regeneration proposals and that elements of the approved mixture of uses
have already been implemented; housing to the north and playing pitches adjacent to the site.
Moreover, policy EHC3 relates to the provision and improvement of health and community facilities
stating that planning permission will be granted for the provision of new community facilities provided
that the development would meet a number of criteria including that it would not have an unacceptable
impact on residential amenity and character, would be accessible to the community by a range of
means of transport, would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, would and have
the potential to act as a community focus. Each criteria will be considered within the main body of
this report below.
The hub would include a number of community facilities within a central location within the
community. There are no objections raised to the principle of development; in that the proposed
development complies with policy EHC3 of the UDP and seeks to implement development approved
by an earlier outline planning consent.
Design and Appearance
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.
6
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people,
maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable pedestrians
to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable
safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other local amenities and minimise
potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space, that
public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed
local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs, reflect and enhance the character and
identity of the area, form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding
developments be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate scale, connect
to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make provision for,
maintenance requirements.
Policy DES9 considers that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision.
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime,
anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. This is supplemented by Supplementary Planning
Document 'Design and Crime' which provides detailed guidance on designing out crime for new
developments.
The external design and appearance of the Hub is directly influenced by the range of accommodation
that would be provided within the facility, together with the design, scale and appearance of existing
buildings within the vicinity. Moreover, given the mixture of those uses there, it is necessary to ensure
that the layout of individual uses does not result in disturbance to other uses. In this context:
* The youth centre has a community meeting area above but have separate entrances and do not
connect. The use of appropriate acoustic flooring and ceiling systems will substantially reduce the
passage of sound between these spaces.
* Children's Centre (Sure Start) is an independent operation and is secure within the complex. Main
entrance doors to the centre have electronic access control along with additional surveillance from the
adjacent nursery manager's office.
* Applicant has also sought the advice of an architect from the Orthodox Jewish Community that have
resulted in the various segregations as required.
In terms of building design standards and in particular the control of the passage of sound, the
applicant has appointed an independent acoustic consultant who is working with Urban Vision's design
team in order to ensure that the scheme exceeds the current building regulations.
The proposal also includes space for community use. There are a total of three spaces totaling 244
square metres. Two of the rooms can be opened up to provide a larger space. The third room would
not be able to be opened up in a similar manner as the clients requirements include the need to provide
display space, IT points, power points and a projector screen.
7
To accommodate the various uses and to ensure that the various community groups have sufficient
storage capabilities the building would include storage provision as follows:
* Customer Services and Library - 16m²
* Youth Centre - 17m²
* Children‟s Centre - 51.5m²
* Community Rooms - 50m²
The applicant has confirmed that the design of the building has also been influenced by community
consultation, particularly following earlier schemes which were withdrawn prior to a decision, and that
the floor areas set out above have been derived from the end users needs. All users groups have been
comprehensively consulted with regard to establishing their spatial requirements and the level of
equipment within the accommodation to ensure that the services provided match individuals
aspirations including the local Jewish community, the neighbourhood office, the library service, the
youth club and the trampoline club. Moreover, following the objections to the previous scheme the
applicant withdrew the scheme to undertake further consultation with those objectors and the
Blackfriars Broughton Community Committee. No objections were received in relation to that
presentation.
The scheme has been amended both in terms of the physical position of the building on the site and the
appearance of each elevation. The greater part of the current proposal would be two storey in
appearance constructed of a smooth blue finished brick and be 7.6m in height. The main entrance,
facing Rigby Street, would be full height glazed entrance and louvred panels and these with the public
realm works in front would clearly denote the main entrance to the building. The external appearance
would include powder coated detailing, doors and windows.
The applicant has explained that the layout and landscaping have been designed to create a
development that is open and inviting. As such, the trampoline hall, which is 12.4m in height would
be clad in multi coloured cladding (each measuring 1.1m X 0.4m) to help identify the proposal as a
local landmark and thereby improving its appearance and legibility within the local area.
It is considered that the contemporary appearance of the design of the building represents a high
quality design solution to the constraints of the site and is a further improvement upon the design of
the previous withdrawn scheme.
Externally, the hard and soft landscaping around the building would include separate disabled car
parking provision and a main car park, a court yard and viewing area adjacent to the playing pitches,
formal landscaped play area (adjacent to the Sure Start element). The submitted details highlight the
range of materials to be used in these areas and demonstrate that the finished scheme would result in
high quality public realm area.
The entrance area would consist of square concrete paving slabs with blue/grey banding to echo the
brick colour of the main building. This area would also include 6 trees (with landscaping to the base)
perpendicular to the main entrance. The area would also include 20 stainless steel cycle stands. A
courtyard and viewing area would be to the rear of the building adjacent to the existing pitches. This
area would be treated in similar material to that of the entrance and would include tree planting.
8
The play area is a space which has been designed to meet the needs of toddlers and includes a sensory
garden; a storyteller's area; a willow den on mound; 2 canopies; timber bridge; a water feature and
woodland.
A Crime Impact Statement (CIS) has been submitted with the application produced by Greater
Manchester Police Design for Security. Whilst the scheme has incorporated the vast majority of the
recommendations within the CIS one of the recommendations is that roller shutters be incorporated to
protect windows to offices. This recommendation has not been included, as it is considered that it
would detract from the design of the scheme. The applicant has, however, increased the specification
of glazing to improve security to the building. Notwithstanding the above the Police Architectural
Liaison Officer has been consulted in relation to the statutory process and has raised no objection to
the proposal.
In conclusion, it is considered that the design of the building and its associated hard and soft
landscaped areas would satisfy the requirements of the policies highlighted relating to the design of
public space. It is also considered that the associated elements further highlight the community
functions that the hub would provide to the local community, in accordance with the thrust of policy
EHC3.
Amenity
Policy DES7 considers that all new development would not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments. Policy EN17
states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant
increase in pollution to the air including by reason of noise will not be permitted.
The closest residential properties are situated at Stoney Knoll to the west of the site. The scheme
would maintain 40m to those properties and within this distance is a parking area associated to Stoney
Knoll, garages and Rigby Street.
The play area for the children's centre is situated to the north east of the site and would bound the end
of Vincent Street although none of the residential properties in this area would directly overlook this
space. Members will recall that a condition was previously proposed regarding hours of use of this
area, however, Urban Vision Environment consider that this condition would not be necessary in this
case given the revised location of the scheme (including the play area location) together with the
inclusion of a brick wall to continue the existing 2m high brick wall parallel to Wellington Street East,
as this would be a sufficient acoustic barrier to safeguard residential amenity. Nevertheless, Urban
Vision Environment still suggest a condition restricting the noise levels of external plant. An
appropriate condition has been suggested.
It is not considered that the application would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy and would not result in unacceptable
disturbance in terms of noise subject to conditions being attached to any consent relating to noise from
plant. The application therefore accords with policies DES7 and EN17.
9
Sustainability Credentials
PPS1 sets out the Governments agenda for delivering sustainable development. The Council has
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.
Policy DP9 of the North West RSS requires applicants and local authorities to ensure that all
developments meet minimum sustainability requirements.
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.
The applicant has indicated that the scheme would achieve a BREEAM rating of 'very good'. The
BREEAM assessment considers a range of details under a number of headings including:
Registering the site with the Considerate Constructors
Daylighting
Acoustic Performance
Reduction of CO2 emissions
Low or Zero Carbon Technologies
Minimisation of water use & waste water
Materials Specification and Responsible Sourcing of Materials
Site Waste Management
Further to the requirements of BREEAM, the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD provides a
checklist to demonstrate what actions have been taken in relation to sustainable development. The
applicants have completed the checklist and have identified that the development would deliver high
insulation standards; utilise energy efficient hardware; enable provision of public spaces within the
development; provide open spaces that offer shade and shelter; incorporate water saving devices;
include water meters; provide recycling facilities; provide a wildlife garden; and provide cycle parking
facilities. In particular the following features have been included:
SUDS / soak-away drainage to surface water run-off
An attenuated surface water outfall into mains sewers (the full details of which are to be agreed
with United Utilities)
The maximization of possible use of natural ventilation throughout the building through air
vent turrets.
The maximization of natural 'day lighting' throughout the building, plus solar shading where
applicable.
A possible 20% of energy requirements coming from a renewable source, in this case under-
floor heating fuelled initially by air source heat pumps. It is a local requirement that 10% of
energy requirements are from a renewable source. This scheme would exceed the local
requirement in this instance.
Brick, a sustainable and robust material forms the bulk of the façade. Some advantages of brick
as a sustainable material are as follows:
10
Are highly durable
Offer long term life performance
Are low maintenance
Are energy efficient
Are recyclable
Has an A+ rating as per BRE Green Guide Specification.
The applicant has also considered the use of a 'green roof' although in this case the financial
implications of the additional construction methods were found to be disproportionate when compared
to the other measures to have been included that ensure the scheme provides a BREEAM 'very good'
rating.
The site is situated within Low Flood Risk Zone 1 and does not exceed 1ha in area. The proposal
would not therefore result in an unreasonable risk of flooding and would not exacerbate existing
flooding from river, sewer and surface water drainage sources. The Environment Agency has no
objections to the scheme.
In consideration of the above, it is considered that the development would be in accordance with
policy DP9 of the adopted RSS and policy ST14 of the UDP.
Trees
Policy EN12 seeks to protect important landscaping features. Policy DES9 relates to landscaping and
considers that development will be required to incorporate hard and soft landscaping provision, where
appropriate.
An arboricultural report has been submitted with the application. It concludes that the trees on site
collectively provide limited visual amenity to the surrounding area. Species on the site include
Whitebeam, Sycamore, Birch, Cherry, Norway Maple and Alder. None of the trees are subject to a
Tree Preservation Order. The report concludes that none of the trees are considered to be of any great
merit, all being only 'early mature', and indeed two of the 14 trees on site are considered to be unsafe
and require removal.
Whilst the scheme involves the felling of all the existing trees on site due to the ground level
alterations, their quality and value are all low. Moreover, the proposal would include the provision of
70 replacement standard trees throughout the site plus an informal 'woodland' area in the play area to
compensate for their loss.
Therefore, subject to the implementation of the landscaping scheme it is considered that the scheme
would not only accord with the policy highlighted above with regard trees and landscaping but would
significantly increase the provision and distribution of trees within the area.
Highway Safety
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact
on highway safety.
11
Policy A10 of the UDP considers that development will be required to make adequate provision for
disabled drives, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards set out in
Appendix B of the UDP and should not exceed the maximum car parking standards set out in
Appendix C of the UDP.
Appendices within the development plan provide guidance on the minimum disabled provision
together with the maximum car parking for development. In this case the scheme would provide a
total of:
70 car park spaces;
7 disabled spaces (5 in a separate car park to the north);
4 minibus spaces;
4 motorcycle spaces; and
20 cycle spaces in front of the main entrance
It is considered that the provision is in accordance with the standards set out in the appendices to
policy A10.
Due to the site constraints, some disabled car parking spaces are to be provided in the main car park,
whilst a separate disabled only car park is proposed to the north off Rigby Street. The distance from
the spaces within the main car park to the front entrance of the building (as one would travel) is 93m.
It should be noted that this would involve having to travel up a ramp (to the building) which would
have a 1 in 28 gradient over a change in levels of 1m. Handrails could be provided alongside the ramp
to provide opportunity for the less ambulant to rest.
The parking spaces for disabled-persons, which have been indicated to the north of the site would
provide easier accessibility. The distance to the front entrance (as one would travel) is 46m over a
virtually level gradient. The applicant has amended the scheme to ensure that most direct route would
be within the application site.
The application site is situated in close proximity to Bury New Road, which is a major arterial road
(A56) well served by public transport. Given the maximum nature of car parking standards contained
within the UDP it is recommended that a condition be attached requiring the applicant to provide a
Green Travel Plan, in order to promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance
with Policy A1 and PPG13.
In conclusion, the proposal accords with policies A8 and A10 of the adopted UDP and no objections
are raised on highway grounds.
Value Added
It is considered that the revised location has addressed a number of objections, which were raised in
response to the previous application and that this is evident in the very low level of response following
the current application's publicity. Moreover, it is also considered that the revised scheme has resulted
in an enhanced design and focal point for this community facility.
12
Other Issues
In relation to phasing of the development the existing Sure Start facility would be demolished upon
completion of new hub building. In these circumstances the opening of the facility and the
construction of the main car park will not coincide. The applicant has informed that, subject to
planning consent, the Hub would be completed in May 2011 and the main car park works would be
completed in mid July 2011.
Therefore, the operation of the facility in the initial weeks following completion will result in a
requirement for on street car parking provision within the locality for approximately 6 weeks.
However, it is likely that the existing library car park will be used during this period. Moreover, whilst
it is accepted that the unavailability of the main car park for this limited period may cause some
disturbance it is considered that the regenerative benefits of securing this scheme outweigh those
potential limited instances of disturbance inconvenience.
Conclusions/Summary
The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the adopted Development Plan for
Salford. Outline permission has been granted on approximately on a proportion of the site and it is
considered that the proposed development is acceptable in principle. The proposal would not
unacceptably compromise the amenities of existing or future residents, or give rise to an unsatisfactory
level of traffic generation. It is also considered that the proposed development is of a high quality of
design and the design of the building has been influenced by community consultation.
Recommendation
APPROVE subject to the following conditions
1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. Within 3 months of the commencement of development full details of the type, size, species
and planting schedule of the trees shown on the external layout plan (Drawing No.
D10538/L/105 Rev A) shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning
Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance within the agreed planting
schedule. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the
planting scheme shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for all external elevations of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
13
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.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area in accordance with
policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
4. Within 2 months from the date of first occupation of the development the associated car, cycle
and motorcycle parking provision shall be completed and made available for use. Such
provision shall be retained and kept available for use thereafter
Reason: To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and servicing areas and to ensure that
the use of the land shall not give rise to hazards at the entrance/exit points in the interests of
public safety and in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
5. The lighting scheme produced by Holophane dated 14th July 2009 shall be implemented in full
prior to first use of the main park accessed from Devonshire Street unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DES
7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. 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 prior to first occupation of the development. The Verification
Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in
accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
7. 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
14
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. The Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timescales.
Reason: In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes in accordance with
policy A1 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) at any
time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DES
7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction /Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating, or equivalent, of 'very
good' unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. A post-construction
review certificate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
before any of the buildings hereby approved are first occupied, unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate
change in accordance with Policy DP9 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy for the North
West and Policy ST14 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
10. Prior to the commencement of development, and in conjunction to the measures secured by
condition 9 of this approval, a scheme for the provision of drainage shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of surface
water attenuation by way of a separate system limiting discharge to 15 l/s. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. The boundary treatments hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details
shown on drawing D10538 L 106 (Boundary Treatments & Street Furniture) and the position
shown on drawing D10538/L/105 Rev A (External Layout Plan) unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15
Notes to Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
D10538/A/200 G Ground Floor Plan
D10538/A/201 F First Floor Plan
D10538/A/202 C Roof Plan
D10538/A/122 B Elevations (East & North)
D10538/A/123 B Elevations (West & South)
D10538/A/124 A Coloured Elevations (West & south)
D10538/A/125 A Coloured Elevations (East & North)
D10538/A/210 A Sections
D10538/A/215 A Context Sections
D10538/L/103 Rev.B Site Sections of Proposals
D10538/L/104 Topographical Survey 2009
D10538/L/105 A External Layout Plan
D10538/L/106 Boundary Treatments & Street Furniture
D10538/L/108 Planning Location Plan
D10538/L/109 Typical Play Area Images
D10538_ED_300_002 Proposed external footway / carriageway works
Untitled External lighting Plan showing lux levels (prepared by Holophane)
3. The applicant is advised that some minor signing and carriageway markings for the proposed
disabled bays to be provided on street will be needed. In addition, a prescribed route sign
opposite the off street disabled car park will be required. All redundant vehicular access points
to the site will need to have footway constructed across them. Therefore, the applicant is
advised to contact the Traffic Management Team on 0161 779 4916
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the advice of United Utilities dated 30th April 2007 and
reiterated again in their letter dated 28th July 2009
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the advice of the Environment Agency dated 4th August
2009 regarding the provision of SUDS.
6. Further to the requirements of condition 8 the applicant is advised that noise measurements and
assessments shall be carried out according to BS 4142:1997 "Rating industrial noise affecting
mixed residential and industrial areas". „T‟ refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and
23.00hrs and any 5 minute period between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs
16
APPLICATION No: 09/57804/OUT
APPLICANT: Mr David Morris
LOCATION: Land To Rear Of 12 To 66, Langley Road, Pendlebury, Swinton,
MANCHESTER, ,
PROPOSAL: Development of land for residential purposes, provision of public open
space and provision of car parking spaces for existing dwellings
WARD: Irwell Riverside
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The site, which extends to 1.72 hectares, is located on the west bank of the River Irwell. The site is
generally flat but falls steeply to a public footpath that runs along the bank of the river. The site lies in
a mixed-use area and is bounded by the backs of terraced properties on Langley Road to the west,
industrial premises to the north, open land beyond which are more industrial premises to the south and
the River Irwell to the east. On the opposite side of Langley Road is the former Langley Mill. To the
rear of the residential properties fronting Langley Road is an un-surfaced service road that provides
vehicular access for car parking and the servicing of the homes. This is accessed by means of short
cul-de-sacs (Kay Street, Abram Street, Dixon Street and Regatta Street) off Langley Road, which also
afford access to the application site.
The site has previously been used for landfill and suffers from contamination. It is generally unkempt
and unsightly. There are four trees on the periphery of the site and several self seeded trees/shrubs
across the site. A footpath partially runs along the northern boundary of the site connecting Langley
Road to the riverside footpath.
Description of Proposal
The application is for outline planning permission for residential development with all matters
reserved for subsequent consideration / approval. This application is therefore considering the
principle only. An indicative site layout plan and streetscene elevation have been submitted with the
application. The illustrative layout indicates that a significant proportion of the site would be laid out
for public open space as well as car parking for the existing properties that front Langley Road.
The applicant states that a mix of one, two, three and four bedroomed properties would be provided
with a minimum of 65% of the properties being houses with three bedrooms or more. In accordance
with policy, 20% of the properties would be affordable. In terms of layout the applicant states that the
proposed houses would take advantage of their riverside location and face the river. There would be a
mix of two storey dwellings and three storey apartments. The indicative layout illustrates that access
could be provided from Abram and Dixon Street.
17
The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the application:
Design and Access Statement;
Planning Support Statement;
Flood Risk Assessment;
Transport Statement;
Phase 1 Habitat Survey;
Amphibian Survey; and
Phase II Geo-Environmental Site Investigation.
Site History
08/57352/OUT - Erection of 57 two and three storey dwellings together with associated landscaping,
car parking and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses – This application was
withdrawn in April 2009.
Publicity
Site Notice: Article 8 site notice
Reason: Major Development
Press Advert: Salford Advertiser Date Published: 9 July 2009
Reason: Article 8 Standard Press Notice
Neighbour Consultations
1 and 3 Regatta Street
2 to 66 (evens) and 70 Langley Road
Freight Masters, 68 Langley Road
Unit C, 70 Langley Road
1 Dixon Street
1 and 2 Abram Street
2 Kay Street
Hanlon Fencing, Langley Road
Nigma, Room 1, Langley Business Park, Langley Road
Room 2, Langley Business Park, Langley Road
Manchester Storage, Unit 3, Langley Business Park, Langley Road
Sloegrin, Units 4 and 5, Langley Business Park, Langley Road
Office Block, Langley Business Park, Langley Road
Pace Logistics, Units 1 and 1A, Langley Business Park, Langley Road
Unit 2, Langley Business Park, Langley Road
Representations
A total of three written representations have been received. The grounds for objection are as follows:
Objection to building houses on the site;
Concern about garage;
18
An article in the New Deal „Physical & Environment Salford Climate Change Project‟ talks
about priorities in make us less vulnerable to flood, by introducing more „green spaces‟;
Thought the site was going to become a Memorial garden, it is in effect a war grave;
Where will the rainwater go?;
Large areas of Japanese Knotweed are growing on site; and
There is a mixture of wildlife living on the site.
Consultations
Head of Engineering and Highways - No objections.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit - The Amphibian Survey data has resolved the issue of amphibians
presence/absence and no further work is required. A number of features were identified with some
limited potential to support roosting bats - large willows with rot and built features. Prior to the felling
or removal of any of these structures a bat methodology should be produced, this should be required
via a condition. The invasive species Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed are both present on the
site. A control method statement should be produced. This should be required via condition.
Clearance of remaining vegetation should occur outside the breeding season. The buffer and riverbank
should be temporarily protected from accidental spillage of spoil or stored materials during
construction. The landscaping of the buffer and riverbanks should be agreed under a condition to be
submitted when reserved matters applications are brought forward.
Urban Vision Environment - A condition is recommended requiring a site investigation.
A site visit has revealed that the former industrial unit that bounds the site to the north is now an
indoor paintball centre. If the site has permission for industrial use then there is a concern that noise
from activities within the site could cause disturbance and annoyance to potential residents in the
northern areas of the site.
There is no planning history on this unit but it is considered that as this is an allocated site any impact
on potential occupiers can be resolved satisfactorily through appropriate design and siting of dwellings
and appropriate planting and boundary treatment
.
Design For Security - No comments received to date.
United Utilities - No objection provided the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul
drainage connected into a foul sewer.
Environment Agency - No objection in principle. Conditions are required in relation to surface water
regulation, a buffer zone along the River Irwell, compensatory wetland/marshy grassland habitat,
further ecological survey and Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed.
G M Passenger Transport Executive - The site is not very well located in relation to public transport
services despite the nearby bus stops on Langley Road. These bus stops only offer access to an hourly
Monday-Saturday day time, circular bus service linking Agecroft and Lower Kersal with Irlams o'th
Height and Pendleton. There are no evening or Sunday services and the Monday-Saturday day time
service does not start until after 8.30am. The bus stops on Agecroft Road are considered to be beyond
19
reasonable walking distance (400m in this instance). These bus stops only offer access to an additional
Monday-Saturday day time, hourly service between Eccles and Prestwich with no evening or Sunday
services. Those reliant on public transport may be prepared to walk from the site to these bus stops but
overall the available bus services do not offer an attractive alternative that would encourage car users
to access the site by public transport. As a consequence of the poor public transport accessibility of
the site, future residents of this development are more likely to travel to and from the site by private
car as they will not have access to a convenient alternative. There will therefore be a need for very
effective measures developed through a residential travel plan to promote public transport, walking
and cycling to the site in order to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this
development. A condition should therefore be attached requiring the development, submission,
implementation and monitoring of a residential travel plan.
Previous developments in the area have made financial contributions to improving public transport and
there may be the potential to secure more funding from future development. It is therefore considered
reasonable to suggest, that for this development, the applicant also contributes to the funding already
secured for the improvement of public transport in the area.
Planning Policy Framework
Development Plan Policy
RSS DP1 - Spatial Principles
RSS DP2 - Promote Sustainable Communities
RSS DP4 - Best Use of Existing Resources
RSS DP5 - Manage Travel Demand
RSS DP7 - Promote Environmental Quality
RSS DP9 - Reduce Emmissions, Adapt to Climate Cha
RSS RDF1 - Spatial Priorities
RSS EM2 - Remediating Contaminated Land
RSS EM3 - Green Infrastructure
RSS EM18 - Decentralised Energy Supply
RSS MCR1 - Manchester City Region Priorities
RSS MCR2 - Regional Centre, Inner Manchester City
UDP H8 - Open Space Provision with New Housing
UDP EN9 - Wildlife Corridors
UDP EN17 - Pollution Control
UDP EN19 - Flood Risk and Surface Water
UDP A8 - Impact of Development on Highway Network
UDP A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
UDP A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Park
UDP DES1 - Respecting Context
UDP DES2 - Circulation and Movement
UDP DES3 - Design of Public Space
UDP DES6 - Waterside Development
UDP DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
UDP DES9 - Landscaping
UDP DES10 - Design and Crime
UDP DEV6 - Incremental Development
UDP MX3 - Sites for Mix of Open Space, Built Dev.
20
UDP ST1 - Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
UDP H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
UDP H4 - Affordable Housing
UDP EN22 - Resource Conservation
UDP ST5 - Transport Networks
UDP DEV5 - Planning Conditions and Obligations
Other Material Considerations
PPG PPG17 - Sport and Recreation
PPS PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS PPS3 - Housing
PPS PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
PPS PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control
SPD SPD12 - Design
SPD SPD5 - Design and Crime
SPD SPD8 - Planning Obligations
SPG SPG3 - Housing
Appraisal
The planning issues relating to this application are whether the use of the site for residential
development is acceptable within the parameters proposed.
Principle of Development
Policy DEV6 of the UDP states that on sites within or immediately adjacent to an area identified for
major development, planning permission will not be granted for incremental development that would
unacceptably hamper or reduce the development options for that wider area.
The site forms a small but substantial part of a larger 15 hectare site that is allocated for a mix of open
space, housing and community facilities. The reasoned justification to policy MX3 states that at least
9 of the 15 hectares will be redeveloped for housing at a minimum net density of 40 dwellings per
hectare. It goes on to state that any development will need to provide pedestrian access to and along
the River Irwell. This means that the maximum provision of open / recreation space would be 6
hectares, or 40% across the full MX3/2 site.
The development of the wider MX3/2 allocation around the Whit Lane area is a major priority
contained within the New Deal Framework. The New Deal team have been working with Miller
Homes on the submission of an outline planning application which covers a substantial proportion of
the Whit Lane allocation. That application has now been submitted following substantial consultation
with officers and members of the public. The application seeks „A comprehensive redevelopment
comprising demolition of existing buildings (285 dwellings), site remediation and preparation,
construction of up to 626 dwellings (537 houses and 89 apartments / flats), an extension to St
Sebastian‟s Community Centre (up to 300 square metres, a retail unit (93 square metres) (Class A1)),
public open space (3.88 hectares), access / highway infrastructure works, public realm works,
landscaping, improvements to Jubilee Bridge and associated works.‟
21
The above application site includes the area around Douglas Green and therefore focuses recreational
and community facilities within this location as advocated by the reasoned justification of policy
MX3/2 which states that „any associated community facilities provided as part of the development
should be directed towards Douglas Green to complement the existing facilities there.‟
Negotiations have been consistent with all developers wishing to bring forward development within
the MX3/2 policy area to ensure that a proportionate mix of provision is provided across the site.
Applying this proportion to this application site of 1.72 hectares would mean that at least 1.032
hectares should come forward for housing, leaving a maximum of 0.688 hectares for open space.
A condition is attached in order to secure an appropriate split of public open space (40%) and
residential (60%) as required by policy MX3. It is not considered that this proportion of residential
and open space proposed would fetter the ability of the remainder of the larger allocation to be brought
forward in accordance with the requirements of policy MX3/2, and as such, it is not considered
incremental and would therefore form part of a wider mixed use regenerative scheme on part of a
wider allocation.
Housing Mix
Housing Planning Guidance policy HOU1 states that within Central Salford, new development should
provide a broad mix of dwelling types, and apartments should only be the predominant form of
provision in the most accessible locations. The reasoned justification to policy HOU1 states that in
this location, houses should normally be the predominant building form in new residential
developments, typically accounting for around 50-60% of the units. The applicant has indicated that a
minimum of 65% of the dwellings would be in the form of houses and this proportion would be
acceptable in accordance with policy HOU1.
Policy HOU2 of Housing Planning Guidance states that the majority of new houses should have at
least three bedrooms. The applicant has indicated that this policy would be complied with and the
indicative details show that this could be achieved on site. It is therefore considered that a reserved
matters scheme could comply with policy HOU2.
Affordable Housing
Policy HOU3 of the Housing Planning Guidance requires affordable housing provision at 20% of
dwellings on schemes of over 25 dwellings. The applicant has proposed, in paragraph 3.2 of their
planning statement and on their parameters plan, that 20% of the units would be available as affordable
housing, with the type and tenure a matter for subsequent discussions with the City Council. This is
therefore in accordance with policy HOU4.
A condition securing the provision of affordable housing on site is proposed.
Design and layout
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
22
had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and
appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES6 refers to waterside development and states that, inter alia, all new development adjacent
to the River Irwell will be required to be of the highest standard of design, creating a positive addition
to the waterside environment and providing an attractive elevation to it.
The application is in outline form and so there are no details yet to consider. There is no reason to
believe that a scheme cannot be devised that would make a positive contribution to the form and
character of the area. It is considered that a satisfactory disposition and interrelationship to existing
properties and between proposed properties could be achieved. Notwithstanding the above, the City
Council‟s Urban Designer has considered the details shown within the indicative site layout and
elevations and they are unlikely to be acceptable for a number of reasons including for example, the
frontage is set back too far from the riverside, units are only accessible via a car park, and taller units
would be expected adjacent to the River Irwell. An informative to this effect would be attached to any
planning consent and a condition securing a maximum height of 3 stories is recommended.
The illustrative layout submitted by the applicant is not supported as it is considered that a layout that
provides surveillance of the riverside walkway while maintaining a suitable buffer should be delivered.
It is also considered that more significant green spaces should be provided within the area developed
for housing. An informative is attached making it clear that the Local Planning Authority does not
support the submitted illustrative layout.
Highway/Access Issues
Policy A8 of the UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on highway safety.
The details of the access would be considered as part of a reserved matters application. The site is
currently accessed off Langley Road via short cul-de-sacs: Kay Street; Abram Street; Dixon Street;
and Regatta Street. The indicative plans show access via Abram and Dixon Street.
The transport statement concludes that the proposed development site is well connected to the existing
hourly bus service on Langley Road and additional services available at Gerald Road and Cromwell
Road approximately 800 metres to the south of the site, and that accessibility levels on foot and by
bicycle are high. The level of traffic likely to be generated by the development is low and is unlikely
to have a material impact on the local highway network.
The applicant has been in correspondence with the occupier of No.1 Regatta Street in reference to the
provision of a garage. The resident currently benefits from a garage on the application site and the
applicants have confirmed that they are happy for a condition to be placed on the consent that a new
garage be constructed for the occupiers of No.1 Regatta Street as part of the development. The design
and location of the garage would need to be agreed as part of the detailed reserved matters application.
This issue is a private matter between the landowner and the occupier of No.1 Regatta Street and
whilst the offer of a condition is noted, this is not considered to be necessary in planning terms.
With regard to the issues raised by the GMPTE in terms of the possibility of a financial contribution it
is considered that as the site is allocated for residential development as part of a much larger allocation
23
that will link this site with the residential areas to the south, and that as an hourly bus service does
exist there are significant differences between this site and sites elsewhere in the area, such as the
Agecroft Riverside site (06/53550/OUT) and the Wain Homes site at Lynwood on Langley Road
(08/56652/FUL), where contributions towards public transport have been secured in principle. It is
considered that these differences are such that it should not be a requirement for additional financial
contributions over and above the significant contributions that the developer is already making.
Both footpaths that bound the site are unaffected by the application and appropriate boundary
treatments would be secured at reserved matters stage.
It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with policy A8 of the UDP.
Ecology
The stretch of the River Irwell adjacent to the application site is designated as a Wildlife Corridor
within the adopted UDP and policy EN9 is therefore of relevance. This states that development that
would affect any land that functions as a wildlife corridor will not be permitted where it would
unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna.
A Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Amphibian Survey have been submitted in support of the application.
The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have confirmed that subject to a number of conditions which
would be attached to any planning consent, there are no further ecological issues to be resolved. The
proposal is therefore considered to accord with policy EN9 of the UDP.
The Environment Agency has requested that an area of compensatory grassy marshland/wetland be
replaced in any new development. It is considered that while there are no objections to the loss of the
existing such area on the site, government policy in Planning Policy Statement 9 states that where
proposed development would cause significant adverse impacts on biodiversity interests, which cannot
be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensatory measures should be sought.
The Environment Agency considers that the opportunity exists as part of the development to provide
compensatory wetland habitat and integrate with the surface water strategy for the development by
creating new attenuation wetlands, as recommended by the flood risk consultants.
The Environment Agency has also requested a further ecological survey as the submitted survey was
undertaken at a sub-optimal time of year (December 2008) and as Planning Policy Statement 9
requires planning decisions to be based on up to date information about the environmental
characteristics of the area, a further survey is required.
A 20m buffer strip is required as land alongside the River Irwell is particularly valuable for wildlife
and it is considered essential that this is protected. Article 10 of the Habitats Directive also stresses the
importance of natural networks of linked corridors to allow movement of species between suitable
habitats, and promote the expansion of biodiversity. Such networks may also help wildlife adapt to
climate change.
Trees
The site contains a number of both mature poplar trees and smaller self - seeded trees/shrubs. The
Council's arboricultural consultant considers that there are four trees within the site, three poplars on
24
the southern boundary and a hawthorn on the western boundary behind houses on Langley Road, that
are worthy of retention and an appropriate condition is attached.
Contamination
Planning Policy Statement 23 relates to planning and pollution control. Section 2.55 of PPS23 states
that „extreme caution should be taken in the granting of outline planning permissions unless the LPA is
satisfied that it has sufficient information from the applicant about the condition of the land, its
remediation and the full range of environmental impacts arising from the proposals to be able to grant
permission in full at a later stage.‟
In addition section 2.55 of PPS23 states that „outline permission should not be granted until the LPA is
satisfied that it understands the contaminated condition of the site and that the proposed development
is appropriate as a means of remediating it.‟
The phase I report identified that the proposed development is located on a former landfill site. An
additional site investigation has been undertaken in order to provide sufficient information regarding
the risk from contamination at the site. Further site investigation and risk assessment is required at the
site in order to formulate a detailed remediation strategy and a full site investigation condition is
therefore recommended.
Developer Contribution
The proposal would trigger the requirement for a contribution towards open space in the locality,
improvements to the city‟s public realm, heritage and infrastructure, the training of local residents in
construction skills and the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with Policies H8,
ST3, ST5, ST14, DES3, R2 and DEV5 of the UDP and Supplementary Planning Document (Planning
Obligations). This is calculated on the basis of £598 per bedspace for open space provision for houses,
£658 per bedspace for open space provision for apartments with 2 bedrooms or less, £1,500 per
dwelling for public realm, infrastructure and heritage, £150 per dwelling for construction training and
£200 per dwelling for climate change. A bed space is defined as the number of bedrooms in a
dwelling plus one.
On the basis of the indicative plans submitted this would equate to 142 bedspaces at £598 per bedspace
(£84,916), 58 bedspaces at £658 per bedspace (£38,164), a total of £123,080 for open space provision,
£85,500 for public realm, infrastructure and heritage, £8,550 for construction training, and £11,400 for
climate change resulting in a total contribution of £228,530 plus a further charge of 2.5% to cover
administrative costs. These figures are only indicative as the final contributions will depend upon the
density and mix of housing on the site.
The applicant has confirmed that they agree to the contributions as outlined above.
Issues Raised by Neighbours
The site is allocated in part for residential development and so it is not considered reasonable to object
to houses being built on the site or to request that more than 40% of the site be set aside for open
space.
25
The issue of provision of a garage for one of the residents has been addressed above.
No records can be found of any proposed memorial garden on the site and the site is not on the list of
war graves held by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
Rainwater would drain into drains or into the ground.
A condition is attached with regard to Japanese Knotweed.
The Greater Manchester ecologist has been consulted and their response is detailed above
Conclusions/Summary
The principle of development is acceptable and the indicative details submitted satisfactorily
demonstrate that the site could accommodate an appropriate density of residential development. The
proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies contained within the adopted Unitary Development
Plan and there are no material planning considerations that would justify a refusal of consent.
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 improved local open
space/play equipment improvements to the public realm, schemes to offset climate change
and construction training schemes and affordable housing. (Delete as appropriate)
1. Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made not later than the expiration of three
years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later
than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case
of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a) access;
b) appearance;
c) landscaping;
d) layout;
e) layout.
26
Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
applicant for subsequent approval.
3. 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
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
A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority prior to first occupation of the development. The Verification Report shall validate
that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the LPA.
Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, an assessment of the noise likely to affect the
application site and measures to mitigate such effects shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment methodology to be used, including
measurement positions, shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of noise measurements being taken.
The use of ventilation measures which obviate the need for future residents to open windows
for cooling and rapid ventilation shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment
report.
The approved mitigation measures shall be installed prior to first occupation of the site. Prior to
first occupation of the site a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Report shall validate that all works undertaken
on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. No development shall begin until a scheme detailing how the development will contribute to
the improvement of construction skills amongst the local labour force is submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to commencement of development unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason - To ensure that the development makes an appropriate contribution to the training of
local residents and that an adequate supply of construction labour is available to help deliver
27
the scale of development and regeneration being planned for the City of Salford in the interests
of social inclusion, environmental sustainability and the promotion of sustainable urban
neighbourhoods. This is in accordance with Policies ST1, ST3 and DEV5 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy OB3 of the Council's Planning
Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
6. No development shall begin until a scheme for the provision of formal and informal open space
and its maintenance over a twenty year period, in accordance with the standards set out in
Policies H8 and R2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016, is submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to first occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason - To ensure that adequate and appropriate provision for formal and informal open space
and its maintenance over a twenty year period is made. This is in accordance with the
standards set out in Policies H1, H8, R2, ST1 and DEV5 of the Unitary Development Plan for
the City of Salford 2004-2016 and Policy OB1 of the Council's Planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Document.
7. The development hereby approved shall achieve a 'very good' or 'excellent' Building Research
Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating or equivalent, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Where this is achieved, a post-construction certificate confirming such an outcome shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any of the
buildings hereby approved are first occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority.
Where this is not achieved, a scheme to offset the development's impact on the global
environment, in accordance with the standards set out in Policy OB4 of the Council's Planning
Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first
occupied. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate
change in accordance with Policy DP9 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy for the North
West and Policy ST14 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. No development shall begin until details of a scheme for the provision of public realm, heritage
enhancements and/or community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development in
accordance with Policies ST1 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2004-2016 and the standards set out in Policy OB2 of the Council's Planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Document has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
28
Reason - To ensure adequate provision is made for public realm, heritage enhancements and/or
community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development pursuant to Policies ST1 and
DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy OB2 of the
Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
9. 20% of the residential units to be built as part of the development shall be built as affordable
units. The affordable units shall be intermediate shared equity units and disposed of to a
Registered Social Landlord (RSL) prior to the completion of 75% of the dwellings on the site.
The affordable unit element of the scheme will be implemented in accordance with this
Condition unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In accordance with policy H4 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
10. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed method statement for the removal or
long-term management/eradication of Japanese knotweed and Giant hogweed on the site shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The method
statement shall include proposed measures to prevent the spread of knotweed and Giant
hogweed during any operations such as mowing, strimming or soil movement. It shall also
contain measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free from seeds/root/stem of
any invasive plant covered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Development shall
proceed in accordance with the approved method statement.
To ensure that the development would not affect the function of the wildlife corridor in
accordance with policy EN9 of the UDP.
11. There shall be no clearance of vegetation during the main bird breeding season (March to July
inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent.
To ensure that the development would not affect the function of the wildlife corridor in
accordance with policy EN9 of the UDP.
12. Prior to the felling of trees on site or demolition of any buildings on site or commencement of
development a bat survey shall be undertaken to assess the location of possible bats
roosts/foraging potential of trees within the site. If roosts/foraging potential is identified, a
method statement detailing the measures to be taken to mitigate against any disturbance to bats
(including the provision of bat boxes) and the timescales involved in such mitigation should be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method
statement shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved timetable.
To ensure that the development would not affect the function of the wildlife corridor in
accordance with policy EN9 of the UDP.
13. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of: a buffer to the riverbank and protective fencing; permitted hours for construction
works; delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment; provision and use of on-
site parking contractors‟ and workpeoples vehicles; wheelwashing; and street sweeping; and no
29
development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in
contravention of such site operating statement.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
14. The development shall comprise 40% open space and 60% housing. The housing element shall
achieve a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare and the buildings shall have a
maximum height of 3 stories, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with policies DES1, DES6 and MX3/2
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15. No development shall commence until a residential travel plan has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. Such travel plan shall include details of
future implementation and monitoring.
Reason: To ensure the site is accessible by a range of modes of transport and to promote public
transport, walking and cycling to the site in order to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise
generated in accordance with policy ST1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
16. The development of the site shall accord with the details of the Parameters Plan (drawing
number 1497/PP/1) revision A unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
To ensure an appropriate form of development in accordance with policies DES1, DES6 and
MX3/2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
17. No development shall commence until a scheme of surface water regulation has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall identify any
existing drainage systems and connections and be fully implemented and subsequently
maintained in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme,
or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of and disposal of surface
water from the site.
18. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision and management of a
buffer zone alongside the River Irwell wildlife corridor, which shall be a minimum of 20m
from the existing riparian footpath, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Development that encroaches on the River Irwell and existing greenspace has a
potentially severe impact on their ecological value. This is contrary to government policy in
PPS1 and PPS9, to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and to policy EN9 of the City of Salford
30
Unitary Development Plan. Land alongside the River Irwell is particularly valuable for
wildlife and it is essential that this is protected.
19. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of
compensatory wetland/marshy grassland habitat has been submitted to and agreed in writing by
the Local planning Authority and implemented as approved. Thereafter the development shall
be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: Existing marshy grassland/wetland will be lost as a result of this development and
should be replaced in accordance with government policy in PPS9 and policy EN9 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
20. Prior to the commencement of development a further detailed ecological survey shall be
undertaken and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local planning authority.. Where
protected species or their habitats are found to be present a mitigation report shall be prepared
and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No development or site clearance shall take
place until the Local Planning Authority has agreed the mitigation measures in writing, and
these measures shall then be implemented in accordance with that agreement.
Reason: To protect the interests of any protected species that may be present on site in
accordance with policy EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and meet the
requirements of Planning Policy Statement 9.
Notes to Applicant
1. The indicative details shown within the submitted illustrative site layout plan and frontage
elevation is not acceptable. It is recommended that pre-application advice be sought prior to
the submission of any reserved matters application.
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 LPA.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
31
APPLICATION No: 09/57902/HH
APPLICANT: Mr D Klein
LOCATION: 48 Upper Park Road, Salford, M7 4JA,
PROPOSAL: Erection of front porch, second floor rear extension and alterations to
the roof from hipped to gable (Re-Sub of 09/57659/HH)
WARD: Kersal
Members will recall that this application was deferred at the Panel meeting of the 17th September 2009
in order for a site visit to take place, and for legal advice to be taken on matters surrounding Human
Rights provisions in response to a legal opinion produced by the applicant.
Additional Observations
Since writing this report, advice has been sought from Counsel (John Barrett) following the Counsel
advice (D E Manley QC) provided by the applicants at panel on 17th September 2009, in relation to
the human rights of the applicant expressed within the Human Rights Act 1998.
In addition to this the applicants have provided amended plans reducing the size of the proposed
second floor rear extension. The amended plans indicate that the proposed second floor rear extension
would be sited approximately 0.8m below the ridgeline of the existing dwelling and would be set in
approximately 1.5m from the side gables of the dwelling. It would be approximately 9.8m in width (a
reduction of approximately 2.8m) and would be approximately 2.6m in height at its highest point.
Our Counsel advice considers that in determining planning applications the Council should consider
the extent to which the proposed development is compliant with the Statutory Development Plan.
Following this it is then necessary to consider whether there are any other material considerations,
which could outweigh any conflict with the Development Plan. Other material considerations in this
case consist of the personal circumstances of the applicant (and the restrictions that refusal of planning
permission would place on him and his family's rights under Article 8 and 9 of the Convention for the
protection of Human Rights) and 'fallback position'.
Human Rights
Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
32
As part of the planning application the applicants provided details of their personal circumstances. Our
Counsel advice confirms that these personal circumstances were considered in the planning appraisal
and the human rights identified as being relevant were encompassed in the analysis of these personal
circumstances.
It goes on to say that the consideration of personal circumstances and Articles 8 and 9 would not
inevitably lead to the grant of planning permission and that the weight to be given to such
considerations is a matter for the Panel in their capacity as decision makers.
The personal circumstances of the applicant, along with Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights were taken into account and it is considered that they do not in
themselves, outweigh the harm, which would be caused by the proposal. Although the personal
circumstances of the applicants do not justify the approval of this application in themselves, however,
they can carry very limited weight that can be weighed in the balance in coming to a recommendation.
Fallback
In relation to the fallback position, a large proportion of the proposed works could be undertaken
without the need for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008. The proposed hip to gable enlargements
can be built as permitted development, as could approximately 4m in width of the proposed second
floor rear extension. This is also a material consideration that should be afforded significant weight.
Conclusion
Our Counsel advice concludes that the human rights considerations do not in themselves require the
Council to approve the application but are just one of several material considerations which the
Council are obliged to have regard to in the determination of this planning application. It goes on to
say that it is perfectly open for the Council to regard the design and street scene factors to outweigh the
case of the applicants for planning permission.
However, given the significant reduction in the size of the second floor rear extension, and given that
the fallback position would allow a significant amount of the proposed development to be built as
permitted development, it is considered that the harm caused by the remainder of the works would be
minimal. Because the harm would be minimal and because some weight, albeit very limited, can be
afforded to the personal circumstances of the applicant it is considered, on balance, that the application
should be approved based on the amended plans provided.
ORIGINAL REPORT TO PANEL
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
This application relates to a detached dwelling on Upper Park Road, Salford. To the side of the
property is Pearl Avenue and the rear of the site backs onto the side/front garden of 1 Pearl Avenue.
Boundary treatment to the rear consists of a 1.7m high fence. Along the common boundary with the
adjacent property, 48 Upper Park Road, is 2m high fencing and along the side boundary adjacent Pearl
Avenue is fencing between 1.8m and 2m in height and bushes. The rear garden of the application site
is at a slightly higher level than the dwelling with a couple of steps providing access. The property has
33
an existing single storey rear element adjacent the boundary 50 Upper Park Road and also has an
existing single storey rear extension to the opposite side of the rear elevation adjacent the boundary
with Pearl Avenue.
Description of Proposal
Permission is sought for the erection of a front porch, second floor rear extension and alterations to
roof front hipped to gable.
The proposed porch would be sited at the front of the existing two-storey element to the front. It would
be set in approximately 6.7m from the common boundary with 50 Upper Park Road and would project
a further 0.675m beyond the existing two storey front element. It would be 3.59m in width and 3.15m
in height with a flat roof.
The proposed second floor rear extension would be sited in the roof space of the existing dwelling. It
would be sited approximately 0.8m below the ridgeline of the existing dwelling and would extend a
maximum of 2.8m beyond the roof plane. It would be set in approximately 0.5m from the side of a
proposed new gabled roof. It would be set back approximately 0.2m from the eaves of the main
dwelling and would be approximately 2.7m in height with a flat roof. Internally this element would
accommodate two bedrooms, a bathroom, storeroom and en suite.
The proposed alterations to the roof from hips to gables would not increase the height or width of the
existing dwelling and would square off both sides of the existing hipped roof to form a pitched roof.
The hip to gable alteration is permitted under part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008.
In addition to this approximately one third of the proposed second floor rear extension could also be
built under class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
(Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008.
It is also proposed to extend the existing single storey rear element (which accommodates a succah) by
approximately 0.44m. This is permitted development under part 1, Class A of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008 and as such
will not be considered as part of this application.
Site History
09/57659/HH - Erection of a front porch, second floor rear extension together with alterations to the
roof from hipped to a gable. Refused 17/06/2009 for the following reasons:
"By reason of their size, siting, design and appearance the proposed second floor rear extension and
alterations to the roof from hipped to gables would result in an incongruous feature in the street scene
and would not respect the character of the existing dwelling contrary to policies DES1 and DES8 of
the Unitary Development Plan."
The current application is the same as the previously refused application however the agent has
indicated on the plans the elements which could be built under permitted development. In addition the
34
applicants have also submitted a supporting letter outlining their personal circumstances and the need
for the proposed development.
Publicity
Site Notice: Not Applicable
Press Advert: Not Applicable
Neighbour Consultations
46 and 50 Upper Park Road
1, 2, 3 and 4 Pearl Avenue
Flats 1, 2, 3 and 4, Radnor House, 25 Upper Park Road
5 and 6 Montpellier Mews, Waterpark Road
Representations
Four letters of support have been received from the occupiers of 1, 2, 3 and 4 Pearl Avenue.
One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of 50 Upper Park Road. The letter raises
the following concerns:
- Work has started even though the first application was refused
- loss of light/shadowing
- loss of privacy/overlooking
As detailed above some of the proposed works are permitted development and as such work on these
elements can be undertaken as planning permission is not required.
The other issues raised will be considered as part of the appraisal of the proposal below.
Consultations
- No comments received to date.
Planning Policy Framework
Development Plan Policy
UDP DES1 - Respecting Context
UDP DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
UDP DES8 - Alterations and Extensions
UDP A8 - Impact of Development on Highway Network
Other Material Considerations
SPD SPD1 - House Extensions
35
6. Appraisal
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed development on
highway safety; 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 House Extensions Supplementary Planning Documents.
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 local identity and
distinctiveness.
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 noted that the proposed development is identical in terms of design, scale, and massing, to the
scheme previously refused in June 2009 (09/57659/HH). However, since this previous refusal the
applicant and officers have agreed the extent of works which could be constructed under permitted
development, which the applicant reports as a fall back position.
The proposed alterations to the main roof and proposed front porch would be visible from the street.
The proposed second floor extension would also be visible from Pearl Avenue which runs adjacent to
the side of the application site and from a number of points along Upper Park Road. The proposed
front porch would be set back behind the front garden and boundary treatment and is considered to be
of appropriate scale in relation to the site.
The site occupies a prominent corner plot in the street and as such the proposed alterations to the roof
and second floor rear extension would be a highly visible feature in the street scene.
The front elevation of the property is of a design unlike any other properties in the row. The majority
of the front elevation is single storey with a number of additional rooms provided in the large roof
space. Two small dormer extensions are also present in the front elevation.
The proposed hip to gable alterations are considered to be significant in scale and it is considered they
would result in a mass of roof which would be bland and lack character. However these elements could
be built under permitted development and given this they are acceptable.
The proposed second floor rear extension would be set approximately 0.8m below the ridgeline of the
main dwelling and would incorporate a flat roof. Although a small section, approximately one third of
the proposed second floor rear extension could be built under permitted development the majority,
approximately two thirds requires planning permission. The flat roof of the proposed second floor rear
extension is considered to be out of character with the existing property and does not respect the
general scale, character or design of the dwelling.
36
Given the unique design of the existing dwelling is considered that the proposed second floor rear
extension would significantly harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and would be
an incongruous feature in the street scene. It is accepted that the change from a hipped roof to gable
end is permitted development, as too is approximately one third of the second floor dormer extension.
This could be constructed by the applicant without planning permission, however this would not
include the proposed development in its entirety, which would need to be constructed as a single
building operation. It is not considered that this fall back position would outweigh the harm in design
and streetscene terms identified. It is therefore considered that the design of the development would
not be in keeping with the existing and surrounding area and would be an incongruous feature in this
setting contrary to DES1 and DES8.
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 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 HE3 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a
two-storey or first floor extension that does not maintain a minimum of 13m between its blank gable
end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings.
The same distance applies for proposed extensions that face a two storey blank gable end wall.
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 principles of this policy can also be applied
to the proposed front extension.
The proposed second floor rear extension would introduce habitable room windows in its rear
elevation. A distance of approximately 13m would be maintained to the rear boundary with the nearest
facing properties to the rear being approximately 23.5m away. It would not project beyond the existing
rear elevation of the application property, nor would in project beyond the main rear elevation of 50
Upper Park Road.
The side elevations of the proposed second floor rear extension and front porch would introduce no
windows and there are no habitable room windows in the side elevation of 50 Upper Park Road. 50
Upper Park Road does have a morning room window in its side elevation at ground floor level
however this is considered to be a non habitable room as the property has a large dining room to the
rear and a lounge to the front which are considered to be the principal habitable rooms.
To the other side of the application site is the road and beyond this is the side elevation of 46 Upper
Park Road. There are no habitable room windows in the side elevation of no. 46 and a distance of
37
approximately 15m would be maintained from the proposed second floor rear extension and hip to
gable alteration.
The proposed front porch would not project beyond a 45 degree line taken from a point 3m along the
common boundary from the front elevation of 50 Upper Park Road.
The hip to gable alteration would not increase the height or the width of the existing dwelling and the
second floor rear extension would be sited below the ridgeline of the existing dwelling. As such it is
not considered that the proposal would result in a significant reduction in the amount of light received
by the surrounding dwellings and their gardens than the current situation.
As such it is considered that the proposed extension would not result in an unacceptable detrimental
impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with policies HE1, HE3, HE5 and
DES7.
Highway Safety
UDP Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety.
Policy HE11 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for
extensions that do not maintain a hard standing of 4.8m in length and 2.4m in width to accommodate at
least one car clear of the highway unless there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety
and the free flow of traffic. Where possible the width should be 3.6m.
The proposed development would maintain a hard standing of approximately 10m in length by 7m in
width. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on
highway safety, in accordance with Policies A8 and HE11.
Other Issues
Paragraph 14.1 of the House extensions SPD states that 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.
The applicants have submitted a supporting letter outlining their personal circumstances and the need
for the proposed extensions. In addition to this the agent has indicated on the plans which elements
could be built as permitted development. This equates to only approximately one third of the proposed
second floor rear extension and the hip to gable alterations. The majority of the second floor rear
extension therefore requires planning permission.
The existing property currently provides four bedrooms, an en suite, a bathroom and a WC. The
proposed second floor rear extension would introduce two new sizable bedrooms (4.3m by 5.2m and
4.3m by 3.2m) as well as an additional bathroom, an en suite and a small storage room.
38
The supporting letter states that the main reason for the loft conversion is due to the lack of reasonable
bedroom space at present and future requirements of the family. Currently living at the dwelling are
the applicants and their three children as well as Mrs Klein's parents. The applicants are also
expanding their family with twins due in December. Following this they will be employing a full time
nanny who will also reside at the property and are keen to add further to their family. In addition the
letter also states that Mr Klein's parents who live in London are frequent visitors and additional space
is required so that they can also be accommodated.
The personal circumstances of the applicants have been considered, however it is considered that this
is not sufficient justification for the provision of such a large master bedroom, an additional bedroom,
bathroom and an en suite. The latter of which is not considered to be essential facilities. Given this it is
considered that the proposed second floor rear extension could be significantly reduced in size and still
accommodate two sizable bedrooms and a bathroom.
In conclusion it is considered that the needs of the applicant do not outweigh the impact of the
proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.
Conclusions/Summary
It is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on highway
safety or the amenity of neighbours and future occupiers. However it is considered that the proposed
second floor rear extension would be an incongruous feature in the street scene and would not respect
the character and appearance of the existing dwelling contrary to DES1 and DES8 of the UDP.
Recommendation
APPROVE subject to the following conditions
1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy
DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
39
Notes to 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 drawing number 330/004 REV C and 330/006 REV C.
40
APPLICATION No: 09/57654/CLUD
APPLICANT: Mr Robert Purvis
LOCATION: Creamline Dairies, Weymouth Road, Eccles, M30 8WL,
PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate in relation to condition
4 (operating hours) and condition 6 (milk processing) of planning
application 96/35092/FUL
WARD: Winton
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The site to which the application relates stands at the end of Weymouth Road in Eccles and is occupied
by Creamline Dairies. The application site is formed from two separate parcels of land, which to the
north and south of Weymouth Road. To the end of the road, there are a number of light industrial units,
however along the majority of the length of Weymouth Road from its access with Gee Lane are semi
detached dwellings.
The site currently accommodates the offices and ancillary refrigeration space associated with the
working of the dairy. The buildings, which are on site, have been retained to allow the relocation of the
retail delivery arm of the business back onto the site should this application fail to gain planning
permission.
The site is bounded to the north by the M602 motorway.
Description of Proposal
The application
The application before members for consideration is for a Certificate of Lawfulness with respect to the
hours of servicing and processing within the site,
As can be seen from the planning history section below, and as Members will recall, there has been a
number of planning permissions on the site in recent years, the most recent of which was granted by
the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the 22nd January 2009 (Ref 08/55964/FUL).
This permission has not been implemented and thus does not form part of Members consideration for
this application.
The permission, which is relevant to this application, is that which was granted in 1996 (ref
96/35092/FUL). Planning permission 35092 was granted subject to a number of conditions. The
applicant submits in this case that the site has operated in breach of 2 no. conditions, which
underpinned this permission for a continuous 10-year period and has thus established that the
continued breach of those conditions is lawful.
The above sets out the matters on which the applicant seeks the issue of a certificate of lawfulness and
the evidence submitted in this regard is detailed and considered in the appraisal section of this report.
41
However, it is critically important for Members to note what matters can be taken into account in
forming a view on a Certificate of Lawfulness application.
What is a certificate of lawfulness and what matters can be taken into account.
A certificate of lawfulness is a certificate, granted under section 191 Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (“TCPA”), that establishes that a use, operational development or breach of condition is lawful.
A breach of condition is lawful where the breach of condition has become immune from enforcement
action. A breach of condition will become immune from enforcement where
(i) the breach does not constitute a breach of an enforcement notice then in force (Members should
note that no enforcement notice has been issued in the present case), and
(ii) the breach of condition has been continuous for 10 years, and
(iii) the breach of condition continues to the date of the application.
When dealing with a certificate of lawful use or development members cannot take into account the
planning merits of a case. A decision on such a matter must be taken as a matter of law, on the basis of
information available at the time of decision.
When reaching their decision, Members should have regard to paragraph 8.15 of Circular 10/97 (“the
Circular”).
In summary, that paragraph states that the burden of proof is on the Applicant to show, on the balance
of probabilities, that the breach of planning control is immune from enforcement. Therefore, the
Applicant must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the breach of condition has been continuous
for 10 years, and that the breach continues at the date of the application.
Circular 10/97 goes on to say that 'If the Local Planning Authority have no evidence of their own, or
from others, to contradict or otherwise make the appellant's version of events less than probable, there
is no good reason to refuse the application, provided (emphasis added) the applicant's evidence alone is
sufficiently precise and unambiguous (emphasis added) to justify the grant of a certificate "on the
balance of probability".'
The Circular also confirms that neither the identity of the Applicant (except to the extent that he or she
may or may not be able personally to confirm the accuracy of any claim being made about the history
of a parcel of land), nor the planning merits of the activity being carried on, are relevant to the
consideration of the purely legal issues which are involved in determining an application.
Thus, from the above is clear in that there are 2 no. matters to consider:-
1. Is the evidence submitted by the applicants sufficiently precise and unambiguous to
demonstrate on the balance of probability that the breach has occurred continuously for at least a 10-
year period and continues to the date of the application?
2. Is there evidence available to the Council that contradicts the Applicant‟s version of events or
otherwise make the appellant‟s version of events less than probable such that the Applicant has not
demonstrated, on the balance of probability, that the breaches of condition are lawful?
42
In this particular case the applicant is alleging that they have operated in breach of conditions 4 and 6
of planning permission 96/35092/FUL. The conditions in question are set out below: -
Condition 4:
The processing of milk shall only take place between the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and
9am to 6pm on Saturdays Sundays and Bank Holidays.
The applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have operated in breach of the above conditions such
that a Certificate is granted to allow the following additional hours:
(i) 6am – 7am Mondays to Fridays
(ii) 6am – 9am Saturdays and Bank holidays (excluding Christmas day, Boxing day and New Years
day)
(iii) 6pm – 7pm Saturdays and Bank holidays (excluding Christmas day, Boxing day and New Years
day)
(for the avoidance of doubt the applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have operated in terms of
processing 1 hour before the times in the condition Monday to Friday, and 3 hours before and 1 hour
after the times in the condition on Saturdays and Bank Holidays excluding Christmas day, Boxing day
and New years day).
Condition 6:
Deliveries of raw milk and bulk dispatch of bottled milk shall only occur between the hours of 7.30am
to 7pm on any day.
The applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have operated in breach of the above conditions such
that a Certificate is granted to allow the following additional hours:
(i) 7am – 7.30am
(for the avoidance of doubt the applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have operated in terms of
deliveries for 30 minutes before the times stated in the condition for each day of the week)
Appeal against non-determination
As detailed above planning permission 08/55964/FUL, which was granted by Members in January
2009 has not been implemented. It is noted that an appeal to remove condition 10 which related to
hours of deliveries was submitted. This appeal has subsequently been withdrawn with the applicants
electing to pursue the Certificate of Lawfulness, on which the planning merits of the case (in terms of
whether the developments will cause harm to amenity) cannot be taken into account.
The Certificate of Lawfulness application before members for a view today was initially submitted on
15th April 2009 although the application was not validated until 25th June 2009. The applicant has
now submitted an appeal against non-determination against the Council for its failure to determine the
current application. Consequently a decision on the application will be made by the Planning
Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, with the Local Planning Authority being unable to
make a decision. Notwithstanding this in order to progress the appeal this application is presented to
43
Members to establish what the Panel, on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, would be minded to
resolve on the basis of the evidence available at the current time.
Site History
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of two buildings to house milk filling,
processing & distribution together with new vehicular access & associated car parking and traffic
calming measures (96/35092/FUL) This application was approved with conditions.
This application sought to rationalise the northern parcel of land to create a total of 57 car parking
spaces, 35 of which would for milk floats and the remainder of which were for staff parking. The main
office, workshop and large refrigeration unit were to be retained and continue to be utilised. One
storage building was demolished. The existing access was improved and gated under this application.
The majority of the works under this application took place on the southern parcel of land belonging to
the dairy. These works included the erection of a milk filling, processing and distribution plant where
raw milk would arrive in tankers, be processed and then be distributed as bottled milk. The building is
L-shaped and sited against the entire eastern, southern and part western boundaries of the site. The part
of the building on the southern boundary houses a production compressor, boiler plant, two raw milk
silos, water silo, tanker reception area, milk processing area and bottling hall. Offices and a finished
milk gallery also formed part of this application. The easterly edge of the site houses a large fridge
with associated compressor room and a produce store.
Following this grant of planning permission a further application was received in 2000
(00/40581/FUL) for the erection of a single storey extension to the existing offices on the southern
parcel of land. This application was approved and implemented.
Later in 2000 another application was received for the siting of two linked portable office buildings
(00/41314/FUL). This was permitted with no restriction on operations/deliveries.
In 2008 an application was received by the City Council, for the erection of two light industrial units
and a tunnel under Weymouth Road, linking the two parts of the site. The application was
subsequently amended omitting the tunnel and one of the units. The proposal involved the demolition
of the industrial unit to the western part of the northern parcel of land and the erection of a
refrigeration unit to store milk once it has been processed. The building was designed to allow tankers
to reverse up to and be loaded directly from five large loading bays.
This application was approved with a condition relating to operations on site which stated:
Except for access, the operation of the site, including loading and unloading shall only take place
between the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 6pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank
Holidays.
Members may recall that the reason for attaching this condition was due to neighbours experiencing
disturbance from lorries and their refrigeration units whilst waiting on Weymouth Road for the site to
open. This condition was designed to allow entry to the site to remove lorries from the highway but to
still restrict processing and loading/unloading. It was considered that this would reduce the impact
upon residents in terms of noise disturbance.
44
This application was approved by members on the 22nd January 2009, but has to date, has never been
implemented.
There are a number of other applications, which relate to this site, namely:
E13261 – Erection of building to house electricity terminal (Approved December 1981)
E18274 – Erection of building for use as a milk store (Approved March 1985)
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
Complaint: Possible breach of condition in relation to hours of operation.
Reference: 03/00147/BRCOND
Date: May 2003
Outcome: No action was taken although it was unclear whether a breach of planning control had
occurred
Complaint: Possible breach of condition in relation to hours of operation and/or cars parking on
highway
Reference: 03/00324/BRCOND
Date: September 2003
Outcome: No action was taken although it was unclear whether a breach of planning control had
occurred
Complaint: Conveyor belt overhanging the highway, outside of boundary.
Reference: 03/00361/DEVWPP
Date: September 2003
Outcome: Site visit confirmed the conveyor belt was within the curtilage and not overhanging the
highway. No action taken.
Neighbour Consultations
Residents were not notified of the application at the time of submission as it is not the Local Planning
Authorities normal procedure to advertise on such application as planning merits cannot be taken into
consideration with a decision being made with regard to matters of fact on the basis of evidence
available. Notwithstanding this, as this application is the subject of an appeal against non-
determination the Local Planning Authority have informed residents in writing of the proposal and
stated that all responses should be made in writing to the Planning Inspectorate by the 15th October
2009. At the time of writing the Planning Inspectorate have confirmed that no correspondence from
neighbouring residents has been submitted.
Appraisal
In support of the application, the applicant has provided evidence in the form of three sworn
declarations from existing employees who have worked at the company for over ten years. That
evidence is from a Mr A Coxon, the Production Manager (Statement A), and Mr R Purvis the Joint
Managing Director (Statement B). Mr D J Salter the Transport Manager (Statement C). It is noted that
Mr Coxon throughout the life span of the application has submitted an additional statement which
largely reflects the original but is subject to a change of language and which deletes a sentence in
relation to deliveries.
45
Having taken legal advice members are advised that as sworn statutory declarations significant weight
must be attached to them. The original declaration of Mr Coxon can also be given significant weight in
coming to a view, notwithstanding that a second declaration has been submitted. To date there is no
contrary first hand evidence from residents or third parties available. It is noted that within previous
applications and specifically in 2003 as part of enforcement complaints that disturbance has been
caused by vehicles coming and going to the site early in the morning. However, the times at which
such disturbance was caused is not detailed within history files and consequently it does not help
establish one way or the other whether a breach has occurred, or over what period any such breach has
occurred. Early morning, for example, could be 7.30am, in terms of a delivery or processing, which is
thus not a breach of the conditions in question.
Notwithstanding the lack of contrary evidence from third parties which is one element that the Local
Planning Authority must consider members must still be satisfied that the evidence which is available
i.e. the three sworn statements from staff of Creamline Dairies is sufficiently precise and unambiguous
to demonstrate on the balance of probability that the breach has occurred continuously for at least a 10
year period and continues to the date of the application. In this regard the report will hereby set out the
submitted evidence with respect to each of the conditions, and identifies areas of concern with respect
to whether such evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous.
Processing
The evidence submitted in terms of processing is set out below, taking each declaration in turn, it is
important to note that processing may involve several different elements, such as for example
pasturisation and bottling process. The original condition 4 of the 1996 permission fails to identify the
full process to which the condition refers, but in any event a reasonable judgement can be taken. For
the avoidance of doubt comments in the brackets are statements, which form part of the professional
officers assessment of the submitted evidence.
Statement A: (Coxon) Original and revised statement
Since October 1998 processing has begun no later than 6am Monday to Saturdays with no
change on account of Bank Holidays except Christmas day, Boxing day and New Years Day (It
is noted that no reference is made to Sundays).
No processing has taken place on Christmas, Boxing and New Years Day
The latest that processing would start was 6am
It is noted that no reference is made to processing taking place between 6pm – 7pm on
Saturdays or bank holidays.
Statement B: (Purvis)
States staff were picking and loading from 5am onwards (It is noted that there is ambiguity as
to whether picking and loading is part of the processing referred to in the condition)
Drawing on the evidence of Messrs Coxon and Salter, it is stated that the processing of milk
has been commencing no later than 6am Monday to Saturday each week since October 1998 (It
is noted that no reference is made to Sundays, or processing taking place between 6pm – 7pm
on Saturdays or bank holidays)
Statement C (Salter)
46
From October 1998 until 2003 vehicles were regularly going out fully loaded for bulk dispatch
of bottled milk to customers from 6am every day Monday to Saturday with no exception on
Bank Holidays except for Christmas and New Years Day when there were no deliveries. (It is
noted that whilst bottling is referred to it is not known when it was bottled, not necessarily that
morning, and therefore nor precise and unambiguous).
On the basis of the three statements it appears that the processing of milk has occurred from 6.00am
Mondays to Saturdays and bank holidays (except for Christmas day, boxing day, and New years day)
continuously from 1998. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary for what is essentially an
„internal‟ operation within the buildings on site, and in being mindful that significant weight must be
attached to a statutory declaration, it is considered that on the balance of probabilities with the
evidence available, that processing has been undertaken in breach of the condition a continuous ten-
year period, and that there should be no objection to the certificate in this regard. However, the
available evidence is not clear and unambiguous with respect to evening operations i.e. after 6pm on
Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. Moreover no reference is made to Sunday working, such that
it is in breach of the original condition.
With this in mind it is recommended that a certificate not be objected to which allows processing from
6am Monday to Saturday. However, this should not include working outside the hours specified in the
original condition on Sundays, or Bank Holidays including on Christmas, Boxing and New Years Day.
Deliveries
The evidence submitted in terms of deliveries is set out below, taking each declaration in turn, it is
important to note that the condition refers to deliveries of raw milk to the site and bulk dispatch of
milk from the site. For the avoidance of doubt, a delivery is not simply when a vehicle parks on the
public highway awaiting to enter the site to be unloaded.
Taking each declaration in turn:
Statement A: (Coxon) Original and revised statement
Between October 1998 and September 2003, the first tanker would arrive as and when
they wished in the morning as early as 5am up to 7.30am or even sometimes, the night
before and park on Weymouth Road, outside the factory. Most often the first tanker
arrived between 7am and 7.30am and would be immediately unloaded
(It is noted that this statement is not precise and unambiguous. Firstly, it refers to
vehicles parking on road, which does not necessarily mean that a delivery was made at
this time. Secondly, the first statement indicates that the first deliveries, could arrive at
7.30 am. If some of the first deliveries were made at 7.30am between 1998 - 2003, then
on the Applicant‟s own evidence there was no, or no continuous, breach of condition
from 7am – 7.30am between 1998 - 2003.
Revised Statement
From September 2003 asked 3rd Party Hauliers not to arrive before 7.30 however
hauliers carried on arriving when it suited them, still often as early as 5am and staff
would bring them on site and unload in order to get them off the road
47
Statement B (Salter)
Since 1998 tankers have left the site from 6am Monday to Saturday with no exception on
account of bank holidays except Christmas and New Years Day (It is noted that no reference
has been made to Sundays)
From 2002 tankers were dispatched from 5am onwards (It is noted that this statement is
ambiguous in that again vehicles could arrive, within the terms of this statement, at 7.30am,
which is not sufficient to establish a continuous breach)
Since 2003 (following a request from the City Council‟s enforcement section) vehicles have
departed at 7am
Statement C: (Purvis)
From October 1998 tankers would arrive and be unloaded between 5am and 7.30am
Between October 1998 and September 2003 staff were preparing loads and loading vehicles
from 5am daily to allow HGVs to leave early before traffic built up (It is noted that this
statement is ambiguous in that the departure of vehicles early could still mean 7.30am, which is
in accordance with the requirements of the condition)
In September 2003 tankers were entering the site as early as 5am
After September 2003 bulk dispatch of bottled milk would take place after 7am Monday to
Saturday
Tankers have been leaving the site no later than 7am Monday to Saturday since October 1998
It is clear from the above statements that the recollections of each of the members of staff who have
submitted evidence is not precise and unambiguous, particularly with respect to the period 1998 –
2003, which is critical in order to establish on the balance of probabilities that a breach has occurred
continuously for 10 years. Mr Coxon, Mr Salter, and Mr Purvis all report that deliveries arrived from a
set time, thus not precluding the fact that vehicles may have arrived on or after 7.30 am, which is in
accordance with the condition and which may therefore be insufficient to establish a breach. Moreover,
there is also no mention of Sunday operations. In the absence of such evidence it must be concluded
that the claim for established use must currently fail.
Recommendation
SPLIT
1. Minded to resolve not to object to the certificate of lawfulness, in part, worded as follows:
48
The processing of milk shall hereby only take place on the site edged red on the attached plan
between the hours of 6am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 6am to 6pm on Saturdays and 9am to
6pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays including Christmas, Boxing and New Years Day.
2. Minded to resolve that on the basis of the evidence currently available the Certificate of
Lawfulness (deliveries and dispatch) not be supported given that the evidence is not
sufficiently precise and unambiguous that there has not been a continuous 10 year breach with
respect to condition 6 on planning permission 96/35092/FUL
3. Authority for the Chair, in consultation with the Assistant Director Planning and Transport
Futures to review additional evidence which may be submitted as part of the appeal against
non-determination in advance of any Inquiry, and take appropriate action with respect to the
Councils case at the appeal.
49
APPLICATION No: 09/57626/FUL
APPLICANT: Derwent Holdings
LOCATION: Ellesmere Shopping Centre, Bolton Road, Worsley, , ,
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing McDonalds drive thru restaurant, alterations to
existing town centre car park and access, erection of a new McDonalds
drive thru restaurant, alterations to Ashton Field Drive and High Street
junction together with the formation of a new town centre car park
access off Ashton Field Drive
WARD: Walkden North
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Members will recall that at the meeting of this panel on Thursday 1st October 2009 the panel resolved
to defer the item to enable further discussion and negotiation with the applicant regarding:
Retention/compensation for the greenspace; and
Potential alternative location of McDonalds further away from residential properties
Negotiations are currently ongoing and the outcomes of those discussions will be reported prior to the
panel meeting.
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
This application relates to the existing car park associated to the Ellesmere Shopping Centre which lies
to the north of Manchester Road East / High Street within Walkden town centre.
The car park serves both the Ellesmere Centre and the new Tesco store which is under construction.
There is also a retail park and car park to the north and members will recall that planning permission
has been granted for a new Tesco store which includes additional car parking provision beneath a store
on stilts. Within this main surface car park are Mc Donald's and KFC. The car park slopes from north
to south east. Access to the car park is currently taken from 3 locations; High Street (adjacent to Mc
Donald's), Ashton Field Drive (via the roundabout adjacent to the petrol station) and from New
Campbell Approach to the north. Whilst there is a vehicular access route in front of the former Tesco
store and the Ellesmere Centre the main route through this car park is centrally located from the
roundabout in the north to the fast food restaurants in the south.
The Ashton Field Drive and High Street junction allows for 'left in' and 'left out' turning movements
only. Alternative access to and from Ashton Field Drive (from the east turning right and from Ashton
Field Drive turning right) currently utilises Campbell Way. Campbell Way is an underpass which
50
takes access from the west bound carriage way of High Street and runs alongside High Street to the
south before passing beneath High Street and rising again to join the existing roundabout adjacent to
the petrol station within the site.
Description of Proposal
The proposal seeks to alter the existing vehicular access arrangements to the car park from the south of
the centre together with the relocation of Mc Donald's and alterations to the layout of the car park.
In terms of access it is proposed that the existing access to the car park adjacent to Mc Donald's would
be closed. The existing Mc Donald's would be demolished and this area laid out as formal car parking
provision. To facilitate access to the car park the proposal seeks to recongifure the junction of High
Street and Ashton Field Drive. At present this junction provides a 'left in' and 'left out' capability only.
The proposal would remodel this junction to provide a fully signalised junction enabling both vehicles
to enter and exit in both directions together with pedestrian crossing facilities. Direct access to the car
park would then be taken from Ashton Field Drive approximately 40m from High Street. The layout
of the car park would be re-ordered around the new access arrangements.
The new Mc Donald's would to be located adjacent to the proposed access from Ashton Field Drive.
The proposed restaurant would occupy a lager footprint than the existing restaurant which would
measure 33m X 15m. It would be single storey of a typical corporate design of brick, glazing and a
tiled roof similar to the appearance of the existing restaurant.
The remodelling of the car park also removes the current roundabout to the north of the petrol station
and a large proportion of the green space which adjoins it. To the north of this green space is
Granville Street which includes houses on the opposite side of the street from the town centre. To the
north east is a pond which was formed during the construction of the retail park. The applicant has
amended the proposal from that which was submitted in order to retain the majority of the mature trees
that are located on this area of grass and to reduce car parking provision in this locality.
As a result of this proposal 5 existing trees would be removed whereas the 5 mature trees along the
Granville Street frontage would be retained as would all of the trees around the pond. A total of 110
new trees would be incorporated into the car parking area to the west of the Ellesmere Centre (not
included that which would be provided beneath the new Tesco Store).
Site History
Whilst there is no specific planning history relating to the development now proposed there are a
number of recent planning decisions which relate to the redevelopment of the Town Centre. Of most
relevance are:
In 2008, planning permission was granted for the demolition of existing supermarket and construction
of a new supermarket above new car parking area together with new atrium, additional retail units and
alterations to car park and access (08/56280/FUL). Construction of the new store is now underway
and members may be aware that Tesco are currently trading from a smaller unit within the Town
Centre to the north.
51
In order to facilitate the provision of the new Tesco store a number of highway works are required
under a separate S278 agreement. Those included the relocation of the existing bus layby on Bolton
Road and the signalisation of the access adjacent to McDonald's (Walkden Market Place) and High
Street.
This proposal, would in essence, negate the need to signalise the junction as it proposes to permanently
close this access to the town centre car park and to introduce full signalisation to the junction of High
Street and Ashton Field Drive.
Publicity
Site Notice: Affecting highway Date Displayed: 17 June 2009
Reason: Major Application
Press Advert: Salford Advertiser Date Published: 9 July 2009
Reason:
Article 8 Affect Public right of Way
1. Neighbour Consultations
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 - 31 High Street
Worsley Court, High Street
1 - 15 Abbeydale Gardens, Ashton Field Drive
2 - 10 Ashton Field Drive
23 - 27 Gillers Green
17 - 19 Maunby Gardens
40 - 76 Granville Street
1 - 27 Tyne Court
2 - 20 Machester Road East
Furthermore, on the request of the Walkden and Little Hulton Community Committee a presentation
was given on the detail of the application on Monday 27th July 2009.
Representations
A number of objections have been received in response to the application publicity from 45
households with some residents writing more than one letter. The following issues have been raised:-
Over provision of car parking already
Loss of trees
Loss of green space
Increase in noise
Increase in litter
Smells
Congregation of youths
Crime / Fear of Crime
Misuse of car park - speeding cars outside of shopping hours
52
Traffic calming needed
Devaluation of property
Increase in traffic flow in the surrounding area
Impact of deliveries on residential amenity
Consultations
Head of Engineering and Highways - Drainage Engineer : Advise that a full drainage assessment is
required for this site. Additional storage may be required on surface water systems to reduce discharge
to surface water sewer / drainage / watercourse. The maximum discharge should be limited to 7l/s/ha.
Advise that this should be secured by an appropriate condition.
Urban Vision Environment - Advise that a condition be attached regarding site investigations, noise
from fixed plant, odour control and construction hours.
Environment Agency - No comments received to date.
Design For Security - Advise that "having looked at the drawings I have no objection to the
application, although it seems odd that the building faces the car park rather than the street, albeit a
quite anonymous street. Should the Local Planning Authority be of a mind to approve the application
then, in order to ensure an adequate level of security to the restaurant, I suggest that the LPA consider
a condition requiring the applicant to submit a Crime Prevention Plan and carry out the works
detailed in that Plan prior to occupation of the restaurant"
An informative is also attached which provides advice on the detail of the Crime Prevention Plan.
G M Passenger Transport Executive - No objections but advise that if any bus stops need to be
relocated then they are consulted at an early stage. However, the scheme as submitted does not affect
any bus stops.
United Utilities - I have no objection to the proposal but would request a condition be input on the
application stating:
"The site should be drained on a separate system, with foul drainage only connected into the foul
sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer and may
require the consent of the Environment Agency. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the
public sewerage system we would limit the discharge on a "like for like basis" based upon a peak
rainfall event of 25mm/hr. The actual point of connection can be agreed with the United Utilities" .
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society - No comments received to date.
Countryside Agency - Do not wish to comment on this proposal.
Ramblers Association Manchester Area - Have no comments to make on the application.
The Open Spaces Society - No comments received to date.
Planning Policy Framework
53
Development Plan Policy
RSS DP2 - Promote Sustainable Communities
RSS DP3 - Promote Sustainable Communities
RSS DP5 - Manage Travel Demand
RSS W1 - Waste Management
RSS W5 - Retail Development
RSS DP9 - Reduce Emmissions, Adapt to Climate Cha
UDP DES2 - Circulation and Movement
UDP DES10 - Design and Crime
UDP S1 - Retail Leisure Dev. in Town Neighbourh.
UDP EN16 - Contaminated Land
UDP EN17 - Pollution Control
UDP EN12 - Important Landscape Features
UDP A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
UDP DES1 - Respecting Context
UDP DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Other Material Considerations
PPS PPS6 - Planning for Town Centres
PPS PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control
SPD SPD6 - Trees and Development
Appraisal
It is considered that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of
development is acceptable; whether the proposal would be acceptable in design terms; whether there
would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposal would have any impact
upon highway safety; and whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable and whether the
proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of trees. Each issue will be considered in turn.
Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site
Policy S1 of the UDP encourages investment within existing centres and sets out six criteria which
proposals must satisfy. The first of these criteria is that development should be of a scale appropriate
to the centre. Other criteria are concerned with accessibility, highway impact, parking provision
design and impact on amenity.
Planning Policy Statement 6 : Town Centres defines restaurants and drive thru restaurants as an
appropriate town centre use. The site as a whole is located within the defined town centre and as such
the broad principle of the relocation of the McDonald's is considered an appropriate use. PPS6 and
policy S1 of the UDP advocates that town centre uses should be of an appropriate scale. The proposed
floor area is larger than the existing restaurant. However, given the role of Walkden Town Centre
within Salford's retail hierarchy, it is not considered that the scale of this element of the proposal
would be inappropriate. The detailed components of the proposed restaurant are discussed later in this
report.
54
Therefore, the principle of the proposed McDonald's would accord with the thrust of PPS6 and policy
S1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Whilst the other elements of the proposal do not seek to provide new retail or town centre provision, it
is clear that the main elements of the scheme seek to remodel the services and access provision of the
existing centre. As such, it is considered appropriate to have regard to the other criteria set out in
policy S1 in appraising this scheme.
Therefore, issues of highway impact, parking provision design and impact on amenity are discussed
within the following section of this report.
Design, Scale and Massing
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.
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people,
maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable pedestrians
to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable
safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other local amenities and minimise
potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
The proposed building is single storey and would occupy a footprint of 33m X 15m with a gross area
of 449sqm. It would have a modernized mansard roof with Decro roof tiles. The external walls would
have slip brick materials and the windows would be powder coated aluminium frames. The slip brick
would have the same appearance as a traditional brick construction.
The building would be situated adjacent to the proposed access off Ashton Field Drive. The main
entrance would be orientated towards the Ellesmere Centre and new Tesco store. The drive thru
arrangements would be located to the north of the building towards the existing petrol station. The
stores and bin stores would be located within the building envelope.
It is considered the appearance of the building is appropriate within the context of this town centre and
would accord with the principles of DES1 and DES2 of the UDP.
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Design and Crime seeks
to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of
crime, and support personal and property security. Crime and Disorder is a material planning
consideration.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has considered the proposals. Whilst they question
the position of the McDonalds away from the main road frontage in practical terms, they advise that a
55
condition be attached requiring a crime prevention plan to ensure an adequate level of security. A
condition is suggested in accordance with the thrust of the advice of the ALO.
The ALO has not suggested that the town centre or current drive thru restaurants suffer from
congregating youths or high levels of anti social behaviour. Therefore, subject to consideration of
general issues relating to residential amenity, there are no grounds to suggest that the relocation of an
existing restaurant within the confines of a town centre would result in a higher level of anti social
behaviour or to an increased fear of crime in the locality.
Therefore, it is considered that this application accords with Policy DES10 of the Development Plan in
this instance.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
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.
In terms of residential amenity it is considered that the proposal raises two distinct issues. The first
relates to the potential impact on amenity from the location of the new McDonald's and the second
issue relates to the proximity of the revised car parking layout to existing residential properties.
The proposed McDonald's would be located centrally within the existing car park. It would be 60m to
the closest residential property to the west and 90m to the closest property on Ashton Field Drive. The
separation distance of the proposed restaurant would be further than the relationship of the existing
McDonald's to properties south of the centre and those properties to the existing KFC. However, the
proposal would be closer to properties to the north than what is currently experienced by those
properties.
Urban Vision Environment have considered the environmental implications of the proposal and have
no objection subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to fume extraction and limiting the noise
from any fixed plant. They have also suggested a condition relating to hours of construction although
a considerate contractors condition is advised which includes hours of construction.
Given that the relation of the McDonalds is no closer to residential properties that the existing
restaurant (albeit it will be closer to different residents) and the proposal is within an established town
centre, it is not considered that the proposed McDonald's restaurant would result in a detrimental
impact upon residential amenity with the inclusion of the suggested conditions.
Turning to the relationship of the car park to the residents of Granville Street. The proposal in this
location would, in essence, extend the car park closer to Granville Street. The applicant has amended
the scheme from that which was submitted which has removed a row of car parking in close proximity
to residents. The extension of the car park would result in the partial loss an area of green space which
56
fronts the residents. Whilst trees are discussed later in this report the existing mature trees along the
boundary of Granville Street would be retained. At present the access to the rear of the petrol station is
the closest vehicular access to Granville Street. The proposal would result in a perimeter internal road
closer to some of the residents of Granville Street and slightly further away from 76 Granville Street.
Overall, the closest relationship would be 23.5m from the frontage of 74 Granville Street to the formal
element of the car park. The existing relationship at this point is 34m. The greatest change would be
facing No. 70 Granville Street. At this point the proposal would maintain 27m to the car park whereas
the existing separation is 54m. It should also be noted that the nearest highway is Granville Street,
which is existing and separates the houses from the application site.
However, none of the car parking spaces are orientated directly towards the residents of Granville
Street and the applicant has removed those which were within the separation distance highlighted
above. The remainder of the landscaped area would include screening such as trees, a mound or low
wall to ensure that car headlights would not be obtrusive to these residents. Additional tree planting
together with the retention of the mature trees would continue to provide a green screen to the car park.
Having regard to the orientation of the car park, the landscaping, the retention of trees and new
planting together with the separation distance and that there is an existing car park, it is not considered
that proposal would result in a detrimental impact upon residential amenity. Conditions are suggested
regarding the mound, the methods to retain existing trees and implementation of the landscaping
proposal.
Therefore, it is considered that this application accords with policies DES7 and EN16 of the
Development Plan in this instance.
Trees and Landscaping
Policy EN12 seeks to protect important landscaping features. Policy DES9 relates to landscaping and
considers that development will be required to incorporate hard and soft landscaping provision, where
appropriate.
There is an historic Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 42 (1981) which covers part of the site (in
proximity to Blockbusters) and pond which adjoins the application site. The TPO is an area TPO and
was made prior to the formation of the pond and retail park and protects those trees which were there
at the time that the TPO was made. Even though it is clear that the majority of the area has now been
developed, the current proposal does not affect any trees remaining within the extent of the TPO
boundary.
There are a number of mature sycamore and lime trees on the Granville Street boundary. The
Council's consultant arboricultural officer has inspected the trees within the green space. He advises
that the lime and sycamores are worthy of retention whereas the smaller trees closer to the roundabout
are not. The scheme has been amended to retain the 5 trees that are worthy of retention and a
condition is advised regarding a method statement to be agreed prior to commencement of
development.
Furthermore, in accordance with details agreed relating to the new Tesco store the proposal includes
details of tree planting within the car park to coincide with the revised layout. The scheme indicates
57
that a total of 110 trees would be planted across the whole of the site 18 of which would be within the
remaining green space fronting Granville Street.
Therefore, subject to the implementation of the landscaping scheme and conditions to protect the
existing trees it is considered that the scheme would not only accord with the policy highlighted above
with regard trees and landscaping but would significantly increase the provision of trees within the
area.
Car Parking and Access
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient access
by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and improvement of key routes.
The applicant's agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with PPG13. Members
will recall that a TA was submitted with the proposals for the new Tesco store which was considered
appropriate and required S278 works to be undertaken. It was a requirement of the Tesco scheme that
the existing vehicular access to the car park from High Street (adjacent to McDonald's) be signalised
and that highway adjacent to McDonald's be made up. However, the applicant considers that the
ability to let the vacant retail units on the site of the former Pembrook Hall would be improved if direct
parking provision was provided within the immediate locality. They also consider that the alternative
formalised access arrangements set out in this proposal would provide a better location for pedestrian
access as there is an existing pedestrian crossing facility across High Street to the east.
The Council's highway engineers have also highlighted that the new formalised access arrangements at
the junction of Ashton Field Road would include an all stop crossing facilities for pedestrians.
There is no highway objection to the proposal which would require a new S278 agreement and
therefore elements of the S278 agreement relating to the Tesco store would no longer be implemented.
The implementation of this scheme would require the formal closure of the highway adjacent to
McDonald's.
The layout of the car park has retained the pedestrian movements agreed through the approval of the
new Tesco scheme together with a link to the existing pedestrian access to Granville Street. The car
park would provide 448 car parking spaces in total 2 of which would be marked for disabled provision.
The majority of the disabled provision would be located beneath the new Tesco store adjacent to the
entrance and travellators. The existing car park (covering the application boundary) provides 499 car
parking spaces by way of a comparison. As such, the total provision across the centre would decrease
by 51 car parking spaces.
Moreover, in accordance with approved details in relation to the Tesco proposal, the car park would
include 110 trees within the park and pedestrian areas. Members will recall that during consideration
of the Tesco proposal the misuse of the car park by way of speeding motorists was raised and it was
considered that the planting of trees would help to mitigate this problem together with the management
of the car park.
The proposal would remove the roundabout adjacent to the existing petrol station and an area of
grassed landscaping would also be removed. The area of grass would provide for approximately 18
car parking spaces, part of a new internal circulation route and landscaping. The proximity of
58
vehicular access to the residential properties on Granville Street would be 10m further away opposite
76 Granville Street and 28m closer to 72 Granville Street.
Campbell Road would be closed to the rear of the petrol station (opposite 76 Granville Street) and the
existing turning head on Granville Street would be retained. Campbell Road would not longer provide
a route through the centre to Bolton Road. Access through the centre to Bolton Road would be
maintained albeit via the new access on Ashton Field Drive. The layout of the car park is such that the
natural route through the car park towards Bolton Road would be alongside the new Tesco store.
Given that vehicular access is currently available in a north south direction between Bolton Road and
Manchester Road East via the centre, it is not considered that the alterations to the junction will lead to
increase 'rat running' in the general location although it is likely to significantly reduce the amount of
vehicle movements using the Campbell Way where it passes beneath High Street.
Therefore, it is considered that this application accords with policy A2 of the UDP and PPG6 in this
instance.
Value Added
The applicant has amended the scheme to remove some of the proposed car parking within the vicinity
of Granville Street. The amendments have also indicated that the existing mature trees along the
Granville Street frontage would be retained together with additional tree planting and screening.
Conclusions/Summary
In conclusion, it is considered that, subject to the inclusion of conditions, the scheme accords with the
provisions of the development plan.
Recommendation
APPROVE subject to the following conditions
1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) by more
than -5dB at any time when measured at nearby noise sensitive premises. Noise measurements
and assessments shall be carried out according to BS4142:1997 "Rating industrial noise
affecting mixed residential and industrial areas". "t" refers to any 1 hour period between
07:00hrs and 23:00hrs and any 5 minute period between 23:00hrs and 07:00hrs.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policies
DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
59
3. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of hours of construction, wheel washing facilities and management of construction
traffic, and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site
in contravention of such site operating statement.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policies
DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to
be used for the McDonald's elevations 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.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. No trees other than those clearly marked to be removed on the approved drawing 1685_05 Rev
A shall be removed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing the provision of the
landscaping and screening adjacent to Granville Street and Pembroke Street shall be submitted
for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an
arboricultural method statement for the retention of the sycamore and lime trees within the
landscape area together with trees protection methods during construction. The development
hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved scheme unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard protected trees on the site and to ensure that adequate provision is made
for their protection whilst the development is carried out, in accordance with EN10 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. 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 premises commences and shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with
the approved specifications.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policies
DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
60
8. The landscape details shown on the approved drawing 1685_05 Rev A shall be implemented
during the first available planting season following completion of the car park unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. 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 prior to first occupation of the development. The Verification Report
shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with
those agreed by the LPA.
Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with PPS23 Planning and Pollution
Control
10. 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 include provision of a surface water drainage
retention system with a restricted maximum rate of discharge of 7 litres/second. The scheme
shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the site in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Prior to the commencement of development a Crime Prevention Plan shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall detail measures in order to
ensure an adequate level of security to the restaurant. The development hereby approved shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately secured from crime in accordance
with policy DES 10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
61
12. This permission shall relate to the amended plan 1685_05 Rev A which shows the retention of
trees fronting Granville Street and removal of car parking spaces.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
13. No development shall commence (except for site clearance and remediation) unless and until a
Prohibition of Driving Order has been implemented on Pembroke Street located adjacent to the
application site to the east.
Reason: To protect the interests and safety of traffic on the local highway network in
accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Notes to Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the advice of the Police ALO dated 23rd June 2009
3. 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
4. The applicants attention is drawn to the advice of United Utilities dated 2nd July 2009
62
PPLICATION No: 09/58073/HH
APPLICANT: Mr Lee Powell
LOCATION: 70 Broadway, Worsley, M28 7FF,
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage and single storey rear element and erection
of a part single/part two storey side/rear extension
WARD: Walkden South
5. Background
Planning Permission was refused for the demolition of the existing single storey side/rear elements and
erection of a two-storey side/rear extension, single storey rear extension and canopy over ground floor
front elevation (09/57682/HH) by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel following a visit
on the 16th July 2009. The reasons for the refusal have been listed below.
"The proposed two storey extension will be detrimental to the residential amenity of the adjacent
dwelling by reason of the overbearing impact that it will have on the ground floor side window of that
dwelling contrary to policy DES7 of the UDP and HE3 of the House Extension SPD"
"The proposed two storey extension will appear out of character in the street scene having regard to the
lack of an inappropriate set back at the junction of the existing dwelling and the proposed extension on
the front elevation contrary to policies DES1 and DES8 of the UDP and Policy HE8 of the House
extension SPD."
The current application proposes the demolition of existing garage and single storey rear element and
erection of a part single/part two-storey side/rear extension
The applicant has made a number of amendments from the previous application. These have been
listed below: -
The two-storey side extension has been reduced in width by 0.3m. Therefore the distance to the side
boundary has been increased from 1m to 1.3m.
The height of the extension has been reduced from 8m to 7m. Previously it was the same height as the
existing dwelling. The two-storey element would be 1m lower than the rest of the existing dwelling.
The two-storey side extensions length has been reduced from 11.2m to 5.2m. Previously it was two
storey and now part single/part two-storey side extension.
A single storey side element has been introduced adjacent to No. the common boundary with No.72.
The two-storey rear extension width has been reduced from 5.7m to 4.0m in width. The projection has
also been reduced from 2.9m to 2.7m. However it would be 0.7m closer to the adjoining property at
No.68.
There would be no windows introduced into the side elevations
63
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a predominantly residential area. The
application site has an existing single storey rear outrigger and a single storey garage to the side of the
property. Both neighbouring properties also have single storey rear outriggers and a single storey
garage to the side of the property.
The existing rear / side boundary treatment with the adjoining semi No.68 consists of a low fence less
than 1m in height. The rear / side boundary with the adjacent property consists of a fence
approximately 1m in height. The application site has a large rear garden in excess of 40m in length
with no directly facing properties beyond this.
Description of Proposal
It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey side garage, rear outrigger and rear bay windows
and replace these elements with a part two-storey/part single storey side and rear extension, single
storey rear extension and a canopy along the front elevation.
The existing single storey garage to the side of the property projects 2.9m from the main side
elevation, it has a length of 5m and a height of 2.2 to the eaves and 3.6m to the ridge with a hipped
roof.
The single storey rear outrigger to be demolished projects 4.1m beyond the main rear elevation, it has
a width of 3.3m (approximately half the width of the dwelling) with a height to the eaves of 2.7m and a
height to the ridge of 4m with a pitched roof. It accommodates the kitchen.
The bay windows to the rear have a width of 2.7m and project 0.6m from the main rear elevation.
They are two storeys in height and built angled in at the sides.
The proposed part single/part two-storey side extension would be flush with the main front elevation.
It would project 2.6m from the main side elevation. It would have an overall length of 11.2m
(projecting 2.7m beyond the main rear elevation). The front 5.2m of the extension would be two
storeys with the remaining single storey. The two-storey element would have a height to the eaves the
same as the existing building and an overall height of 7m with a hipped roof (1.0m below the ridge of
the existing dwelling). The two-storey element would have an overall height of 4m to the rear with a
hipped roof to match the existing. It would accommodate a garage, utility room and dining room on
the ground floor and an extended bedroom and en-suite on the first floor.
The proposed part single/part two-storey rear extension would project 2.7m beyond the main rear
elevation. The two-storey element would adjoin the single storey side extension and would run flush
with the existing main side elevation adjacent to the boundary with No.72. The two-storey element
would have a width of 4m. It would have a height to the eaves the same as the existing building and an
overall height of 7m (1.0m below the ridge of the existing dwelling) with a hipped roof to match the
existing. The proposed single storey rear element would adjoin the proposed two-storey rear to run
flush with the rear elevation of the two-storey rear element. It would have a width of 2.6m. It would
have a height to the eaves of 3.0m and an overall height of 4m with a sloping roof. Internally it would
64
accommodate an extended kitchen/dining room at ground floor level and a bedroom and an extended
bathroom at first floor level.
The proposed canopy to the front elevation would be situated over the proposed and existing ground
floor windows. It would be attached to the wall only, with no supporting pillars. It would start at a
height of 2.2m above ground level with a height of 0.8m with a sloping roof.
Site History
09/57682/HH - Demolition of existing single storey side/rear elements and erection of a two-storey
side/rear extension, single storey rear extension and canopy over ground floor front elevation Refused
16.07.2009.
Publicity
Site Notice: Not Applicable
Press Advert: Not Applicable
Neighbour Consultations
The following neighbours were notified;
41, 68 and 72 Broadway
10 Lynton Crescent
Representations
A letter and emails have been received from the occupiers of the two adjacent properties. The
following issues have been raised and are summarised below;
The occupier of No.68 has raised the following issues.
Loss of light to breakfast room, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and landing windows of No.72;
Loss of privacy to No.72;
Loss of light to lounge, kitchen and sun patio of No.68;
Existing extension at No.66 has already removed light from morning room, the proposed extension
would exacerbate the situation;
Concern regarding waste overflow;
Proposed side extension would look unsightly;
Loss of value to property;
Maintenance of guttering and pointing;
Over the top and out of synchrony with the estate;
Creating a terracing effect.
The occupier of No.72 has raised the following issues.
65
Development would lead to the disfigurement of the property and would not be compatible with
adjacent properties
The issues will be discussed below.
In addition Councillor Lindley has requested the application be determined by panel because it is
materially similar to the previous application (09/57682/HH)
Planning Policy Framework
Development Plan Policy
UDP DES1 - Respecting Context
UDP DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
UDP DES8 - Alterations and Extensions
UDP A8 - Impact of Development on Highway Network
Other Material Considerations
SPD SPD1 - House Extensions
Appraisal
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed extensions on the
amenity of the surrounding and future residents, the impact of the proposed development on the
character of the area, highway safety and whether the proposal accords with all relevant policies of the
Unitary Development Plan and the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Documents.
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.
Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a
two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling unless the first floor
element is set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall of the property or the ground and first
floor elements are set back a minimum of 1m from the front main wall of the property.
The demolition of the existing single storey garage would be considered to be acceptable. It is single
storey and subordinate to the main dwelling. The demolition of the elements to the rear would not be
visible from the street.
66
The side extension would be visible from the street. It would be flush with the main front elevation.
The ground floor of the extension would include a garage door with a window above. The canopy
would be situated above the proposed garage door and existing front door. The proposed height to the
eaves would be the same as the existing dwelling with the overall height being 1m lower than the ridge
of the existing dwelling therefore appearing subordinate. It would have a hipped roof to match the
existing. The proposed window within the front elevation would be the same proportion as one of the
existing windows within the front elevation.
The application form states that the roof tiles would match those of the existing property and the
brickwork of the elements that are demolished would be re-used within the extension. A condition
would be attached to ensure the materials match the existing property.
The existing side boundary is set at a slight angle. The first 2m of the side extension would be in
excess of 1m away from the side thus ensuring that there was no potential for a terracing effect in
accordance with policy HE8.
The current application has made a number of amendments in terms of design which have included
reducing the two-storey extension into a part single storey, reducing the overall height of the two
storey element by 1m and setting it in a further 0.3m from the adjacent boundary with No.72. The
proposed side and rear elements would be barely visible within the street scene, It is considered
therefore 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 and HE8 of the House
Extensions SPD.
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.
Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states that planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal habitable
room windows. In the case of ground floor windows it may be possible to reduce this distance where
adequate screening is provided.
Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states that 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 would be a first floor habitable room window introduced to the proposed front elevation. This
would be flush with existing windows within the front elevation and in excess of 30m from the
properties opposite in accordance with policy HE1.
There would be no windows introduced to the side elevations of the proposal facing 72 Broadway.
67
There would be no windows on the side elevations facing No.68 Broadway.
There would be habitable room windows located on the proposed rear elevation. The rear garden of
the application site is in excess of 40m in length with no direct facing properties beyond this.
It is considered the proposals would not have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring occupiers in
terms of privacy in accordance with the above policies.
The side elevation of No.72 has a number of windows along its side elevation facing the proposed
single storey side extension. On the ground floor is an obscure glazed window within the garage, a
breakfast room and kitchen (the kitchen also has a window on the rear elevation of the single storey
outrigger). On the first floor is a bathroom toilet and landing window. The breakfast room (as
described by the occupier of No.72) is located on the side elevation of the property between the hall
and the kitchen. The window is located 7m from the existing main side elevation of the application
property. In addition the existing single storey garage elements of No.72 and the application property
are located within close proximity to this window further decreasing its existing outlook. It would
appear that it is an original feature as a number of the properties has this room including the
application site. The proposed single storey side elevation would be 5m from this window. The
extension to the front of this window has been reduced in width by 0.3m and reduced from a two
storey side extension to a single storey side extension. Given this it is considered that the side
extension would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or be overbearing to the occupiers of No.72
in respect of the window on the side elevation in accordance with policy DES7.
Policy HE6 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will normally be granted for a
two storey rear extension or first floor rear extension along the common boundary where the adjoining
dwelling has an existing single storey extension provided that: the first floor does not project beyond
the neighbour‟s ground floor extension and the first floor does not project beyond a 45 degree line
from the mid point of any first floor principal window of a habitable room in the neighbouring
dwelling or a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of the adjoining or
adjacent dwelling.
The principle of this policy can be applied to adjacent properties.
No.72 has a single storey garage to the side of the property that is approximately half the length of the
existing side elevation. The area to the rear of this garage provides little amenity space given its
location between the two properties. No.72 has a large rear garden. The proposed two-storey rear
element of the proposal would not project beyond the existing single storey outrigger at no.72 nor
would it project more than 45 degrees taken from an angle 3m along the common boundary from the
main rear elevation of No.72 in accordance with the principles of policy HE6.
It is therefore considered that this element would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or be
overbearing to the occupiers of No.72 in accordance with policy DES7.
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.
68
Policy HE7 of the House Extensions SPD states in the absence of an extension along the common
boundary of the adjoining dwelling planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey/first
floor rear extension provided its projection is equal too or less than its distance from the nearest
common boundary.
No.68 has a bay window at ground and first floor similarly to the application site that projects
approximately 0.6m from the main rear elevation. The bay window is angled in at the sides; as such
the main rear of the bay is considered the main rear window and not the small angled side windows.
The proposed single storey element projects 2.1m beyond the main rear window (total projection of
2.7m), which is less than 3m along the common boundary from the main rear elevation of No.68.
It is therefore considered the proposed single storey rear element would not have an unacceptable
impact on the occupiers of No.68 in accordance with policy HE5 and policy DES7.
The two-storey rear element would be set in 2.7m from the side common boundary with No.68. It
would project 2.1m beyond the rear bay window (2.7m beyond the main rear elevation) of No.68 in
accordance with policy HE7. It is considered the proposed rear element would not have an
unacceptable impact on the occupiers of No.68 in accordance with policy DES7.
Highway Safety
Policy A8 of the UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Policy HE12 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for
the erection of a garage with an up and over door unless a hardstanding of 5.5m in length and 2.4m in
width is kept between the front of the garage and the highway, unless there would be no impact on
highway safety and the free flow of traffic.
There would be a hardstanding 8m in length and 4m wide to the front of the proposed garage in
accordance with the above policies the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on highway
safety.
Other issues
In response to the remaining objections raised:
The plans indicate gutters and a down spout on the rear elevation of the single storey rear extension.
The development would be subject to Building Control Regulations, this should ensure that the waste
overflows would not drain or run off into the adjoining dwelling.
Loss of Property value is not a material planning consideration and not a reason to refuse the
application.
Maintenance of guttering and pointing is a civil matter, as one cannot rely on entering another persons
land for maintenance purposes for their own property.
69
Permitted Development
Part of the extension could be built without the need for planning permission. The single storey and
two-storey rear element (directly behind the existing rear elevation) could be built under permitted
development rights in its proposed form. The single storey side extension could also be built without
the need for planning permission. The first floor side extension requires planning permission.
Conclusion
It is considered the proposals would not have an unacceptable impact on the street scene; the character
of the existing dwelling; highway safety or have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the occupiers
of neighbouring properties in accordance with UDP policies A8, DES1, DES7 and DES8 and the
House Extension Supplementary Planning Document.
Recommendation
APPROVE subject to the following conditions
1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy
DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Notes to Applicant
1. This decision relates to drawing No.01, 02, 03, 04, 05 received 9th September 2009
2. 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
70
