Docstoc

1 - Salford City Council

Document Sample
1 - Salford City Council Powered By Docstoc
					PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




APPLICATION No:                06/53530/OUT

APPLICANT:                     Ask Property Developments Ltd

LOCATION:                      Site Of Former Cinema Clippers Quay Salford M5 2XP

PROPOSAL:                      Outline application to include layout, scale and means of access
                               for the demolition of former cinema and erection of 654
                               residential units and 7,212m2 of commercial floorspace (Classes
                               A1-A5, B1, D2 and sui generis) together with associated
                               vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking and communal
                               gardens

WARD:                          Ordsall


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former cinema on Clipper Quay, Salford Quays. The site is bounded
by Clippers Quay to the north, Trafford Road to the east and by the Manchester Ship Canal to the
south and west. It covers an area of approximately 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres).

The surrounding uses comprise mainly of office provision on the neighbouring Exchange site
although planning permission has recently be granted for a residential scheme to the north. More
widely, the Quays as a whole provides a mix of residential, retail, leisure and commercial uses.

At present the majority of the site is given over to surface car parking provision associated to the
former cinema use. I am informed that informal parking provision is currently provided on the site
and is utilised by surrounding commercial uses. Adjacent to the site is the Trafford Road Bridge
which is grade II listed. The site is generally flat with access taken from Clippers Quay. However,
there is a difference in levels between the site and Trafford Road where is connects with the bridge
of approximately 3m. A public right of way existing under Trafford Road which links this site and
Exchange Quays. There are a number of trees within the former landscaping of the cinema use.
They are concentrated at the Clippers Quay junction and along the Trafford Road elevation.

Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing disused cinema complex and the
comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide 651 residential units and 7,212sq m of
commercial accommodation for uses falling within Classes A1-A5, B1, D2 and other sui generis
uses, together with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking and communal gardens.

The application is in outline but seeks consent for layout, scale and access. The following matters
are reserved for later approval - appearance and landscaping.

The building that is proposed adopts a curve linear structure following the northern and eastern
boundaries of the site, adjacent to Clippers Quay and Trafford Road. The proposed massing rises in
height in both directions from its lowest point of 6 residential storeys at Clippers Quay to reach 12


                                                 1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




storeys towards the Manchester Ship Canal frontage and its highest point of 23 storeys as it reaches
Trafford Road Bridge.

A two-storey car park, accommodating 779 spaces, would be located within the podium beneath the
proposed building. The car park would be flanked by a series of commercial units along the
Clippers Quay and Manchester Ship Canal frontages. Two blocks of office accommodation at the
corner of Trafford Road and Clippers Quay are also proposed. A large open private communal
garden is proposed in the centre of the site upon the podium level.

Means of vehicular access to the car park would be taken via an entrance behind the active
commercial frontage along Clippers Quay. A service entrance for vehicles would also be provided
further to the west along Clippers Quay.

Pedestrian access to the main building would be via the communal gardens through an entrance at
the corner of Trafford Road and Clippers Quay or directly from the car parking levels. There would
be a staircase leading up to the development from the canal side walkway.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objection subject to conditions relating to site
investigations, noise and air quality monitoring.

United Utilities – No objection subject to condition relating to drainage. Further advice and
consultation is also advised.

Environment Agency – no response

The Manchester Ship Canal Company – They confirm that following:

    1.     The MSCC would need to approve in writing any substantial construction building
         “




         works within 30 feet of the canal

    2. The MSCC would need access to maintain any canal walls and embankments that are the
       responsibility of the company an would need to be satisfied that no loading was placed on
       them during demolition, construction or from the final development itself.

    3. No doubt you will ensure that the applicant has the ability to drain the site in a suitable and
       adequate manner
                          ”




Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is well served by public
                                                               “




transport as it is within easy walking distance of Exchange Quay Metrolink stop which provides
access to frequent services on the Metrolink network and connections to train and bus services to a
large number of destinations. The site is also within walking distance of bus stops on Trafford Road
which offer access to a variety of bus services. Future residents, employees and visitors of the



                                                  2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




proposed development will therefore have access to a genuine choice of public transport which
should help to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this development.

Although, as already stated, the site is highly accessible by public transport, GMPTE would expect
the applicant to help encourage future occupants to use sustainable forms of transport. The
Framework Travel Plan accompanying the application goes some way towards meeting this
objective but should be developed further to expand the initiatives relating to public transport in
table 5.1 as follows: -

         Provision of a free one year travel pass within the purchase price / rental of each
         residential unit

         Personalised journey planning

         Provision of public transport information to occupants of the new development.

         Development of a site intranet with public transport information.

GMPTE would like these initiatives to be conditioned or the subject of a planning obligation to
demonstrate a commitment to the use of public transport
                                                         ”




Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
                                            “




planning application. You will see from the appendix of the Planning Statement that this was the
subject of a pre planning consultation with this unit and I can see no problem with the proposals.
”




Urban Regeneration Company – This proposal is located in one of the URC’s Transformation
                                    “




Areas – The Quays and Waterfront, where the objective is to reinvest in the water’s edge, the street
network and public transport connections to leverage the potential to accommodate commercial
development and a mix of residential options, ranging from apartments to family housing.

This site is in an extremely prominent and strategic location, on the border with Trafford MBC, at
one of the entrances to Salford Quays, and adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal and the listed
Trafford Road Bridge. It represents one of the few opportunities to create a genuine ‘landmark’
building.

Central Salford’s draft Vision and Regeneration Framework (VRF) calls for ‘signature buildings’
in such locations, which will demonstrate outstanding architecture to generate attention. The
creation of a prominent Salford skyline is considered important. The VRF also advocates that
design quality be extended to the public realm to improve standards for the pedestrian
environment. The indicative design of the building would undeniably make an impact on the
immediate and wider surroundings as a result of its scale, massing and proposed curved glazed
faēade. For this reason the details of the external appearance and detailing of the building in the
reserved matters application is essential to the acceptability and success of the eventual consented



                                                 3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




building. This will need to be sufficiently controlled by planning conditions to ensure that the
eventual building is of a sufficiently high quality to justify the quantum of development and its
strategic location. This extends to the external appearance of the building and the treatment of all
areas of public realm, including the riverside walkway (in coordination with the Irwell City Park
project) and pedestrian access around the building.

The site also borders another of the URC’s Transformation Areas – The Irwell Corridor, where the
objective is to celebrate the river as a distinctive landscape feature, to link Central Salford to its
neighbourhoods, to improve the attractiveness of key sites for corporate development and to
provide a seamless transition to the Regional Centre. As referred to above, the submission of the
Reserved Matters application covering Landscaping should fully co-operate with this £45 million
project, which is currently one of only 23 projects nationally to be shortlisted for the Big Lottery
Fund’s Living Landmarks funding award.

The proposed mix of development, being a significant amount of commercial accommodation and
654 residential units, is considered suitable for the site’s location. Salford Quays is one of the
URC’s priority sites for the development of commercial and employment floorspace. In addition,
within The Quays and Waterfront Transformation Area, the VRF states that all and architecturally
distinctive residential uses, on vacant land, adjacent to the Metrolink corridor and on key sites will
be supported.

Nevertheless, considering the quantum of residential development proposed, the mix of residential
apartments falls short of our aspirations for creating a balanced mix of dwellings and encouraging
a wide range of occupants to Salford Quays. Only 1 percent of the scheme represents larger duplex
or triplex apartments. We would encourage the applicant’s to revise the scheme in line with Salford
City Council’s emerging Planning Guidance for Housing.

The phasing of the development will need to be carefully coordinated to ensure that the
development is delivered comprehensively and with minimal disruption to future site occupants and
users of the surrounding area. Finally, it is only with the completion of the final phase that a
signature, landmark entrance gateway to Salford is achieved.
                                                               ”




Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Although the development site is close to Salford Quays
                                        “




Site of Biological Importance I do not consider that the development will have any significant
impact on the special interest of the SBI and therefore I have no objections to the application on
nature conservation grounds
                              ”




Further advice is provided regarding the clearance of vegetation outside of the bird breeding season
unless breeding birds h
ave been shown to be absent and that a method statement be provided regarding Japanese
Knotweed.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No response

Ramblers Association – No objection


                                                  4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Peter Hunter Architect – He considers that the Design and Access Statement shows various
elevations with different architectural treatment and character. He acknowledges the encouraging
statements of intent but considers that if the numbered drawings are to be considered they would
produce the least architectural quality and possibly permit even lower standards to be developed.
He concludes by suggesting that only page 34 should be considered.

Grain Wharf Management Company – No response

Trafford MBC – No response

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 28th November 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 5th October 2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

         All addresses at Exchange Quay
         Royal Mail, Optimum House, Copthorne Hotel, Clippers Quay
         Transport House, Renown House, 1 – 113 (o) Merchants Quay
         Samuel Platts PH, Trafford Wharf Road
         Golden Tulip Hotel, Waters Reach
         Telephone Exchange, Trafford Park Road
         Harbourside Marina

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. Three letters
have been received from local businesses on Clippers Quay and Exchange and one from a local
resident on Merchants Quay. The following issues have been raised:-

         Massing is out of character with the surrounding area
         Loss of car parking provision
         Insufficient car parking provision for the proposal
         No provisions for affordable housing
         Impact upon the operational ability of surrounding businesses due to lack of car parking
         and congestion
         Existing car parking problems for residents
         Delay in exiting Clippers Quay junction
         Insufficient car parking for the Abito scheme on the opposite side of Clippers Quay
         The building Royal mail occupies employs 300 staff with car parking facilities for 90. The
         objector states that the closure of the cinema site will have a significant impact upon Royal
         Mail staff and make it extremely difficult for Royal Mail to operate.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY



                                                  5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: MX1/3 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Salford Quays)
Other policies: ST2: Housing Supply, ST6: Major Trip Generating Development, ST7: Mixed-Use
Development, ST11: Location of New Development, ST12: Development Density, DES1:
Respecting Context, DES2: Circulation and Movement, DES3: Design of Public Space, DES4:
Relationship of Development with Public Space, DES5: Tall Buildings, DES6: Waterside
Development, DES9: Landscaping, DES10: Design and Crime, DES11: Design Statement, H1:
Provision of New Housing Development, H2: Managing the Supply of Housing, H4: Affordable
Housing, H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, S2: Retail and
Leisure Development Outside Town Centres, and         Neighbourhood Centres, A1: Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans, A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled, A8: Impact of
Development on the Highway Network, A9: Provision of New Highways, A10: Provision of Car,
Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, EN16: Contaminated Land, EN17: Pollution
Control, EN18: Protection of Water Resources, EN22: Resource Conservation, R2: Provision of
Recreational Land and Facilities, DEV5: Planning Conditions and Obligations, CH5: Archaeology
and Ancient Monuments

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1    –      Regional Development Principles
L4     -      Regional Housing Provision
MCR2 -         Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region

There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents which are also relevant to the
determination of this application. These include Design and Crime, Trees, the Greenspace Strategy
and Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD are also
relevant, but have not as yet been adopted so can therefore only be afforded limited weight in the
decision making process. The Council’s Housing Planning Guidance was adopted in December
2006. The Council, in conjunction with Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, has also recently
produced a draft of the Mediacity:UK and Quays Point planning guidance, which has been the
subject of public consultation. This is however non-statutory guidance as it is not included within
the Council’s Local Development Framework. It does however set out guidelines which both
authorities should have regard to in the determination of planning applications, albeit that it has
limited weight at this stage.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the scale, density, layout and mix of the proposal is acceptable;
whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposal would
have any impact upon highway safety; whether the proposal impact upon the setting of a listed
building; and whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these
issues in turn.


                                                 6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site

Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for development and
details the order in which sites for development should be brought forward: existing buildings;
previously developed land which is well served by a choice of means of transport and is well related
to housing, employment, services and infrastructure; previously developed land in other locations
provided that adequate levels of accessibility could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in
locations which are, or would be made to be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to
employment, services and infrastructure.

Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance with
the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.

Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development
plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective
use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously
developed land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid
areas of important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and
infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.

Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and
advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as outlined in Adopted RSS
Policy DP1.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3), provides a definition of previously development
land:

‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure’

The whole site is considered to be previously developed land, as defined in Annex B of PPS3. It
was last used as a cinema. In fact the vacant cinema building is still evident on site. The remainder
of the site comprises of car parking associated with the former use.

The principle of development on the site is therefore considered to be appropriate. It would accord
with the sequential approach to development, which prioritises the re-use of existing buildings and
previously developed land over the development of greenfield land, as set out in PPS1, PPS3,
Policy DP1 of RSS and Policy ST11 of the UDP.




Principle of the Proposed Uses




                                                 7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Policy MX1 states that Salford Quays will be developed as a vibrant mixed-use area with a broad
range of uses and activities, and development within it will be required to support this. Criteria i-vi
of Policy MX1):

                 the positive impact development could have on regeneration of the wider area;
                 the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed development would
                 support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the
                 mixed-use areas;
                 the contribution the development would make to securing activity in the area
                 throughout the day;
                 the prominence of the location in relation to key pedestrian and other transport
                 routes;
                 the size of the site; and
                 the potential to support the establishment, expansion and success of the knowledge
                 capital.

The whole site falls within the Salford Quays mixed-use area, as defined on the Proposals Map as
MX1/3. The proposal incorporates a broad range of uses and activities, including offices, housing,
retailing and leisure uses.

Policy MC:UK 2 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance also makes clear
that a mix of uses will be promoted within the Quays (Media City).

The mixed-use areas are to be developed as vibrant areas with a broad range of uses and activities
and new developments are required to support this. Appropriate uses in the mixed-use areas are set
out in criteria a-j of Policy MX1 and are; housing; offices; tourism, including hotels; leisure;
cultural uses; education; community facilities; retail and food and drink proposals; essential
infrastructure and support facilities; and knowledge-based employment, including live-work units.

The proposal would provide a total provision of 7,212 sq m of commercial floorspace. The
applicant has not provided any breakdown for each of the proposed uses. However, the applicant is
proposing to develop residential units and also commercial floorspace covering A1-A5, B1, D2 and
sui generis uses. Ordinarily the applicant would have to justify such town centre uses, as the site is
not within an existing town, neighbourhood centre or regional centre. However, I do not consider
that A2, B1 and D2 uses need particular justification, as these are identified as being appropriate in
the mixed use areas (by policy MX1). However, Policy MX1 states that retail and food and drink
uses (which include A1, A3, A4 and A5 uses as proposed) are appropriate in the mixed uses areas,
only where consistent with the retail and leisure proposals of the UDP.

The purpose of the above policy and guidance is to provide retail provision in existing centres and
that retailing outside of these areas is only appropriate where it addresses an identified local need.
However, policy MX1 identifies retail provision as an appropriate use within this mixed use area.
Given that the commercial aspect of the scheme is speculative at this stage, and with the agreement
of the applicant, I have attached a condition restricting the maximum amount of retail only
provision of the scheme.




                                                  8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The reasoned justification to Policy MX1 is also clear that Salford Quays will continue to develop
as one of the regions primary office locations. The provision of further offices within this scheme
would complement the existing offices in the area and aid further growth in this sector.

Overall, I consider that the application proposals would make a positive contribution to the
regeneration of the wider area and wholly accord with the key provisions of Policy MX1. I also
consider that the application to provide a good balance between residential and other uses, and
therefore would support rather than compromise the regeneration of the regional pole. This
application is therefore considered to be fully consistent with the overall purpose of Policy MX1,
and would help to consolidate Salford Quays as an attractive and successful mixed-use area
forming an integral part of the Regional Centre.

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

Given that this site is located within Salford Quays and having regard to the existing public
transport infrastructure, I am satisfied that this high density is appropriate for this location.

Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1, of this policy states that all new housing
development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability.

Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal.
Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in
accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas
where there is evidence of an unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing . At the
                               “




                                                                                           ”

current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important
to take into consideration evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests
that household growth is likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is
proposing to significantly increase annual housing provision for Salford. However, at present I
consider that some weight, albeit little, should be afforded to the draft RSS.

The residential element of the scheme would comprise of the following apartment mix:

47 studio apartments
281 one bedroom apartments
286 two bedroom apartments
29 three bedroom apartments
8 duplex (three bedroom)

This represents the following percentages:



                                                  9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




50% 1 bed (including studios)
44% 2 bed
6% 3 three beds (including duplex)

Planning Guidance for Housing has replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD). The thrust of this guidance is to ensure a balanced mix in accordance with policy H1 of the
UDP. Whilst the guidance is less prescriptive than the draft SPD in terms of specifying a specific
amount of any one type of accommodation, it does seek to provide an appropriate mix. The
guidance has been adopted by the City Council and therefore a material consideration.

Criterion C of policy H1 goes on to state that in determining the appropriate mix, one of the factors
that should be taken into consideration is the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area.

The scheme has been amended to provide a greater range of 3 bedroom accommodation. The
amount of 3 bedroom accommodation would now represent 6% of the overall provision. The
scheme would exceed 50% accommodation at 57sq m or greater. I consider that the mix identified
above and having regard to the wider area is sufficient to satisfy the Planning Guidance for Housing
and policy H1 of the adopted UDP.

Affordable Housing

Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing of appropriate types.

Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance requires that on all residential sites over
1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more
dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable dwellings. The reasoned
justification states:

A full Market Demand Study for Salford was produced in 2003, and the details of its findings in
relation to the need for affordable housing are summerised in paragraph 7.15 of the UDP. It
explains that the study’s analysis suggested a demand for around 1,000 affordable dwellings
                          “




from households currently in need or those likely to fall into need over the next 5 years (to 2008)
  (ibid), which would equate to 200 households per annum. This equates to 38.5% of Salford’s
”




housing provision figure of 530 dwellings per annum net of clearance.

Moreover, there is evidence that the affordability situation in Salford may have worsened since the
2003 study. Having regard to the increase in the number of people of the Housing Register
(increasing from 8,026 in 2003 to 12,791 in 2006) and utilising an OPDM Housing Needs
Assessment Model, the need for affordable housing could have trebled to as high as 600 dwellings
per annum over the next 10 years.

However, the Housing Planning Guidance also acknowledges that the a reduced proportion of
affordable housing or lower commuted sum may be appropriate where the development may



                                                 10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




otherwise become unviable. Paragraph 5.9 of the guidance states       In such circumstances, the




                                                                     “
evidence provided by the developer should include a financial statement that has been professional
certified. This will be treated on a confidential basis, where appropriate.     Also of particular




                                                                             ”
relevance is the final bullet point of policy HOU3 ‘Quantity of Affordable Homes’, The bullet point
states   The scheme was substantially developed before the adoption of this Guidance.
         “




                                                                                        ”
In this particular case, pre application discussion were held with the developer and ‘Design
Workshop Meetings’, the last of which was held in July 2006 and involved several officers of the
City Council, Urban Vision and Peter Hunter. These discussions have influenced the design ethos
which underpins this outline proposal.

The application was submitted on 18th September 2006. While I am conscious that this is an outline
application, approval is sought for a number of matters. The matters seek to establish the scale,
massing and component parts that make up the proposal including the number and mix of
residential accommodation. Therefore, I consider that the scheme, having the benefit of substantial
pre-application discussion and amendment, was ‘substantially developed’ before the adoption of
the guidance.

Notwithstanding this, that applicant have also provided a detailed viability appraisal which
considers the current scheme with and without affordable housing provision. The appraisal
demonstrates that the amended scheme (which provides 50% of the accommodation at 57sq m and
6% three bedroom accommodation) with the inclusion of affordable housing is not commercially
viable.

The applicant has provided a financial appraisal of the viability of the scheme should affordable
housing be provided. The Council property consultants have assessed this information. Given the
commercial sensitivity of this information it is not within the public realm.

The appraisals have been considered by the Councils consultant surveyors who have confirmed that
the profit margin for the scheme without any affordable housing is on the border line of an
acceptable level of profitability and that the inclusion of affordable housing at this stage would
affect the scheme’s viability.

The application was submitted on 18th September 2006 and pre-application discussions were held
prior to this date. I consider that, the scheme would be unviable with the inclusion of affordable
housing, and that it was ‘substantially developed’ before the adoption of the guidance. Therefore, I
do not consider it appropriate to secure affordable housing provision as part of this scheme.




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


                                                11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




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.

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

Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted, including:
where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is highly accessible by
public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively relate to and interact with the
public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality, would make a positive addition to the
skyline and would not detract from important views; there would be no unacceptable
overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no unacceptable impact on microclimate,
telecommunications activity, aviation safety, and the development would be consistent with other
UDP policies.

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

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

Policy UR10 of RSS seeks to ensure that strategies are in place for the design, management,
maintenance and enhancement of public realm and urban greenspace. It outlines a number of
priorities, including enhancing the setting of residential neighbourhoods, increasing the overall
stock of urban trees and improving accessibility and community safety.

The applicants have submitted a detailed design and access statement. In considering the
appropriateness of the design and access of the proposed development, it is important to note that
the application is in outline, with approval sought for layout, scale and access. Design and
appearance are reserved for determination at a later date. Therefore, many of the issues raised by


                                                  12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




the above policies will be considered at reserved matters stage, when detailed designs are submitted
and are not directly relevant to the consideration of this application.

I have summerised the each of the matters sought by this proposal and provided a brief description
below:

         Layout – the way in which the building, routes and open spaces are provided within the
         development and their relationship to buildings and spaces outside the development.

         Scale – the height, width and length of the building proposed in relation to its surroundings.

         Access – accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of
         positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the
         surrounding access network.

Access and car parking is discussed later in this report.

The development as proposed is for a curved linear building following the north and east
boundaries of the site, bounded by Clippers Quay and Trafford Road. The building rises in height
in both directions from its lowest point of 6 residential storeys at Clippers Quay to reach 12 storeys
at the waters edge and its highest point of 22 storeys as it reaches Trafford Road bridge.

In terms of height, the lower point of the scheme would be 24.4m in height. The highest element of
the scheme would be 66m. Between each of these points the building would step up at regular
intervals. Therefore, this elevation would appear to rake back from the junction of Clippers Quay
to the canal. In the opposite direction the building would step up at regular intervals. The curve of
this section would be more pronounced.

The depth of the building would be 8m. Each elevation is curved which will add interest and help
the final design reflect the surrounding buildings. Moreover, when viewed from the north towards
the Trafford Road bridge, the curve of the elevation would open up views of the listed bridge. From
across the canal the internal curve will allow views into the proposed amenity area and will add
interest to this elevation.

Exchange Quay to the east comprises of a number of individual tall buildings which increase in
height towards the waters edge. The scale of this proposal is similar to the scale of Exchange Quay.
In fact, across Trafford Road the proposal and Exchange Quay would be of similar height.

Across Clippers Quay to the consented Abito scheme the height of this proposal would be of a
similar height. Issues of residential amenity and separation are discussed later in this report.

The nature of the site as both a gateway and landmark building has been positively addressed in the
proposal. The spiralling arc is attractive and is an interesting and an apt response to the surrounding
built form.

I consider that the scale of the building responds well to the site. The vast expanses of White City
roundabout and the ship canal allow a building of sufficient scale to contrast with the openness and


                                                  13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




ensure a balance in the environment. Large office blocks across Trafford Road mean that, although
taller, the tower is kept to scale. The building also responds well to the scale of surrounding
buildings with the arc lowering to the height of the surrounding ‘stage 1’ buildings of the quays,
whilst also pointing to the future and connecting with the newer ‘stage 2’ developments
predominant on Dock 9, and allows for adaptable development on Clippers Quay in the future.

I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard at this stage. As such I consider that
the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of scale and massing.

Materials

The applicant has provided a samples of a range of materials which are likely be used. The
materials proposed are consistent with those detailed within the Design and Access Statement and
indicative elevations shown within. However, given that the proposal does not seek consent for the
‘design’ of the scheme the materials are indicative only and to provide a suggestion of how the
external elevations of the building may be treated.

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.

In accordance, with the Design and Crime SPD, the Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Officer (ALO) has reviewed the proposal and has no objections at this stage. The applicant
has stated their full commitment to achieving Secured By Design accreditation through ongoing
dialogue and discussion with the ALO. Compliance would be fully considered at the reserved
matters stage when detailed designs have been developed.

 I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard at this stage. As such I consider that
the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of designing out crime.

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.

The Abito scheme is would be the closest resident development to this scheme. As members will
recall this scheme was granted consent in 2006.

The element of this proposal which would face the Abito scheme would be 8 and 9 storeys
(including ground floor) and would be residential. At this point the proposal would be 24.4 and
27m in height and would maintain 15m between each elevation at its closest point. The Abito
scheme opposite would be six storey in height closest to Clippers Quays before increasing in height



                                                  14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




further away from Clippers Quay. Moreover, the curve of this proposal would also increase the
separation between each elevation.

The scheme would therefore be closer than the Councils normal separation distances applied
elsewhere within the City. Given the city centre location of the site and the nature of the
development, it is not appropriate to apply the interface standards that are used to guide
development elsewhere within the city. However, I consider that both buildings, whilst different in
shape and form, would be located in close proximity to the back of footpath and would therefore
help define the entrance to Clippers Quay. The internal relationships of the residential blocks
would provide and appropriate level of separation and privacy in accordance the Councils normal
separation distances.

Given the location of the site within the Quays and within the Regional Centre, I not not consider it
appropriate to apply the Council’s normal separation distances in this instance. Moreover, I
consider that 15m is sufficient to ensure that the future occupiers of both this proposal and the
consented Abito scheme are provided with an appropriate levels of amenity to reflect this high
density urban area.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
privacy and separation.

Landscaping, Public Realm and Trees

Policy DES6 requires all new development adjacent to Salford Quays to facilitate pedestrian access
to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the provision of a safe, attractive and
overlooked waterside walkway accessible to all at all times, pedestrian links between the waterside
walkway and other key pedestrian routes, and where appropriate, ground floor uses which generate
pedestrian activity. Development will also be required to, where possible, protect, improve or
provide wildlife habitats and conserve and complement any historic features and not affect the
maintenance or integrity of the waterway. Finally, the policy requires all built development along
the Quays to face onto the water, incorporate entrances onto the waterfront where appropriate, be of
the highest standard of design, be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside and
enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway.

Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must be of a high
quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety and security, form an
integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.

The Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document contains further policies and
guidance in relation to tree protection that includes the requirement to replace trees that are lost on
a two for one basis.

As this application is in outline with landscaping sought at a later stage, the applicant is not required
to provide specific landscaping information at this stage. Nonetheless, the proposed plan suggests



                                                   15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




that the proposal will significantly increase the amount of soft landscaping on the site and
significantly improve the nature and quality of hard landscaping.

The proposal would provide areas of public realm around the building. Whilst landscaping has
been reserved for later approval it is clear that the corner of Clippers Quay and Trafford Road at the
front of the building would provide a significant public realm. To maximise the difference in levels
between ground level and Trafford Road a podium would be provided which would wrap around
the curve of the building would link the public realm at the front of the building would the canal
side walkway. The scheme would also include active ground floor commercial space along the
canal’s edge which will encourage further use of this existing recreational resource.

The applicant has also provided indicative information and photographs detailing their intention for
a high quality landscape and open space strategy.

There are a number of trees and bushes within the landscaped areas associated to the former cinema
use and were a requirement of development. The majority of the trees on this site would have to be
removed to facilitate the scheme and its construction.

None of the trees which would be removed to facilitate this proposal are the subject of a Tree
Preservation Order. I consider that the trees that currently offer some amenity value are located at
the junction of Clippers Quay and Trafford Road. Those that bound Trafford Road reduce in
amenity value due to the change in levels between Trafford Road and the site. The tree along the
waterside edge would be retained. I do not consider that any of these trees warrant the protection of
a formal preservation order.

The landscaping strategy indicates that replacement trees would be provided within the site and
within the areas of public realm to the front of the building at the junction of Clippers Quay and
Trafford Road and along the canal waterside.

The landscaping element of the scheme is reserved for consideration at a later date. I am therefore
satisfied that the requirements of policies DES6 and DES9 will ultimately be met and that a high
quality public realm, active canal walkway and landscaped provision will be delievred.

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

There are a number of listed buildings within the locality of this site and include the Trafford Road
bridge which adjoins the site, Ordsall Hall to the north west and the former dock office to the north.
However, given the distance of the Ordsall Hall and the dock office, coupled with the scale of
development around the site and that which is currently under construction, I do not consider that
this proposal would have any detrimental impact upon the setting of these listed buildings.

The most significant effects will be to the Grade II listed Trafford Road Bridge. I consider that the
proposed building provides an effective backdrop and is a positive impact serving to highlight the
bridge and bring it to the foreground. At present the low set bridge is lost in the panorama of the
Quays. The tower at the south east corner of the site is a strong vertical counterpoint to the arched


                                                 16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




form of Trafford Road Bridge, articulating the visual relationship between the bridge and the
proposed development.

However the proposal does share an extremely close proximity with the listed bridge and operator’s
cabin. The applicant has submitted an assessment of impact of the development on the Trafford
Road bridge. The assessment details a number of important views of the bridge and provides
verified images of the same views including the proposal.

It is clear that, given the scale of development and its proximity to the bridge and operators cabin,
the proposal will dilute views currently enjoyed of the Trafford Road bridge listed building.
However, it should be noted that the tower element of the proposal has been designed so that it
would be effectively on ‘stilts’ adjacent to the bridge and pump house. This design feature retains
permeability from Trafford Road across the canal but also of the pump house and will provide an
effective backdrop to highlight the bridge and respond to the context of the surrounding scale.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
above. However, I consider that the design of the building and materials proposed at the reserved
matters stage will have to be of the highest quality to integrate the scheme within the Quays and to
reflect the importance of the surrounding buildings.

Open Space Provision

Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.

Adopted policy R2 states that planning permission will be granted for recreational development
provided it would satisfy a number of criteria.

This application would generate a total of 1662 bedspaces. The site is located in a deficiency area
for all the Greenspace provision. The only proposed sites in the Greenspace Strategy SPD which
would alleviate some of this deficiency are improvements to the River Irwell walkway which could
satisfy the Local Semi-Natural Greenspace standard, and upgrading Ordsall Park could provide the
site with District Park provision.

At present, given that landscaping is not sought as part of the proposal, the scheme is not proposing
any on-site open space. The Planning Statement confirms an agreement to provide a financial
contribution in lieu of on-site open space provision. For formal and informal/ capital and
maintenance open space provision, for this development, the total financial contribution would be:
£897,480 (1662 bedspaces X £540).

As such, I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted Policy H8 and R2 of the
adopted plan subject to the provision of an appropriate S106 agreement to secure this level of
contribution.

Car Parking and Access




                                                 17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment
and, where appropriate, a travel plan.

Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and improvement of key
routes.

Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

Policy T9 of RSS relates to demand management. It also covers the issue of car parking standards
and states that standards should be more restrictive in urban areas to reflect local characteristics,
such as higher levels of public transport and higher development density.

Policy RT6 of Draft RSS states that local authorities should develop a coordinated approach to
parking provision as part of an all-embracing strategy to manage travel demand. Plans and
strategies should incorporate maximum parking standards (parking for disabled people being the
only situation where minimum standards will be applicable); manage car use by implementing
workplace, education and personal travel plans which should be developed alongside public
transport, cycling and pedestrian network improvements; and provide dedicated and secure parking
facilities for cycles and two wheel motorised vehicles.

The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of
the adopted UDP.

The proposal would provide 779 off street car parking spaces within a two storey deck. All of the
car parking would be accessed off Clippers Quay. Disabled, motorcycle and cycle parking would
be conditioned to acceptable ratios. The car parking proposed would be provided mainly at
basement level with 388 spaces proposed on the upper basement and 291 at the lower basement. 17
spaces would be outside of the envelope of the building and would be located adjacent to the
vehicular entrance off Clippers Quay.

The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has no objection to the proposal in
principle.

I have received objection to the proposal on highway grounds. Members will recall the Abito
scheme also on Clipper Quay to the north of this proposal. The applicant of that scheme has agreed
to investigate current parking problems at Merchants Quay and to identify possible traffic
management solutions. The method statement explains that occupancy surveys and vehicle
registration plate surveys would be would be undertaken along with site surveys to assess whether a
residents or community (residents and business) parking scheme would be beneficial. Such a
scheme would then have to undergo a public consultation process to determine whether residents
would be in favour of such a scheme. A financial contribution of £20,000 has been secured by
S106 agreement to undertake a study of parking problems at Merchants Quay.



                                                 18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




I have considered the information provided within the TA and I am satisfied that the level of
development proposed would not have an unacceptable impact upon the highway network. I am
satisfied that sufficient visibility would be provided at the entrance to the site to safeguard highway
safety.

Given the site’s location in relation to existing community, public transport and other local
facilities, I consider that the car parking provision across the site to be appropriate for this part of
the City. Moreover, I am also mindful of the heads of terms agreed on the neighbouring site.
Members will recall that the Abito scheme agreed to provide free travel passes for 1 year to
encourage sustainable travel patterns and to mitigate the reduced parking provision of
approximately 30% provision.

At present the commercial elements of the scheme are speculative and whilst I have attached a
condition restricting the level of A1 retailing to a local provision I am unable to apply specifically
the Councils car parking standards as set out in appendix C of the UDP. However, assuming that
the whole of the commercial floorspace was for B1 office provision (worse case scenario) the
maximum number of space required would be 206. This would provide 573 spaces for the
residential provision. This represent 90% provision for the residential provision. However, given
the proposal is for a mixed use proposal I do not consider that the ‘worse case scenario’ would
result and therefore the residential provision is likely to be 1 space per apartment.

It is clear that the current proposal would provide a higher ratio of provision than the Abito scheme.
Therefore, while I accept that the site is accessible by public transport to justify the proposed
provision, I do not consider it necessary to provide free travel passes in this instance.

Given the likely time period to construct the proposal I have attached a condition requiring the
submission of a site operating statement. This will require information to be provided and agreed
on:

         provision of permitted hours for construction works
         delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment
         provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles
         wheelwashing facilities
         street sweeping

I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.

The site is well served by a choice of means of transport and the development would support
sustainable patterns of transport, reducing reliance on the car in accordance with government and
regional guidance and local planning policy.

Environmental Considerations

Sustainable Construction




                                                  19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




UDP Policy EN 22 states that development proposals of this size will only be permitted where it
can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources, and on the
local and global environments, has been minimised as far as practicable; and full consideration has
been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options, and such measures have been
incorporated into the development where practicable.

Although we are unable to assess the environmental performance of the proposed building until
detailed designs are submitted at the reserved matters stage, the applicants supporting information
states that the design and construction of the proposed development would be of the very highest
standard, addressing current issues on sustainability, waste management, policing and security, and
would seek to achieve a    Very Good      BREEAM rating on Ecohomes.
                          “




                                       ”

I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of Policy EN22 will ultimately be met and that an
environmentally responsible, sustainable, resource efficient building will be delievred. To ensure
such a positive outcome for the purposes of this planning application it is recommended that a
condition be imposed to that effect.

Air Quality

Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution) will not be permitted unless
they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.

An air quality assessment is included within the application submission. It is based on an
assessment of the development on local air quality arising from demolition and construction
activities, as well as from road traffic and service plant arising from the completed development.
The demolition and construction effects of the development would be related to dust emissions and
exhaust emissions from demolition and construction plant and vehicles. The effects of the
completed development would result from traffic associated with the development and operational
plant and ventilation systems.

The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has assessed the air quality assessment and
agrees that the increases in concentrations of both pollutants are small and well below the criteria
that could be classed as significant. Therefore, subject to the following the Strategic Director of
Environmental Services has not objection:

         Implementation of the travel plan
         S106 Funding of monitoring tube 5 years
         The building design meets the BREEAM environmental assessment GOOD to
         EXCELLENT (with substantial rating on the energy features)
         Environmental Management Plan incorporating the Considerate Constructors Scheme is
         adopted.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of air
quality.



                                                 20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Wind Study

The wind strategy also demonstrated that due to the buildings shape a vortex would be created
within the communal space. This demonstrated that without remedial action, even on gentle breezy
days, the communal garden would be an uncomfortable space to use. The remedy suggested was to
focus planting on the edge of the internal courtyard.

The report recommends a number of mitigation measures which will need to be incorporated into
the design of the building and design and layout of the landscaped area to mitigate the effect of
wind. The report identifies the areas where mitigation should be included and suggests measures
which would mitigate the effect. However, at this stage the appearance of the building and
landscaping are reserved for later approval.

I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of Policy DES5 (tall building) will ultimately be met
through the approval of future reserved matters.

Noise and Vibration

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

Two noise reports have been submitted in support of this application. One deals with noise from
construction activities, the other deals with noise and vibration affecting the site once the
development has occurred and its effect on adjacent land uses.

The Director of Environmental Services has considered the assessments and has no objection to the
proposal subject to condition relating internal noise levels for the apartments, restrictions of
deliveries to the commercial uses, noise from fixed plant and odour. I have attached conditions
accordingly.

I have also attached a considerate contractors conditions which required agreement for the hours of
construction work.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of noise
and vibration.

Shadow Analysis

The applicant has submitted a sun path study within the design statement and a shadow analysis
report.

The report states that whilst the development reaches 23 storeys above podium level at its highest
point, it is not envisaged that the development will have a detrimental effect on its immediate
neighbours. This is due to a number of reasons including the rake of the roof coupled with the
design and orientation of the proposed building.


                                                  21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The report includes a shadow diagrams of the existing buildings on the site at both mid summer and
mid winter. Similar assessments are provided of the proposed scheme at identical periods. It also
demonstrates that the consented scheme would not be unduly effected by shadowing and that the
proposal would not contribute to any further overshadowing of the existing residents at Merchants
Quay.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
sunlight and shadowing.

Other issues

I have attached a condition requiring the phasing of development to be agreed prior to the
commencement of development in order to ensure that the full range of uses is brought forward in
an appropriate manner.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an
agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a
total of £897,480. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

I am satisfied that the scale and massing of the proposal would not have any significant detrimental
effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the surrounding area in general. I am
satisfied that the proposed development would not affect the setting of the neighbouring listed
building. I am also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable and the proposal
represents an appropriate mix of uses and an appropriate mix of residential accommodation. As
such, I am satisfied that the application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.



RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A02 Outline

2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
   submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

    a) appearance, including details of the aspects of a building or place within the development
    which determine the visual impression the building or place makes, including the external built
    form of the development, its architecture, material, decoration, lighting, colour and texture;

    b) landscaping, including details of the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose


                                                 22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




    of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is situated and
    includes screening by fences, walls or other means, the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs or
    grass, the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks, the laying out or provisions of
    gardens, courts or squares, water features, sculpture, or public art, and the provision of other
    amenity features;

3. Prior to the commencement of development a phasing plan shall be submitted for the approval
   of the Local Planning Authority. Implementation of the development shall be carried out in
   accordance with the approved phasing plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
   Planning Authority.

4. Prior to the commencement of development of the B1 commercial units a travel plan relating to
   the B1 commercial units within each phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
   Local Planning Authority. Such travel plan shall include objectives and targets, and, where
   appropriate, measures to promote and facilitate public transport use, measures to reduce car use
   and its management, measures to promote and facilitate cycling and walking, promotion of
   practices/facilities to reduce the need to travel, monitoring and review mechanisms, travel plan
   coordination, and provision of travel information and marketing. The initiatives contained
   within the approved plan shall be implemented and shall be in place prior to the first occupation
   of any of the B1 unit within each phase unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
   Planning Authority.

5. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities within each phase shall be submitted to and
   approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
   implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling in that phase and shall be maintained
   thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6. 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 for each
   phase in relation to provision of street sweeping, permitted hours for construction works,
   delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment and the provision and use of
   on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles and no development or activities
   related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating
   statement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. The parking spaces provided shall be used at all times thereafter for the parking of vehicles in
   accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development of each phase the developer shall submit a site
   investigation report in respect of that phase for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.
   The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
   ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
   as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
   to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
   ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
   structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors


                                                 23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




    including ecological systems and property.

    The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. All
    remedial works required by the approved report for each phase shall be implemented by the
    developer prior to first occupation of any of the units in that phase unless otherwise agreed in
    writing by the Local Planning Authority.

    Prior to discharge, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
    for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site in
    respect to the relevant phase were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

9. No part of the development shall be occupied until the developer has demonstrated, to the
   satisfaction of the local planning authority that the following noise levels will not be exceeded
              Lea of 35 dB and Lmax of 45 dB within bedrooms between the 23.00 and 07.00 hours
              LAeq of 40 dB within lounges, living areas and other habitable rooms between 07.00
   and 23.00 hours
              LAeq of 55dB within gardens and balconies

10. Access and egress for delivery vehicles accessing commercial premises is prohibited outside
    the following hours;
    Monday to Friday       08:00 to 18:00
    Saturdays            08:00 to 13:00

11. The rating level (LAeq) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
    when operating simultaneously, shall be 10 dB below the background noise level (L90) at all
    times when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises. Noise measurements and
    assessments shall be carried out according to BS4142; 1997

12. The use of any part of this development involving the preparation and/ or cooking of food shall
    not commence unless and until details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and
    food preparation areas have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
    approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are used for
    cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with
    manufacturers recommendations

13. The gross floorspace of any use falling within Classes A1 - A5 of the Use Classes Order 1987
    (as amended) shall not exceed 2,415 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
    Local Planning Authority and the gross floorspace of any single Class A1 retail unit shall not
    exceed 500 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14. Not less than 50% of the lower basement level and ground floor (podium level) commercial
    floorspace shall be active uses (Classes A1 - A5)

15. Any application for the approval of reserved shall include details outlining how the scheme will
    seek to achieve an Eco Homes or BREEAM ""good" to "excellent" rating. The development of
    each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed
    in writing by the Local Planning Authority


                                                 24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

4. In accordance with Policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5. In accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

7. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage

8. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

9. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

11. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

12. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

13. In accordance with PPS6 and policy S2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

14. To provide activity at ground level in accordance with MX1 of the City of Salford Unitary
    Development Plan

15. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with
    Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.


Note(s) for Applicant


1. For further information regarding the requirements for site investigation, acoustic protections
   and air quality please contact The Director of Environmental Services on

2. The applicant attention is drawn to the advice of following:
   United Utilities
   Manchester Ship Canal Company


                                               25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                  1st February 2007




    Greater Manchester Ecology Unit

3. 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.



APPLICATION No:                06/53636/FUL

APPLICANT:                     K W Linfoot Plc

LOCATION:                      Land On The South West Side Of Michigan Avenue Salford

PROPOSAL:                      Erection of four-26 storey buildings comprising 1036
                               apartments and 58,475 sq.ft of commercial space for
                               A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,B1,D1 and D2 use together with associated car
                               parking and alteration to existing and contruction of new
                               vehicular access

WARD:                          Ordsall


ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

This application was deferred at the meeting of 21st December to allow consideration of
amendments to the mix of residential accommodation and additional supporting information
regarding the provision of affordable housing.

It was considered that the scheme did not provide an appropriate mix of residential accommodation
or affordable housing. The two recommended reasons for refusal state:

         The proposed development would not provide an appropriate mix of residential
         accommodation and would work against the provision of sustainable, mixed communities
         contrary to policy H1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, The Council's
         Housing Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development and
         Planning Policy Statement 3 : Housing.

         The proposed development would not provide any affordable housing provision and would
         work against the provision of sustainable, mixed communities contrary to policy H4 of the
         City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, The Council's Housing Planning Guidance,
         Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development and Planning Policy Statement 3 :
         Housing.

Housing Mix



                                                26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The applicants agents have amended the scheme further regarding the proposed mix of residential
accommodation. The scheme now seeks to provide 1,036 apartments. The mix of accommodation
would be as follows:

132 (12.7%) ‘smart pads’ – original submission 184
380 (36.6%) 1 bed studio apartments – original submission 668
460 (44.4%) 2 bed apartments – original submission 284
64 (6.1%) 3 bed apartments – original submission 28

Moreover, the amendments have also results in 50% of the proposed apartments at 57sqm or above.

Therefore, I now consider that the proposed mix of accommodation to be an appropriate balanced
mix of residential accommodation necessary to facilitate a sustainable community. As such, I
consider now consider that the proposal is in accordance policy H1 of the UDP, The Council’s
Housing Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.

Affordable Housing

The applicant has provided a further supporting information regarding the provision of affordable
housing.

Policy HOU3 of the housing planning guidance also identifies where a lower proportion of
affordable housing, or a lower commuted sum may be appropriate. The applicants agents have
provided a detailed viability appraisal which considers the extant permission including affordable
housing provision, the current scheme both with and without affordable housing provision. The
appraisal demonstrates that the current amended scheme (which provides 50% of the
accommodation at 57sq m) with the inclusion of affordable housing is not commercially viable.
The commercial sensitivity of this information is not within the public realm.

The appraisals have been considered by the Councils consultant surveyors who have confirmed that
the profit margin for the scheme without any affordable housing is on the border line of an
acceptable level of profitability and that the inclusion of affordable housing at this stage would
effect the schemes viability.

The Housing Planning Guidance also acknowledges that the a reduced proportion of affordable
housing or lower commuted sum may be appropriate where the development may otherwise
become unviable. Of particular relevance is the final bullet point of policy HOU3 ‘Quantity of
Affordable Homes’, The bullet point states The scheme was substantially developed before the
                                             “




adoption of this Guidance
                          ”




The application was submitted on 9th October 2006 and pre-application discussed where held prior
to this date. I consider that, the scheme would be unviable with the inclusion of affordable housing,
but was also ‘substantially developed’ before the adoption of the guidance. Therefore, I do not
consider it appropriate to secure affordable housing provision as part of this scheme.



                                                 27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Therefore, I now consider that the proposed mix of accommodation without the inclusion of
affordable housing, to be an appropriate balanced mix of residential accommodation necessary to
facilitate a sustainable community. As such, I consider now consider that the proposal is in
accordance policy H4 of the UDP, The Council’s Housing Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.

Open Space Provision

The section of the report below details the requires for public open space. The report also accepts a
revised cost taking into account the informal public space and podiums. Given that the scheme now
includes a revised mix of accommodation it is necessary to reassess the requirements of policy H8.
Therefore, applying the same discounted cost per space the total financial contribution (excluding
Amenity Space) would be:

Capital;        £779,380 (£293 per bed space x 2660 bed spaces)
Maintenance;           £521,360 (£196 per bed space x 2660 bed spaces)

Total Contribution;      £1, 300, 740 (£489 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an
agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a
total of £1,300,740. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.

Provision of free Metrolink passes for future residents for a period of 3 months.

CONCLUSION

I am satisfied that the amended design is of a high quality and that the application would not have
any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the surrounding
area in general. I am also satisfied that the application complies with policies of the development
plan as a whole.

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.

Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

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


                                                 28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




    the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
   approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
   include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary, surface treatment
   and hard landscaping and shall be carried out within 18 months; of the commencement of
   development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
   Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
   satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
   surface water drainage from the development shall be passed through an oil interceptor
   designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with, the site being drained.
   Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor

5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
   disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved
   plans

6. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted to
   and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
   implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.

7. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
   report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
   distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
   identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
   Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
   waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health
   and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping
   schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.

    The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
    investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved
    report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.

    Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
    submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
    validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
    the LPA.

8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing servicing and
   delivery times and methods for the functioning of the commercial units has been submitted to
   and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved such scheme shall be
   implemented for deliveries and servicing of the commercial units hereby approved.



                                                 29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




9. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing the form and
   appearance of all public realm works has been submitted for the approval of the Local Planning
   Authority. No development shall commence until such scheme has been approved in writing by
   the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling, or commercial unit shall be occupied unless and
   until all public realm works as approved under the above scheme have been constructed and are
   open for public use. Once constructed the public realm works shall remain open for members of
   the public.

10. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing
    by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the
    occupation of any dwelling in that phase and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise
    agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

11. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a report, which shall be
    undertaken by a body approved by the Independent Television Commission, detailing the
    existing level and quality of TV reception. Prior to first occupation of the development the
    developer shall submit, for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, a scheme that will
    detail measures to remedy any identified television signal reception problems which have been
    caused as a result of the development hereby approved. The scheme, which shall be verified by
    a body approved by the Independent Television Commission, shall identify such measures
    necessary to maintain at least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception. The
    approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any residential property.

12. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall
    be designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to local premises and shall be
    approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place. The
    approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are used for
    cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with
    manufacturers recommendations

13. The gross floorspace of any use falling within Classes A1 - A5 of the Use Classes Order 1987
    (as amended) shall not exceed 1,309 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
    Local Planning Authority and the gross floorspace of any single Class A1 retail unit shall not
    exceed 500 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14. Not less than 50% of the ground floor commercial floorspace for each of the four towers shall
    be active uses (Classes A1 - A5)

15. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 17th January 2007 which shows
    changes to the general arrangements and reduces the residential provision to 1036 apartments

16. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme demonstrating, as a minimum, an Eco
    Homes or BREEAM "very good" rating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
    Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
    approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.




                                                30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

4. To prevent pollution of any watercourse in accordance with policy EN18 of the City of Salford
   UDP

5. To ensure satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy EN18 of the City of Salford
   UDP

6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

7. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

8. Reason: To protect the interests and safety of traffic on Michigan Avenue in accordance with
   policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

9. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

11. To provide a remedy to the identified loss of TV reception as a result of the development hereby
    approved and to ensure that the development at least maintains the existing level and quality of
    television signal reception as advised in PPG 8: Telecommunications and policy DES7 of the
    Adopted UDP

12. To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
    DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

13. In accordance with PPS6 and policy S2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

14. To provide activity at ground level in accordance with MX1 of the City of Salford Unitary
    Development Plan

15. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

16. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with
    Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.


Note(s) for Applicant


                                                31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




1. The applicants attention is drawn the advice provided by United Utilities

My previous comments are listed below:


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This site comprises land at the southern end of Michigan Avenue adjacent to the Harbour City
Metrolink Stop. The site is split into two and is divided by the roundabout at the southern end of
Michigan Avenue. There are two single storey industrial units which appear unoccupied. The
harbour city tram stop is located immediately adjacent to the eastern half of the site. To the north of
the site lie low rise industrial units whilst to the south across the Quays Loop Road and Metrolink
line are the three NV Buildings at 17 storeys each. Also across the Quays Loop Road are the Conran
Buildings which is nearing completion and which have a 22 storey tower, and the Victoria &
Alexandra Office buildings. Also along the Quays Loop Road is the Millennium development
which has permission for a 22 storey tower and is currently under construction.

Planning permission is sought for four towers containing 1148 residential units comprising of 184
smart pads, 668 one bedroom apartments, 208 two bedroom apartments and 104 large two bedroom
apartments and 5,021 sq m of commercial floorspace (Classes A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,B1,D1 and D2).
Two towers would be sited on each half of the site.

Principally, the proposed design consists of 4 identical residential towers sited on four podiums
which contain the remaining mix of uses. Two levels of car parking are at basement level. All four
towers would contain 24 storeys of residential accommodation and two commercial floors above
ground level and two basement car parking levels, including the amenity podium level this would
equate to 29 storey in total.

Two towers would be sited on each side of Michigan Avenue. The towers are proposed to be built
on podiums which would contain the retail and leisure space to the south, west and east frontages.
The retail and leisure uses would have full height glazing. Five hundred and forty three car parking
spaces are proposed on two underground levels. Vehicular access is proposed off the roundabout at
the southern end of Michigan Avenue. A recessed floor above the podium level would provide
some shared amenity space for residents.

The applicant has submitted a planning and design statement which explains the architects
justification for the form and mass of the proposed building and considers views between the
buildings and connectivity in the area. The planning policy framework is also considered as is the
future redevelopment of the area. The applicant has also submitted a wind study which analyses the
existing wind conditions at the site and the impact of the proposed buildings upon the wind
conditions at ground level.

The applicant has also submitted a Transport Assessment which addresses capacity issues on
several local roads, public transport provision, cycle access and access for people with impaired
mobility and considers the planning framework with respect to transportation. The transport
assessment includes existing developments in its analysis and also permitted but as yet


                                                  32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




unimplemented developments in the area. The transport assessment explains the development
would not itself require the construction of the Broadway Link to ease pressure on the local traffic
network. The transport assessment concludes that the proposed development would not have any
significant impacts upon the local highway network and the development would promote
sustainable transport choices.

SITE HISTORY

Planning permission was approved in January 2006 for the demolition of existing industrial unit
and erection of two 21 storey and two 29 storey towers providing 600 residential units together with
retail, leisure and creche development on ground floor with part underground and part integral car
parking on ground to first floor, alterations to existing vehicular access and alterations to public
realm (05/50434/FUL).

Neighbouring site

Planning permission has recently been approved to the west of this site (Media City). The scheme
was in outline and sought consent for layout and access in respect of the redevelopment of 15.1
hectares of land to provide mixed use development comprising business, studios and production
space, residential, live/work units, retail (including shops, financial and professional services,
restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments and hotfood takeaways), hotel and leisure together
with associated car parking, highway works and open space (06/53168/OUT)

CONSULTATIONS

Manchester Airport – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the use of
lighting on cranes during construction.
Civil Aviation Authority – Advises the Council to be sure the development accords with
Government guidance on proximity to Aerodromes.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological interest.
Director of Environmental Services – The site is on the edge of the former dockland area and is
currently under industrial use. It is highly likely that there will be some contamination to the ground
in the area with a possibility for gas migration affecting the ground floor levels. A full site
investigation report will be required to determine the risk and any necessary ground contamination
or gas which could affect the amenity of future residents. The site is also adjacent to one of two
major access routes to the Lowry centre and associated facilities as well as several other large scale
mixed use sites. It is likely that noise from these uses will have an impact on the future residents on
site. The site is also surrounded on two sides by the Eccles-Manchester Metrolink service. The third
side is also abutting industrial sites. Noise is likely to have a significant impact on this application
and as such a condition will be required to assess and propose mitigation measures commensurate
with the end uses. Noise from the site may also be an issue for other surrounding residential uses
from the retail uses proposed on the ground floor.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Explain that public transport links are
good and that high density development such as this is supported by GMPTE. Recommend a free
one year travel pass for each residential unit, a buyers pack to include information on public
transport and a personalised journey planner.



                                                  33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage and
a contaminated land condition.
Lowry Development Company – No comments received
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received
United Utilities – No objections subject to the applicant agreeing drainage details with United
Utilities.
Highways Agency – No comments received
In response to the previous application - Provide comments on the Transport Assessment which
relates to the applicants proposals for the wider area. State that this proposed development would
not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the Trunk Road network.
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received
Grain Wharf Management Company – No objections received
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – consider the follow:
         The principle of tall, mixed-use, residential-led towers on the site is accepted and
         supported, and fits with the Vision and Regeneration Framework aspirations in priority
         project 14.
         The scale and massing of the towers is supported. However the design should incorporate
         more interest to the rear (south) elevations, as the development appears to turn its back to
         the north.
         The applicant has not provided sufficient information to justify the mix of residential
         accommodation proposed. (As in paragraph 3.42 of the Planning Support Statement – ID
         Planning). We cannot support the proposed mix without this information.
         The Sustainability Appraisal (WSP) is inadequate for this development, as it has been
         prepared for an outline planning application, whereas this application is for full consent.
         The sustainability review is based on the intrinsic characteristics of the site and not the
         essential analysis of the sustainability credentials of the composition of the building and its
         operation.
         There appears to be an inconsistency between the form and siting of the car parking vents
         on the External Works Ground Floor Plan and the General Arrangement North Elevation.
         Please could you confirm which is correct.
         We would support the Council in pursuing affordable housing within the development.
         We would suggest that Urban Vision’s landscape design section reviews the landscaping
         proposals for compatibility with the existing hard landscaping.
Peter Hunter – Peter Hunter advises that the design of the scheme is of a high quality and a further
improvement over what has already been approved. He considers that the improvements to the
design justify the increase in the additional height of two of the four towers.
GM Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 28th November 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 26th October 2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

         60 – 97 Vancouver Quay



                                                  34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                       1st February 2007




         30 – 58 Winnipeg Quay
         15 – 173 Labrador Quay
         1 – 164 NV Buildings
         43-68 St Lawrence Quay
         City Lofts, Harrogate
         Alexandra Building
         Victoria Building
         Capstan House, Broadway
         Chandlers Point 33-37 Broadway
         Air Products Ltd, Broadway
         JDS Trucks, Broadway
         Spinnaker Court, Chandlers Point, Broadway
         Abbey Life Insurance, Broadway
         Lowry House, 5 Ohio Avenue
         1 - 4 Ohio Avenue
         Units 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 Michigan Avenue
         Batleys Plc, Ohio Avenue
         1 - 5 Central Park, Ohio Avenue
         Avis Fleet Services, Ohio Avenue
         Hedgehog House, Ohio Avenue
         Unisafe House, Ohio Avenue
         Units 2 – 7 Washington Centre, 102 – 112 Broadway
         114 – 116, 122, 124, 200, 210 Broadway
          Freshbake Foods, 101 Broadway
         1a, 1 - 4 Anchorage Quay
         Bupa Offices, Anchorage Quay
         Newscentre, Anchorage Quay
         Wright Health Group, Anchorage Quay
         Barclays Bank, Anchorage Quay
         Youth Centre, Anchorage Quay
         Food Mountain, Anchorage Quay
         Ventor Factors Plc, Anchorage Quay
         FM Insurance, Anchorage Quay
         Trillium, Anchorage Quay
         Allianz Cornhill, Anchorage Quay
         Amec, Anchorage Quay

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

         Unacceptable adverse impact on existing electronic and data services
         Unacceptable adverse impact on local highways and related infrastructure
         Unacceptable adverse impact on existing utilities
         Regeneration and new development should be directed towards less well off areas
         No more luxury flats are required


                                                 35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                 1st February 2007




         Height would dominate the area
         Excessive number of apartments
         Would provide a transient rather than sustainable community
         Preferable to see family accommodation
         Traffic congestion
         Noise and disturbance
         Need for infrastructure such as doctors and dentists
         Amount of apartments still be constructed
         Overshadowing
         Should be reduced in size
         Too much high density housing in one space
         No parking for visitors
         No green space

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: MX1/3 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Salford Quays)
Other policies: ST2: Housing Supply, ST6: Major Trip Generating Development, ST7: Mixed-Use
Development, ST11: Location of New Development, ST12: Development Density, DES1:
Respecting Context, DES2: Circulation and Movement, DES3: Design of Public Space, DES4:
Relationship of Development with Public Space, DES5: Tall Buildings, DES6: Waterside
Development, DES9: Landscaping, DES10: Design and Crime, DES11: Design Statement, H1:
Provision of New Housing Development, H2: Managing the Supply of Housing, H4: Affordable
Housing, H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, S2: Retail and
Leisure Development Outside Town Centres, and Neighbourhood Centres, S4: Amusement
Centre and Food and Drink Uses, A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, A2: Cyclists,
Pedestrians and the Disabled, A3: Metrolink, A8: Impact of Development on the Highway
Network, A9: Provision of New Highways, A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
in New Developments, EN16: Contaminated Land, EN17: Pollution Control, EN18: Protection of
Water Resources, EN22: Resource Conservation, R2: Provision of Recreational Land and
Facilities, DEV5: Planning Conditions and Obligations, CH5: Archaeology and Ancient
Monuments

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1    –       Regional Development Principles
L4     -       Regional Housing Provision
MCR2 -          Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region

There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents which are also relevant to the
determination of this application. These include Design and Crime, Trees, the Greenspace Strategy
and Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Council’s Housing Planning Guidance and


                                               36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Planning Obligations SPD are also relevant, but have not as yet been adopted so can therefore only
be afforded limited weight in the decision making process. The Council, in conjunction with
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, has also recently produced a draft of the Mediacity:UK
and Quays Point planning guidance, which has been the subject of public consultation. This is
however non-statutory guidance as it is not included within the Council’s Local Development
Framework. It does however set out guidelines which both authorities should have regard to in the
determination of planning applications, albeit that it has limited weight at this stage.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Given that the site does benefit from an extant permission for a mixed use residential lead scheme I
consider that the principle of a mixed use scheme has been established on this employment site.
Therefore, I consider that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the
principle of the proposed scale of development is acceptable; whether the density, design, layout
and mix of the proposal is acceptable; 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. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.

Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site

Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for development and
details the order in which sites for development should be brought forward: existing buildings;
previously developed land which is well served by a choice of means of transport and is well related
to housing, employment, services and infrastructure; previously developed land in other locations
provided that adequate levels of accessibility could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in
locations which are, or would be made to be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to
employment, services and infrastructure.

Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance with
the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.

Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development
plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective
use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously
developed land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid
areas of important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and
infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.

Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and
advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as outlined in Adopted RSS
Policy DP1.

Planning Policy Statement Note 3: Housing (annex B), provides a definition of previously
development land:

‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding
agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition


                                                 37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




covers the curtilage of the development. Previously developed land may occur in both built up and
rural settings.’

The whole site is considered to be previously developed land, as defined in Government guidance
such as Annex B of PPS3 (Housing).

The principle of development on the site is therefore considered to be appropriate and established
through the granting of the extant permission. It would accord with the sequential approach to
development, which prioritises the re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land over
the development of greenfield land, as set out in PPS1, PPS3, Policy DP1 of RSS and Policy ST11
the UDP.

Principle of the Proposed Uses
The extant permission has established a the principle of a mixed use scheme. That approval
included retail, leisure and creche development. Therefore, I consider that the principle of these
uses has been established.

Policy MX1 states that Salford Quays will be developed as a vibrant mixed-use area with a broad
range of uses and activities, and development within it will be required to support this.

The whole site falls within the Salford Quays mixed-use area, as defined on the Proposals Map as
MX1/3. The proposal incorporates a broad range of uses and activities, including offices, housing,
live/work units, retail, leisure, hotels, essential infrastructure and support facilities and cultural
uses.

Policy MC:UK 2 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance also makes clear
that a mix of uses will be promoted within the Quays (Media City).

The proposal would provide a total provision of 5,021 sq m of commercial floorspace. The
applicant has not provided any breakdown for each of the proposed uses. Policy S2 ‘Retail and
Leisure Development Outside of Town Centres and Neighbourhood Centres’ and Planning Policy
Statement 6 is relevant in the consideration of retail provision.

Given that the commercial elements of the scheme are speculative and that planning permission has
already been granted for 1,309sq.m. retail use. The purpose of the above policy and guidance is to
provide retail provision in existing centres and that retailing outside of these areas is only
appropriate where it addresses an identified local need. Given that no further information has been
provided regarding the retail provision I consider that it would be appropriate to limited the amount
of A1 retailing to the amount already approved. The applicant has indicated that this would be an
acceptable condition.

This application is therefore considered to be fully consistent with the overall purpose of Policy
MX1, and would help to consolidate Salford Quays as an attractive and successful mixed-use area
forming an integral part of the Regional Centre.

Density



                                                 38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Policy ST12 states that development within the regional centre, town centres, and close to key
public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density appropriate to
the location and context.

Policy H1 of the UDP states that development should be built at an appropriate density, and that in
the mixed use areas this should not be less than 50 dwellings per hectare. This standard may be
varied in individual circumstances having regard to criteria A-H of the policy. The density of the
proposed development is 1,077 dwellings per hectare. This is a very high density, although given
the sites immediate access to the Metrolink, the need to make the most efficient use of the site, and
responding to the site’s context (which is increasingly characterised by tall, high quality buildings)
I consider that the density is appropriate in principle. However there is a need to ensure that there is
a need for design to be of high quality. The design of the proposal is consider later in this report.

Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1, of this policy states that all new housing
development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability.

Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal.
Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in
accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas
where there is evidence of an unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing . At the
                                “




                                                                                             ”
current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important
to take into consideration evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests
that household growth is likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is
proposing to significantly increase annual housing provision for Salford. However, at present I
consider that some weight, albeit little, should be afforded to the draft RSS.

Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance allows for residential developments within the
Regional Centre to consist wholly of apartments.

Policy HOU7 of the Housing Planning Guidance indicates that such provision should normally be
in the form of social rented accommodation, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.

Planning Guidance for Housing has replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD). The Planning Guidance is expected to be adopted by the Council on the 20 th December
2006. The thrust of this guidance is to ensure a balanced mix of accommodation in accordance with
policy H1 of the UDP. Whilst the guidance is less prescriptive than the draft SPD in terms of
specifying a specific amount of any one type of accommodation, it does seek to provide an
appropriate mix. Although the guidance is not part of the development plan for Salford it is a
material consideration.

Policy MC:UK 1 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance states that
innovative approaches to the provision of suitably high density family accommodation should form
part of the mix.


                                                  39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




There is a greater emphasis in PPS3 on securing a good mix of housing, including families, and any
approach needs to be evidence-based. Paragraph 21 states, Key characteristics of a mixed




                                                                 “
community are a variety of housing, particularly in terms of tenure and price and a mix of different
households such as families with children, single person households and older people.




                                                                                        ”
Para 23 states, Developers should bring forward proposals for market housing which reflect
                “




demand and the profile of households requiring market housing, in order to sustain mixed
communities. Proposals for affordable housing should reflect the size and type of affordable
housing required.
                  ”




Para 24 states, In planning at site level, Local Planning Authorities should ensure that the
                “




proposed mix of housing on large strategic sites reflects the proportions of households that require
market or affordable housing and achieves a mix of households as well as a mix of tenure and
price. For smaller sites, the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities
having regard to the proportions of households that require market or affordable housing and the
existing mix of housing in the locality.
                                       ”




I consider that the Housing Planning Guidance supports the approach set out PPS 3.

Criterion C of policy H1 goes on to state that in determining the appropriate mix, one of the factors
that should be taken into consideration is the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area. The
residential mix of this scheme is set out below:

184 (15.8%) ‘smart pads’
668 (57.4%) 1 bed studio apartments
284 (24.4%) 2 bed apartments (76 of which would be large two bed apartments)
28 (2.4%) 3 bed apartments

Only 104 (9.3%) of the apartments would be over 57sq m (the 57m2 target set out in the
consultation draft Housing SPD which set a minimum of 50%). Of the total number of dwellings,
73.2% (a total of 852 dwellings) are in the form of studio apartments. The smallest of these are the
‘smart pads’, with some units as small as 22m2, and the majority being 25m2. Additionally, it is
noteworthy that only 2.4% of the dwellings are 3 bed properties.

I do consider that this scheme does incorporate a number of general sustainable development
principles as defined within PPS1 in that the scheme would provide a high density on an
appropriate site, be accessible by a range of public transport and provide a range of uses to promote
vitality and viability. However, the main thrust of the advice relates to ‘communities’ and ensuring
that development provides for sustainable communities.

The increasing dominance of small and very small dwellings in new apartment developments, and
within the Regional Centre in particular, effectively excludes a large proportion of households from



                                                 40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




living there. This works against the provision of sustainable communities, instead leading to
increasingly monotonous areas, a lack of social diversity, and households having to move out of
their neighbourhoods as their circumstances change in order to meet their housing needs, the
dominance of small dwellings, and the continuing reduction of dwellings sizes, risks creating a
dangerously skewed residential market within the city, and could work against the provision of
sustainable, mixed communities.

Therefore, I do not consider that the proposed mix of accommodation provides an appropriate
balanced mix of residential accommodation necessary to facilitate a sustainable community. As
such, I consider that the proposal is contrary to policy H1 of the UDP, The Council’s Housing
Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.

Affordable Housing
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing of appropriate types.

Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance requires that on all residential sites over
1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more
dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable dwellings.

Policy HOU4 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance provides advice on the types of
affordable housing.

Policy HOU5 of the Housing Planning Guidance proposes that affordable housing provided on-site
should be integrated into the rest of the development, and visible differences between tenures of
provision should be minimised, as far as practicable.

As stated above Policy H4 of the UDP requires developers to provide an element of affordable
housing where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs. There is a need citywide for
affordable housing, with an Affordable Needs Assessment showing the need for around 600
affordable units per annum, over the period 2006-16. Amongst other things, this need is a result of
rising house prices to household incomes, an increase in those on the Housing Register, the Right to
Buy scheme, and a decrease in the vacant local authority and RSL stock.

The current stock in the Ordsall ward (which includes Salford Quays) is skewed towards social
rented units as opposed to owner occupation and so in order to address the skewed nature of housing
tenure in the Ordsall ward and provide greater choice, it would be most appropriate for affordable
units to be in the form of intermediate housing. Examples of intermediate housing include shared
ownership and/or shared equity schemes.

In the applicants Supporting Statement (paragraph 3.64) it is stated that In terms of delivering
                                                                            “




affordable homes, there is no demonstrable need for affordable housing in the Salford Quays area
and the previous approval for residential development of the site was not subject to this element of
planning gain. In this context, it is considered that there is no affordable housing required from the
development .
             ”




                                                 41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




A full Market Demand Study for Salford was produced in 2003, and the details of its findings in
relation to the need for affordable housing are summarised in paragraph 7.15 of the UDP. It
explains that the study’s analysis suggested a demand for around 1,000 affordable dwellings


                          “
from households currently in need or those likely to fall into need over the next 5 years (to 2008)
   (ibid), which would equate to 200 households per annum. This equates to 38.5% of Salford’s
”




housing provision figure of 530 dwellings per annum net of clearance.

Moreover, there is evidence that the affordability situation in Salford may have worsened since the
2003 study. Having regard to the increase in the number of people of the Housing Register
(increasing from 8,026 in 2003 to 12,791 in 2006) and utilising an OPDM Housing Needs
Assessment Model, the need for affordable housing could have trebled to as high as 600 dwellings
per annum over the next 10 years.

The Housing Planning Guidance also acknowledges that the a reduced proportion of affordable
housing or lower commuted sum may be appropriate where the development may otherwise
become unviable. Paragraph 5.9 of the guidance states      “  In such circumstances, the evidence
provided by the developer should include a financial statement that has been professional certified.
This will be treated on a confidential basis, where appropriate
                                                               ”


The guidance is expected to be adopted by the City Council on the 20th December 2006. This
application was submitted before the adoption of this guidance document which increases the need
and justification for affordable housing from that required by Policy H4 of the adopted plan.

The applicants have confirmed that they do not intend to provide affordable housing as part of their
proposals for this site. They have questioned the evidence to support the need for 20% affordable
housing and have stated that this scheme would be economically unviable with the inclusion of
affordable housing provision. However, no further supporting information or details as to the
economic viability have been provided.

Therefore, without any supporting information to justify the applicants assertion that the scheme
would not be economically viable with the inclusion of affordable housing, I do not consider that
the proposal would accord with the Policy H4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, the
Councils Housing Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.

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



                                                42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




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

Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted, including:
where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is highly accessible by
public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively relate to and interact with the
public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality, would make a positive addition to the
skyline and would not detract from important views; there would be no unacceptable
overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no unacceptable impact on microclimate,
telecommunications activity, aviation safety, and the development would be consistent with other
UDP policies.

Policy DES6 requires all new development adjacent to Salford Quays to facilitate pedestrian access
to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the provision of a safe, attractive and
overlooked waterside walkway accessible to all at all times, pedestrian links between the waterside
walkway and other key pedestrian routes, and where appropriate, ground floor uses which generate
pedestrian activity. Development will also be required to, where possible, protect, improve or
provide wildlife habitats and conserve and complement any historic features and not affect the
maintenance or integrity of the waterway. Finally, the policy requires all built development along
the Quays to face onto the water, incorporate entrances onto the waterfront where appropriate, be of
the highest standard of design, be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside and
enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway.

Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must be of a high
quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety and security, form an
integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.

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

Policy DES11 requires the submission of a design statement with all major applications explaining
how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design principles and design
concept and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, density, scale, visual appearance



                                                  43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




and landscaping, the relationship of the development to its site and the wider context and how the
development will meet the Council’s design objectives.

Policy UR10 of RSS seeks to ensure that strategies are in place for the design, management,
maintenance and enhancement of public realm and urban greenspace. It outlines a number of
priorities, including enhancing the setting of residential neighbourhoods, increasing the overall
stock of urban trees and improving accessibility and community safety.

Policy MC:UK 4 outlines the requirements for the urban form, density and massing withi Media
City and Quays Point. It states that the redevelopment of the site should take a more traditional
urban form than has been typical at the Quays, with dense and compact city blocks, generally eight
to ten storeys in height, punctuated with the occasional high tower, possibly over twenty storeys in
height, at the Broadway end of the site. Areas of public realm should radiate from the waterfront,
with a piazza on the waterfront to Dock 9.

MC:UK8 states that a network of pedestrian and cycle friendly streets will be promoted throughout
Quays Point and Media City which should link to the urban fabric north of Broadway.

The development is split either side of Michigan Avenue with 2 towers rising from each side.
Parking is accommodated within 2 full basement levels. The ground and first floor accommodate
commercial spaces. The split of commercial accommodation is discussed earlier in this report. The
level 2 podium provides semi private amenity space for the residents of the towers. The space
creates a natural buffer between the different use classes and minimise the effects of routing the
services through the lower units.

The identical towers rise with a single core served by 3 number lifts. Refuse chutes have been
provided at each level which drop into holding areas at ground floor. The core have been placed on
the inner facing sides of the towers to reduce loss of light and overlooking. Apartments are located
on the prominent exposed facades adding value and benefiting from panoramic views.

The elevations convey a rhythm between each of the identical towers giving the scheme its own
identity. From the waterside, the towers appear very slender contributing to the notion
permeability. The south elevation consists of full height glazed curtain walling to maximise the
views across the Quays. The outer faces of each twin set of towers adorn projecting glazed screens
offering views and aspect to the North and South. The random rainscreen cladding serves to reduce
the scale of the buildings and introduce further interest.

The podiums are located either side of Michigan Avenue astride the axis of the Detroit Bridge
spanning the Huron Basin and aid permeability through the area. The increase in height over the
NV Buildings will panoramic views South across The Quays. The orientations of the towers relate
to the NV buildings whilst providing linear views off the dock to and from the site. The increase in
height from the NV Buildings will continue to repeat the step up in height from the waterside.

The existing planning consent is essentially 4No residential towers, 2No at 29 storeys and 2No at
21 storeys. The buildings are fanned outwards from the centre. The commercial footplates
accommodate most of the ground floor with perimeter access. The northern elevation
accommodates the servicing and parking.


                                                44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




The current application draws on the positive aspects of the existing consent. Heights have been
rationalized to 4no identical 29 storey (including podium and basements) towers. The towers share
the same orientation to maximise views and reduce overshadowing. The taller tow approved
towers would be 94.15m with the smaller towers 76.16m in height. The overall height (above
ground level) of all four towers in this instance is 88.9m

The design of the podium which provides the commercial elements of the scheme would be
replicated in identical design features for the roof of each tower. The material proposed are
discussed later in this report. I am satisfied with the design, roofline and silhouette of the proposed
towers which will be appropriate when viewed from all directions including long views from
Langworthy Road. I also consider that the design would be a further improvement on than which
has already the benefit of planning permission.

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.

I have received a number of objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the
proposed development on their amenity, and in particular loss of light and privacy.

The internal separation distances between the proposed towers A & B and C & D would be 21m
The distance between B & C would increase as these towers would be sited on either side of
Michigan Avenue. The siting of the towers is similar, albeit on a slightly different orientation, than
the previous approval. I consider the size and scale of the four proposed towers to be
complimentary to the scale of redevelopment at this part of Salford Quays. The towers have been
positioned to allow a north-south view along an axis in line with the Detroit Bridge.

The internal relationships of the residential blocks would provide and appropriate level of
separation and privacy in accordance the Councils normal separation distances. The relationship to
existing residents is also considered appropriate and similar to the extant permission.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
privacy and separation.

Materials
The elevations of the extant permission consist of through colour rendered panels, polished
aluminium and copper cladding. The plinth would be clad in Sandstone with aluminium curtain
walling.

The design of the proposal incorporates a contemporary mix of materials and include the following:

Plinth
            Architectural aluminium curtain walling with silicone vertical and horizontal joints.
            pre-cast concrete cladding panels – colour: Spanish Dolomite
            stainless steel column encasements


                                                  45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Podium
            glazed infill panel with stainless steel handrails
            hard and soft landscaped podium amenity space with raised bed planting and seating

External faēade
            Aluminium curtain walling system with mimic panel. Horizontal silver bullnose cover
            caps and silicone vertical joints
            Dark grey rainscreen cladding laid in varying depth horizontal bands
            Composite PPC windows with internal timber frames
            Random pattern coloured metal rainscreen cladding panels
            Perforated polished metal vent panels

Sunlight / Shadowing
The principle of four towers on this site has already been established and the impact of shadowing
and sunlight considered acceptable. The two middle towers on this scheme are of a similar height,
albeit smaller, as the middle two towers of the extant permission. The main increase in height
would occur in the outer two towers when compared to the previous scheme.

The applicant has submitted a sun path study within the design statement. The sun path study
demonstrates that the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact upon existing residents of the
Quays by way of loss of sun light and shadowing.

I do not consider that the increase in height of the two outer towers compared to the extant
permission would have any detrimental impact upon the residents of the surrounding properties.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
sunlight and shadowing.

Conclusion of Design, Scale and Massing
The extant permission establishes a scale of development on this site. However, I consider that the
design and orientation of the scheme as proposed, justifies the increase in height of two of the
proposed towers. As such, I consider that the design, scale and massing of this proposal accords
with the policies highlighted above.

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.

At ground floor the buildings are a regular plan allowing unobstructed views of the site and its
external spaces. The applicant has indicated that formal surveillance (CCTV) and lighting would
be carefully designed to cover higher risk areas such as the main doors, secondary access doors, fire
escapes and parking areas. This could be controlled by appropriate conditions.




                                                 46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Ornamental walls and hedges within the landscaping scheme have been kept to a minimum height
to increase natural surveillance. All residential lobby access doors and parking areas would be
fitted with access control systems.

The Police Architectural Liaison advisor has considered the proposals. The response states




                                                                                                     “
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this planning application. You will see from the
appendix of the Planning Statement that this was the subject of a pre planning consultation with
this unit and I can see no problem with the proposals.




                                                         ”
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
designing out crime.

Trees and Ecology
Policy EN10 states that development which would be likely to have an adverse impact on legally
protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the
population level of the species at a favourable conservation status within its natural range.

I do not consider that there are any trees of significant amenity value on the site. Moreover, I
consider that the extant permission accepted that the trees on the site would be lost, as such, I do not
consider that there have been any material changes with regard to trees since Members last
considered the redevelopment of this site.

Landscaping
Policy DES9 relates to landscaping and considers that development will be required to incorporate
hard and soft landscaping provision, where appropriate.

MC:UK6 states that within the wider Trafford Wharfside and Salford Quays area outside the Quays
Point site, there will be a continued emphasis on high quality public realm provision.

The scheme would be similar to that already approved. Whilst sum trees would be lost to facilitate
this development there would be an opportunity to provide replacement tress planting around the
podiums at ground level and on top of the podiums within the residential amenity space. The
applicant has expressed their desire to construct a high quality public realm and provide a sense of
place and sense of arrival through incorporating the public realm works with the Metrolink stop.

Subject to the provision of a landscaping scheme to ensure the provision of high quality hard and
soft landscaping I consider that the scheme would accord with the policy highlighted above with
regard landscaping.

Car Parking and Access
Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment
and, where appropriate, a travel plan.




                                                  47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




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.

Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of
the adopted UDP.

I have considered the information provided within the TA and I am satisfied that the level of
development proposed would not have an unacceptable impact upon the highway network.
However, the increase in the number of apartments proposed would require the Broadway link to
be provided. Members will recall that the recent approval of the Media City proposal included the
provision of the Broadway link. I am satisfied that sufficient visibility would be provided at the
entrance to the site to safeguard highway safety.

The proposal would provide 543 off street car parking spaces within two full basement levels. The
car parking ratio is at 47% for the residential element of the scheme. Disabled, motorcycle and
cycle parking provided at acceptable ratios in accordance with the polices highlighted above and
could be controlled by way of an appropriate condition. No spaces are designated for the
commercial area.

Cars will enter the basements via separate two way ramps into the Easy (towers A & B) and West
(towers C & D) podiums. Refuse, maintenance and emergency vehicles will enter the site from
Michigan Avenue and turn around using the existing turning head. Servicing of the retail and
leisure units will be from Michigan Avenue where a loading bay is provided. Infrequent utility
servicing of the HV and LV substations will be via the hard-standing landscaping area off Michigan
Avenue to the north.

The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has no objection to the proposal in
principle. Members will recall that the previous scheme included that the developer enter into a
section 106 agreement. One of the heads of terms of that agreement required that each residential
unit is supplied with a three month travel pass for buses and Metrolink.

I have discussed this issue with the developer who has agreed in principle to a similar provision
within the any subsequent section 106 agreement.

Given that the site is adjacent to the Metrolink and the design public realm is such to link the tram
stop to the development, I consider that the site is an accessible location. Moreover, subject to the
inclusion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure travel passes for future residents (3 months) I
consider that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above. However, the Broadway link
would have to be provided should planning permission be granted in this instance and the Media
City application not be implemented.




                                                 48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Open Space Provision
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.

Adopted policy R2 states that planning permission will be granted for recreational development
provided it would satisfy a number of criteria.

This planning application needs to be considered within the context of the Media City Draft
Guidance and will need to reflect amendments that are made prior to adoption. I have provided
standard comments relating to the planning obligations requirements for open space. As this
development will be required to provide a proportionate contribution towards the extensive new
infrastructure requirements for Media City this justifies a degree of flexibility in identifying where
the planning obligations are directed but not withstanding this a significant open space contribution
will need to be provided.

Based on the proposed dwelling mix outlined in the planning application, I calculate there would be
a total of 2484 bed spaces created by this development (28 no. 3bed, 284no. 2bed, 668no. 1bed, and
184 smart-pad dwelling units). Each smart pad is considered to equate to the minimum 1 bed space.
The open space requirements are based on policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP and Policy PO1
of the Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

Open Space Financial Contribution

This development would generate 2484 bedspaces, which equates to an open space requirement for
capital provision and 20-year maintenance of:

            1.8133ha Sports Pitches
            0.6210ha Children's Equipped Playspace / Youth and Adult facilities
            0.9936ha Amenity / Informal Open Space

Due to the location and nature of the development (high rise on a relatively small site) it would be
appropriate for the majority of the open space requirement to be provided in the form of a financial
contribution to be directed towards open space recreational improvements within the vicinity of the
development site. The open space financial contributions will be in accordance with Policy PO1 of
the Draft SPD.

The standard open space contribution is £540 per bed space, which includes provision for formal
and informal open space identified in policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and the Greenspace Strategy
SPD and its maintenance over a twenty-year period. The Supporting Statements identify that the
development site will include public squares, landscaped podium terraces and other amenity areas.
These features can be treated as the amenity open space contribution of the development to reduce
the financial contribution by £51 per bed space (£31 capital contribution with an additional £20 per
bed space for maintenance). If maintenance of the amenity space is to be transferred to the city
council this cost (£49, 680) will need to be added to the calculation below.

Therefore the total financial contribution (excluding Amenity Space) would be:



                                                 49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Capital;         £727, 812 (£293 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)
Maintenance;             £468, 864 (£196 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)

Total Contribution;      £1, 214, 676 (£489 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)

It is important that the planning obligation for open space or recreation is directed towards types of
provision (consistent with Policy R2 and priorities in the Greenspace Strategy SPD) that are
relevant to the type, size and location of the development. The majority of this development is not
intended for families, which should be reflected in the type of provision that the open space
contribution is directed towards.

The proportion of the total financial contribution required for sports pitch provision is:

Sports Pitch Provision Capital; £124, 200 (£50 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)
Sports Pitch Provision Maintenance;    £181, 332 (£73 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)

The proportion of the financial contribution required for Equipped Play Space/Youth & Adult
Provision is £366 per bed space (£243 capital contribution with an additional £123 per bed space
for maintenance). The contribution for this type of open space should be split to reflect the
proportion of the development that is intended for families. For this development there are 112 bed
spaces from family dwellings and 2372 bed spaces from single person/couple dwellings. The
Equipped Play Space/Youth & Adult Provision financial contribution should be divided as follows:

Equipped Play Space Capital;              £27, 216 (£243 per bed space x 112 bed spaces)
Equipped Play Space Maintenance;          £13, 776 (£123 per bed space x 112 bed spaces)

Adult Provision Capital;          £576, 396 (£243 per bed space x 2372 bed spaces)
Adult Provision Maintenance;      £291, 756 (£123 per bed space x 2372 bed spaces)

In this context Adult Provision embraces a wide range of provision including informal leisure. It
may also be appropriate for a proportion of the Adult Provision contribution to be directed towards
Sports Pitch Provision or to additional Amenity / Informal Open Space.

Proposed Expenditure

In terms of where the open space contribution should be directed there are a number of initial
options to be investigated in accordance with the Greenspace Strategy SPD and URC vision
document within the vicinity of Media City. These could be used as a starting point for discussions
with the Developer:

             A Green Access Corridor through Salford Quays, linking the suspension bridge
             adjacent to the Lowry Theatre to Weaste Cemetery.
             Semi-Natural Greenspace improvements at Weaste Cemetery
             Semi-Natural Greenspace improvements at Ordsall Park
             Semi-Natural Greenspace improvements along the Manchester Ship Canal / River
             Irwell towards the Regional Centre.



                                                 50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




               Improvements to achieve District Park status at Ordsall Park
               New provision at Stowell Memorial Playing Fields – identified as a proposed LEAP
               and NEAP

The developer has raised concerns regarding the magnitude of the open space figure as calculated
above. However, subject to further discussion, negotiation and agreement as to where and what
these monies would deliver, the applicant has agreed in principle.

Therefore, at this stage and subject to further negotiation on the location of the proposed provision,
I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted Policy H8 and R2 of the adopted plan
subject to the provision of an appropriate S106 agreement to secure this level of contribution.

Sustainability Principles
Policy EN22 of the UDP explains planning permission will not be granted if the development will
have an unacceptable impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources.

The applicant has stated the following with regard to sustainability principles:-
          the development is on a brownfield site of low ecological importance
         “




       Avoidance of areas at risk of flooding.
       promoting more sustainable forms of transport, including close proximity to the metrolink
       station        and        cycle      routes       and        limiting      the   number
       of car parking to approximately 1 space per 2 residential units.
       The development will secure a highly efficient use of space.
       Proposed retail and leisure units will provide facilities for existing residents and the
       adjacent business district.
       The development will attract new residents to the area and their associated skills and
       investment.
       The Harbour City Development is capable of achieving a ‘Very Good’ EcoHomes rating,
       subject to certain commitments and measures being incorporated into the detailed design.
         ”




Other issues

The applicant has commission a report on the potential impact of the development on
telecommunications. The assessment concludes that the scheme is unlikely to have an impact on
the neighbouring properties and does not recommend any mitigation measures to be included in the
scheme.

CONCLUSION

The increasing dominance of small and very small dwellings in new apartment developments, and
within the Regional Centre in particular, effectively excludes a large proportion of households from
living there. This works against the provision of sustainable communities, instead leading to
increasingly monotonous areas, a lack of social diversity, and households having to move out of
their neighbourhoods as their circumstances change in order to meet their housing needs, the



                                                 51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                 1st February 2007




dominance of small dwellings, and the continuing reduction of dwellings sizes, risks creating a
dangerously skewed residential market within the city, and could work against the provision of
sustainable, mixed communities.

Therefore, I do not consider that the proposed mix of accommodation provides an appropriate
balanced mix of residential accommodation necessary to facilitate a sustainable community. As
such, I consider that the proposal is contrary to policy H1 of the UDP, The Council’s Housing
Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.

Moreover, without any supporting information to justify the applicants assertion that the scheme
would not be economically viable with the inclusion of affordable housing, I do not consider that
the proposal would accord with the Policy H4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, the
Councils Housing Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.




APPLICATION No:               06/53739/HH

APPLICANT:                    Mr And Mrs Dooner

LOCATION:                     34 Sapling Road Swinton M27 0BZ

PROPOSAL:                     Erection of a two storey side extension and single storey rear
                              extension

WARD:                         Swinton South


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL




                                               52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




The application relates to the erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear
extension to this semi detached dwelling. The proposed side extension would extend up to the
shared boundary with number 36 Sapling Road. No windows are proposed to be inserted in the side
elevation of this extension. Both extensions are proposed to extend 2.8 metres from the existing
rear elevation of the house. It is proposed that the rear extension has a sloping roof.
The adjacent property has a single storey extension which is used as a kitchen/dining room . The
dining room has a doorway in the side elevation which allows light into the dining area. The
distance between the extension at number 36 Sapling Road and the boundary is less than a metre. It
is proposed that the first floor element of the side extension will be set back two metres from the
existing front line of the house, and envelops the side and part rear of the existing building in an
L-shape.

PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
32-36 Sapling Road (Evens)
21-23 Folly Lane (Odds)

REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection to the proposal from the neighbour adjacent to the proposal
site.
I have received one letter of objection from Councillor V. Burgoyne who has requested that the
application is referred to Panel because of concerns that the development would unduly affect the
amenity of the adjacent neighbour due to its proximity with the boundary.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: None
Other policies:
DES1 (Respecting Context)
DES8 (Alterations and Extensions)
SPD - ‘House Extensions’


PLANNING APPRAISAL
Issues
The main issues associated with this application are the effect the development will have on the
immediate neighbour at number 36 Sapling Road and whether the development would constitute an
unacceptable addition in terms of its size.

Policy Framework
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that any development respects the
context of the area within which it is set. The policy specifies that in determining applications,
regard should be had to the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape or
environmental species or species; the character scale and pattern of buildings, their relationship ,
the scale of the proposed development, the impact upon views and vistas, the streets vertical and
horizontal rhythms, the materials for the development, and the compatibility with the adjoining
uses.



                                                53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Policy DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that planning permission is only
granted for alterations or extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale and
character of the area, the rhythms, proportions, details and materials of the original structure and
complement the general character of the surrounding area.

Policy HE1 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House Extensions’ states that
facing principle windows of habitable rooms should maintain a minimum distance of 10.5m to the
boundary and 21m to directly facing principle windows of habitable rooms in order to protect the
amenities of directly facing occupiers in terms of privacy

Policy HE8 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House Extensions’ requires that
where a two storey extension is proposed to the side of a dwelling either the first floor element of
the extension must be set back by two metres from the front line of the house or the whole of the
extension set back by one metre.

Analysis

Policy DES1 and DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan require that all proposals for
development should respect the context of the area within which they are set. I do not consider that
the proposed development would be out of place within the local area or in relation to the existing
building. The development would not significantly affect the character of the street scene or be
visually intrusive. I therefore consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies DES1
and DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

In accordance with Policy HE1 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House
Extensions’ the distance between the windows within the rear elevation of the ground floor and two
storey extension would exceed 10.5 metres to the boundary and 21 metres to directly facing
principle windows of habitable rooms at the rear. It is considered therefore that there would be no
loss of privacy to residents of properties on Folly Lane whose habitable room windows directly
face the rear elevation of the development.

Two storey extensions are not normally permitted where they would introduce two storey gables
within 13 metres of principal habitable room windows.However, the principal window within the
adjacent property, is at the rear. There are openings within the side elevation which faces the gable
however these are not principle windows, and the main source of light is from the rear window. It is
therefore considered that there would be no loss of light into this room and subsequently no loss of
amenity to this neighbour in this respect.

The proposed rear single storey extension is considered to be acceptable in size and the aspect
distances from the windows in the rear elevation of this would satisfy the minimum requirements of
directly facing windows of habitable rooms with properties on Folly Lane. Visual amenity to the
front would not be affected by the development and it is not considered that the development would
be incongruous in the streetscene.

Policy HE8 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House Extensions’ requires that
where two storey extensions come close to the boundary they should be set back one metre at first



                                                 54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




and ground floor level or by two metres at first floor level. The proposed extension complies, as it is
set back 2 metres at first floor level from the front building line of the original house.

I acknowledge the objection of the adjacent occupier however consider that the development would
not have a significant effect upon the amenities of this neighbour, and subsequently recommend
this application for approval. I consider that conditional control is required to ensure that no
openings are formed within the side elevation of the proposed extension in order to protect the
amenities of the adjacent occupier in terms of privacy and overlooking.


I have no objection to the proposal on highway grounds and subsequently recommend that the
application is approved.

CONCLUSION
I consider that the development would not have a significant impact upon the character of the area
nor would it detrimentally impact upon the amenities of nearby occupiers. I consider that the
proposal is in accordance with all of the relevance development plan policies and therefore
recommend approval of the application.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. Standard Condition D03Y Samples of materials

3. Not withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted
   Development Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without
   modification) at no time shall any windows or other side openings be formed within the side
   elevation of the development hereby permitted without the prior written approval of the Local
   Planning Authority.


(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

3. To protect the amenities of the adjoining occupiers and to accord with Policy DES7 of the
   Adopted Unitary Development Plan.




                                                  55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




APPLICATION No:                06/53463/FUL

APPLICANT:                     Beara Properties Limited

LOCATION:                      Builders Yard To Rear Of 3 To 19 Moss Lane Cadishead M44
                               5DE

PROPOSAL:                      Demolition of existing buildings and erection of one
                               three-storey block comprising six apartments and a terrace of
                               six three-storey town houses together with associated car
                               parking and landscaping and alterations to existing vehicular
                               access

WARD:                          Cadishead


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a vacant builders yard to the rear of 3 to 19 Moss Lane. The site is
currently occupied by a series of single storey and two storey buildings, which run round the
perimeter of the site. Vehicular access to the site is off Moss Lane, to the side of 3 Moss Lane. A
Kitchen Factory occupies the land to the north of the site and a row of nine two storey terraced
properties lies to the east of the site. A bowling green occupies the land to the west and a public
house and a club associated with the bowling green are located to the south of the site. Beyond the
kitchen factory to the north and the bowling green to the west there is a residential estate.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a three storey block comprising of six apartments
and a terrace of six, two and a half storey, town houses. The proposed apartment block would be
located towards the southern end of the site and lie on a north-south axis to the site, fronting onto
the access to and from the site. It would have a footprint of 20m by 8.5m and it would measure 8m
to the eaves and 11m to ridge. An area of amenity space measuring 14.5m by 5m would be located
to the northern side of the proposed block. A parking area with 6 spaces, including 2 suitable for use
by disabled persons would be provided to the front of the block. The terrace of townhouses would
be located to the north of the site, running east to west. The footprint of the terrace would be 30.5m
by 8.4m and the structure would measure 6m at the eaves and 10.7m at the ridge. Each property
would have a parking space to the front and a small garden to the rear.

SITE HISTORY

In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 7d Brews Yard to unit for the
building and repairing of boats (ref E/9317)




                                                 56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 7c Brews yard to clutch and
gearbox centre (ref E/9613)

In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 7 Brews yard to a motor and
engine repair and servicing centre (ref E/9614)

In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Units 4 and 5 Brews yard to a motor
body repair centre (ref E/9615)

In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 2 Brews yard to a centre for
mechanical repairs of motor vehicles (ref E/9735)

In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 1 Brews yard to a steel
fabrication plant (ref E/9751)

In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 6 Brews yard to boat building
workshop (ref E/10156)

In May 1980 permission was granted for the continued use of Unit 3 Brews yard as a private lock
up garage (ref E10614)

In July 1980 outline permission was granted for the erection of 18 one bedroomed flats in one three
storey block together with associated car parking (ref E/10691/Outline).

In January 1995 permission was granted for the change of use of the units on the yard to a centre for
storage and distribution (Ref 94/33237/COU).

Other relevant history

In December 2003 outline planning approval for the use of the site at 25, 27 and 29 Moss Lane for
residential purposes (ref 03/47066/OUT).

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on the 30th of November 2006

A site notice was posted on the 15th of September 2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

         10 to 16 (odd) Oak Avenue
         15 Oak Avenue
         13 Hawthorn Drive
         1-3 Wright Tree Vilas
         8 to 28 (even) Fir Street
         Grange House, Grange Place
         146a, 150 to 156 (even) Liverpool Road


                                                 57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




         3 to 23 (odd) Moss Lane
         14 to 28 (even) Moss Lane

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received two letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –

         The use of the accessway adjacent to number 3 Moss Lane would have an adverse impact
         upon the stability of the property at 3 Moss Lane.
         Noise and disturbance during the construction period
         Insufficient parking

I have also received 17 letters expressing support for the proposed development.
Councillor Mann has requested that Panel consider this application as he is supportive of the
proposals to develop the site.

CONSULTATIONS

    Environment Agency – No objections in principle. Requested a condition requiring a site
    investigation
    United Utilities – No objection in principle
    Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Object to the proposal on noise grounds. The
    applicant is proposing to install acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation and they are
    proposing to erect a 4m high acoustic barrier along the boundary with the kitchen factory at 21
    Moss Lane. These measures would ensure that overall noise levels would be within the bound
    of reasonableness defined by BS8233. The nature of work at the kitchen factory is, however
    such that there would be impulses of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting,
    voices and fork lift truck movements. The measures proposed would not adequately mitigate
    against such impulses and consequently noise from woodworking machinery would be audible
    within the properties and noise from wood working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork
    lift truck movements would be audible in the garden areas. The Strategic Director of
    Environmental Services is therefore of the opinion that future residents of the proposed
    townhouses would not enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity should the proposal receive
    favourable consideration.
    Architectural Liaison Officer – Initial objections over the inclusion of a car port and a recessed
    garage have now been overcome by the removal of the recessed area.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

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

DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY



                                                 58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




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

DP1 – Regional Development Principles

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
                 DES1 – Respecting Context
                 DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                 DES11 – Design and Crime
                 A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
                 ST11 - Location of New Development
                 H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in
turn.

Principle of development

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

Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to
meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.

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

The Draft Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of units
within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.

Until recently the site was used as a builders yard. The site is therefore previously developed and
consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.

I do not have any objections to the loss of the builders yard, as the site is not located within an
established employment area as identified in Policy E5. In fact I am of the opinion that the
redevelopment of the site formerly occupied by the builders yard would be beneficial to the area as
it would remove a potential source of noise and disturbance from what is a predominantly
residential area.


                                                59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Given the predominantly residential nature of the area I do not have an in principle objections to the
use of the land for residential purposes.

With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Draft SPD on Housing and the mix of units
proposed the proposed development provides a mix of dwellings and apartments, providing 6 2-bed
apartments and 6 3-bed houses. As such I am of the opinion that the proposed development would
contribute towards the mix of dwellings in the locality and as such the proposal is in accordance
with policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the draft planning guidance on housing.

Design

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

Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the
design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual
appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the
Council’s design objectives and policies.

The design of the buildings is of high standard and in accordance with Policy DES13 a design
statement has been submitted with the application.

The proposed dwellings would be two and half storey with living accommodation designed into the
roofspace. The dwellings would measure 6m at the eaves and 10.7m at the ridge. The proposed
three-storey apartment block would measure 8m to the eaves and 11m to the ridge. I am of the
opinion that the design, scale and massing of the proposed dwellings would respect that of the that
of other properties in the vicinity of the site, including those on Moss Lane and Hawthorn Drive,
which are predominantly two stories in height. Consequently I am of the opinion that the proposed
development would harmonise well with its surroundings.

The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and concrete roofing tiles. I have
attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved
prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they compliment the appearance of
surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitably high quality.

Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area as the buildings and spaces around the buildings will add value and
quality to the built environment in accordance with policies DES2 and DES13 of the adopted UDP.

Amenity




                                                 60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

The blank gable end of the terrace of town houses would be located 15m from the ground and first
floor habitable room windows in the rear elevation of the properties on Moss Lane. The gable end
of the townhouses would be located 8.5m from the rear yards of the properties on Moss Lane, the
boundary of which is marked by 2m high (approx) boundary walls. Having regard to the
relationship between the proposed townhouses and the properties on Moss Lane I am of the opinion
that this level of separation is adequate to ensure that the proposed terrace of townhouses would not
form an overbearing structure nor would the terrace overshadow the properties on Moss Lane. I am
therefore of the opinion that the residential amenity the occupants of the properties on Moss Lane
can reasonably expect to enjoy would not be affected by the proposed development.

There is a residential property located to the west of the application site at 3 Wright Tree Villas. The
blank gable end of the proposed two and a half-storey terrace of townhouses would be located 29m
from the habitable room windows in the rear elevation of this property. I am therefore of the
opinion that the residential amenity the occupants of this property would not be affected by the
proposed development.

The rest of the land to the west of the site is occupied by a bowling green. A kitchen factory
occupies the land to the north of the site. The car park to the public house at 152 Liverpool Road
and the club associated with the bowling green occupy the land to the south. In order to prevent
sterilising these sites from future development the scheme has been designed so that the proposed
apartments and the proposed townhouses are single aspect with all habitable room windows facing
into the site.

Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.

The site lies adjacent to a kitchen factory. There are no restrictions placed upon the hours of
opening of the kitchen factory and consequently while the factory is currently only operational
during the day there is the potential for the factory to open 24 hours a day. The steel clad
workshop-building runs along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the proposed terrace of
townhouses.

In order to protect the amenity of future occupants of the proposed townhouses the applicant has
designed the proposed townhouses so that they only have non-habitable rooms facing the kitchen
factory site. At ground floor level there would be a laundry room with double doors. At first and
second floor level they are proposing to have non-opening acoustic glazed windows and
mechanical ventilation installed to the kitchen and the bathroom. It is also proposed to erect a 4m
high acoustic screen along the boundary between the proposed town houses and the kitchen factory.
The screen would comprise of a 2m high brick wall with a 2m high Perspex screen above. Details of
the screen have not been provided at this point however I am of the opinion that with careful design
the proposed acoustic barrier can be introduced without having an adverse impact upon the
residential amenity that future occupants of the proposed dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy.
Similarly I am of the opinion that the screen can be introduced without having an adverse impact


                                                  61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




upon the visual amenity of the area, as it would be sited in a location that is not visible from the
street.

The Director of Environmental Services is of the opinion that while the mitigation measures would
reduce overall noise levels, which would be within the bounds of reasonableness as defined in
BS8233 the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there would be impulses of noise
created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift truck movements. The
measures proposed would not adequately mitigate against such impulses and consequently noise
from woodworking machinery would be audible within the properties and noise from wood
working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork lift truck movements would be audible in the
garden areas. Given the frequency of use of the woodworking machines etc it is possible that future
occupants of the proposed dwellings would be subjected to unacceptable noise levels every 10
minutes. Such levels of exposure would erode the level of amenity future occupants of the proposed
dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy and could constitute a statutory nuisance.

A statutory nuisance is described within the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as either
prejudicial to health or a nuisance and includes things such as noise emitted from premises and any
dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises. Statutory
Nuisance does not have a direct correlation to amenity however one is out of necessity linked to the
other. An item can affect the amenity of someone without causing a statutory nuisance however a
statutory nuisance can not exist without there already being an effect on the amenity of someone. A
Statutory Nuisance could therefore be considered as an extreme loss of amenity.

In order to determine whether a statutory nuisance exists Environmental Health Officers monitor
sites to determine whether the noise, odour or smoke etc emitted from premises is reasonable. To
do this they measure both quantitatively and qualitatively the noise, odour or smoke emitted from
premises and assess whether they reasonably expect to experience that in their own home? If at any
time during the investigation the matter is considered to be unreasonable for any one or more
reasons, it can then be considered as a Statutory Nuisance.

Once a Statutory Nuisance has been determined, the Council is obliged to serve an abatement
notice on the person responsible for the nuisance. Such notices specify what is to be achieved and
when it must be achieved by. Prior to serving the notice the Council is however required to assess
whether the person responsible for the nuisance is doing everything they can to prevent the
nuisance or alternatively there is no practicable means to prevent the nuisance from occurring. This
is determined by Best Practicable Means (BPM). Best Practicable Means (BPM) is interpreted by
reference to the following provisions (a)"practicable" means reasonably practicable having regard
among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical
knowledge and to the financial implications; and (b) the means to be employed include the design,
installation, maintenance and manner and periods of operation of plant and machinery, and the
design, construction and maintenance of buildings and structures. Having regard to these
provisions Environmental Health Officer can determine whether a nuisance will have a BPM
defence. If a BPM defence is available, it is unlikely that any further action will can be taken.

In the last 12 years the Strategic Director of Environmental Services has received 15 complaints
relating to noise, odour and smoke against the kitchen factory that lies adjacent to the application
site, 8 of which were noise complaints. The remaining 7 were complaints of smoke and associated


                                                62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




odours. The complaints were received from residents of two streets located within close proximity
to the kitchen factory. Upon receiving each complaint Environmental Health Officers had to
determine whether a Statutory Nuisance exists by investigating complaints, gathering information
and taking account of the impact of the problem on the persons complaining. Past investigations
undertaken by Environmental Health Officers have determined that noise from noise from the
playing of amplified music and speech were not deemed to have a BPM defence and consequently
a noise abatement notice was served on the kitchen factory owners with respect to the nuisance
these were causing. This notice is still valid. However it was determined that noise from some of
the plant & equipment at the kitchen factory has a BPM defence. As such, it has not been possible
to serve a noise abatement notice on noise from such equipment and the nuisance remains, thereby
affecting the amenity of residents within the vicinity of the kitchen factory.

As discussed previously the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there would be
impulses of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift truck
movements. The mitigation measures proposed would not adequately mitigate against such
impulses and consequently noise from woodworking machinery would be audible within the
properties and noise from wood working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork lift truck
movements would be audible in the garden areas. The Strategic Director of Environmental Services
is of the opinion that the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed development will be affected
by the proximity to the adjacent kitchen factory. As a result even with the mitigation measures
proposed it is probable that locating properties so close to the site will result in a significantly
increased risk of further complaints being received from the future occupiers. As discussed the
Council’s ability to take action as a result of such complaints is limited due to the defence of best
practical means and consequently it is likely that noise from the kitchen factory would continue,
eroding the amenity of future occupants of the proposed dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy.

The impact that noise from the kitchen factory would have on the amenity enjoyed by future
residents would be increased should the kitchen factory decide to operate 24 hours.

In addition to considering the impact that the kitchen factory would have on the amenity of future
residents of the proposed dwellings it is also important to note that the introduction of the new
development could, if additional complaints are received for which BPM is not a reasonable
defence which abatement action can be taken, be detrimental to the kitchen factory company as it is
likely to involve financial investment to resolve the matter.

The applicant is of the opinion that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would enjoy a
satisfactory level of amenity. They do not feel that the presence of periodic noise, which will only
be present in short bursts, if at all, constitutes an adequate reason for refusal. They feel that the
mitigation measures proposed would ensure that future occupiers of the proposed townhouses
would be adequately protected from noise emanating from the kitchen factory, as they will be
exposed to noise levels that are within the standards set out in BS5837. As discussed earlier while
the mitigation measures would reduce overall noise levels to within the bounds of reasonableness
as defined in BS8233 the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there would be impulses
of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift truck movements
which the mitigation measures proposed would not adequately mitigate against and consequently
noise from woodworking machinery would be audible within the properties and noise from wood
working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork lift truck movements would be audible in the


                                                 63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




garden areas at levels above maximum exposure levels set out in BS5837 and World Health
Organisation Guidelines.

In order to support their case the applicant cites a previous outline approval for the use of the land at
25 to 29 Moss Lane for residential purposes (ref 03/47066/OUT). The Panel approved this
application in December 2003. A condition of this approval required acoustic double-glazing to be
fitted to all living rooms and bedrooms. The relationship of the site to the kitchen factory is
different to that being considered in this case. The site is located away from the main workshop,
adjacent to the storage/office area. This storage/office area was considered to provide an element of
screening to the site at 25 to 29 Moss Lane, thereby making its relationship with the kitchen factory
an acceptable one should the land be developed for residential purposes.

The applicant also notes the positive impact that the development would have on the amenity of
existing residents as it would remove a known neighbour nuisance – the builders yard, which has
generated complaints from neighbouring residents who were adversely affected by the operation of
the yard, in particular by loading operations carried out from the street.

Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity
space in the form of a rear garden. Future occupants of the proposed apartments would be provided
with a grassed area measuring approximately 5m by 14m.

Car Parking

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

One parking space would be provided for each of the proposed dwellings and each of the proposed
apartments would have a car parking space allocated to it. The application site is well located in
terms of public transport and therefore I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is
acceptable. The proposed car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have
any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider that
there would be any long term issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in the vicinity
of the site.

Open Space

Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.

In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a £19,440 contribution towards
the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required.

Other Issues

With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase this could be
overcome by the submission of a considerate contractors management plan.



                                                   64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The other objection related to the use of the accessway and the impact that this might have on the
structural stability of the property at 3 Moss Lane. The access to the proposed development is the
same as the access to the existing builders yard. The level of traffic using the accessway should the
proposed development receive favourable consideration is unlikely to be significantly different to
that created by the established use and consequently I do not feel that the proposed development
would have an adverse impact upon the structural stability of the property at 3 Moss Lane.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development would have a positive impact upon the residential amenity enjoyed by
existing neighbouring residents, as it would remove a bad neighbour use from the site. The
proposed development is also well designed internally within the site.

The applicant has sought to minimise the impacts of the adjacent kitchen factory through the layout
of the proposed development and other mitigation measures. The mews houses that front onto the
kitchen factory only have non-habitable rooms facing the kitchen factory site, rooms which would
be fitted with non-opening acoustic glazed windows and mechanical ventilation. To further
mitigate against noise from the kitchen factory a 4m high acoustic fence would be erected along the
boundary between the proposed town houses and the kitchen factory.

While these measures would reduce overall noise levels, so they are within the bounds of
reasonableness as defined in BS8233, the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there
would be impulses of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift
truck movements, that could occur as frequently as every 10 minutes. The mitigation measures
proposed could not successfully mitigate against these impulses of noise. As a result future
occupants of the proposed dwellings would be exposed to noise impulses from woodworking
machinery at levels above maximum exposure levels set out in BS5837 and World Health
Organisation Guidelines at a high frequency. Such levels of exposure would erode the level of
amenity the future occupants of the proposed dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy. The noise
impacts would be difficult to control via Environmental Health nuisance legislation as a result of
the defence of Best Practical Means.

Although there would be benefits to the area from the removal of the builders yard given that there
are no any proposals to redevelop the kitchen factory I have to assess the application based on the
current position. I consider on balance that the application should be refused on the basis that the
proposed development is contrary to policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The future occupants of the proposed townhouses would not, by reason of the siting of the
   proposed dwellings adjacent to a kitchen factory, enjoy a satisfactory level of residential
   amenity. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.




                                                 65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




APPLICATION No:                 06/53802/FUL

APPLICANT:                      Chapel Investment Holdings Ltd

LOCATION:                       Land Behind Salford Royal Hospital Bounded By Adelphi
                                Street, Upper Cleminson Street And Wilton Place Salford 3

PROPOSAL:                       Erection of part 3, 5, 12 and 14 storey building with two levels of
                                basement car parking to provide 7 town houses and 183
                                apartments and 949 sq.m commercial floorspace (A1, A2, B1)
                                together with construction of new and alteration to existing
                                vehicular access

WARD:                           Irwell Riverside


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is currently used for car parking. It is bounded by Adelphi Street to the west,
Wilton Place to the east and the former Salford Royal Hospital, which has been converted to
apartments, to the south. Beyond the hospital is the Crescent. To the north of the site is an area of
vacant land, which was previously occupied by the former Cleminson Street Works and the
Brewery Tavern. On the opposite side of Wilton Place is St Philip’s Church, a Grade II* listed
building. The Old Courthouse, a Grade II listed building, which has also been converted to
apartments, is to the north east of the application site. The site is located within the Adelphi/Bexley
Square Conservation Area.

The proposal seeks full consent for a mixed use scheme comprising of residential accommodation,
retail and office provision. It would include the erection of part 3, 5, 12 and 14 storey building with
two levels of basement car parking to provide 7 town houses and 183 apartments. A total of 949
sq.m commercial floorspace (A1, A2, B1) would be provided at ground floor level fronting Adelphi
Street and Upper Cleminson Street.

The scheme would include the re-instatement of Adelphi Place as a pedestrian route linking
Adelphi Street and Wilton Place and would be parallel to the rear of The Royal, an apartment
scheme in the former Salford Royal Hospital building. Access to the basement car park would be
provided via Upper Cleminson Street.

SITE HISTORY AND CONTEXT

On this site:




                                                   66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




03/47026/FUL - Erection of a part three storey/part five storey building comprising 53 apartments
with associated car parking and creation of a new vehicular access – Withdrawn October 2003

04/48279/FUL - Erection of part three storey/part five storey building comprising 53 apartments
with associated car parking and creation of a new vehicular access (Resubmission of planning
application 03/47026/FUL) – Approved October 2004

05/50286/OUT - Outline planning application for the development of land for residential purposes
– Refused April 2005. The reason for refusal states:
“




  The proposed development does not include a mixture of uses. As such, the proposal would not
adequately contribute to the creation of active street frontages and the creation of a vibrant mixed
use area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy MX1/2 of the Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.    ”
05/51827/FUL - Erection of an eight storey building comprising 160 apartments with 929 sq.m
commercial floor space (A1,A2,A3,B1 and D1) at ground floor together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing vehicular access – Withdrawn January 2006

Relevant to the surrounding area:

Former Dock And Pulpit Public House
03/46379/COU - Change of use of public house into two apartments – Approved August 2003

04/49449/FUL & 04/49450/CON - Demolition of existing building and erection of a four storey
building comprising of 5 apartments – Approved December 2004

Land Formerly 272 - 280 Chapel Street, Boniecki Motors
05/51648/FUL - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of one-five storey building
comprising A1/A3/B1 uses on ground floor with 33 apartments above together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing vehicular access – Approved April 2006

Weir Site, Adelphi Street, Salford
06/53226/FUL - Erection of mixed use development (maximum 25 storey) comprising 406
residential units, 3810 sq.m A1,A2,A3,A4 and B1 retail/office floorspace together with 402
basement car parking spaces, new riverside walkway and construction of new vehicular and
pedestrian accesses – Approved December 2006

Land West Of Damask Avenue On West Of, Adelphi Street, Salford
06/53224/FUL - Erection of mixed use development (maximum 25 storeys) comprising 223
residential units, 1254 sq.m of A1,A3,A4 and B1 retail/office floorspace together with 110
basement car parking spaces, new riverside walkway and construction of new vehicular and
pedestrian accesses – Deferred at the panel meeting of the 7th December 2006

CONSULTATIONS




                                                67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Director of Environmental Services – No objection subjection conditions requiring
implementation of noise mitigation measures identified in the applicants supporting information,
restriction of construction operation and restrictions on the hours of operation (including delivery
times) of the commercial element. Site investigation condition.

United Utilities – No objection subject to a separate drainage system

Environment Agency – No objection subject to condition relating to site investigation and surface
water drainage

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive - The site is well located in relation to
public transport and therefore future occupants of the site will have access to a choice of travel
mode. It is important to encourage the use of public transport at the onset of occupation and it is
therefore encouraging to see that a Framework Travel Plan (FTP) has been submitted alongside the
planning application. GMPTE supports the proposed initiatives included in the FTP but it is
suggested that the measures are made firmer.

It is also suggested that there should be an undertaking that a ‘final Travel Plan’ will be submitted
and adopted once the site is occupied and it is suggested that the development, submission,
implementation and monitoring of the Travel Plan be attached as conditions of the planning
consent.

Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – no response

Urban Regeneration Company – No objection The current application either complies, or
                                                       “




broadly complies, with these principles. Additionally, it complies with the URC’s Vision and with
the Adelphi Development Framework. Therefore the application is fully supported, and if properly
executed, will be warmly welcomed.
                                     ”




Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no response

English Heritage – Do not wish to comment in detail, but offer the following general observations
- This scheme is a clear improvement from the previous and the advice set out in the pre
 “




application discussion has been broadly followed. Issues regarding the height of the building
should, though, be further discussed with the local conservation officer
                                                                           ”




Peter Hunter –     The proposals are well thought out and clearly presented showing a strong
                 “




architectural character and conviction.       Suggests the following points:
                                          ”




           The clean lines of the architecture will rely on best quality materials and detailing.
         “




         Copper and Basalt show the way but the precast panels will be poor neighbours to brick
         and stone. Since it is a conservation area, real stone render (stucco) and timber would
         announce quality – including public realm.



                                                  68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                 1st February 2007




         The large roof areas show no plant or description of material colour and which will be
         visually important
         Overall massing, variety and interest at ground level and orthogonal care in sight lines
         and setting are to be much welcomed.




                                                ”
PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 28th November 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 30th November 2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

Former Dock And Pulpit Public House, 1 Encombe Place
1 Bank Place
6 Encombe Place
Flat 3 – 35 (Odd) Old Court House, Encombe Place
Adelphi House, Adelphi Street
Units 1 and 8, Desser And Company Limited, John S Bass And Company Limited, Adelphi Works
West Side, Adelphi Street
1A Upper Cleminson Street
The Angel Healthy Living Initiative, 1 St Philips Place
St Philips Church, St Philips Place
13 Egerton Road South
1 – 114, 201 - 252 The Royal, Wilton Place



REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 28 letters (three are from the Royal but have incomplete addresses)(as of 29 th
November 2006) of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:-

         Loss of light
         Increase in traffic
         Loss of view
         Eyesore

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY




                                                69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Site specific policies:       MX1 Development in Mixed-Use Areas, CH3 Works Within
                              Conservation Areas
Other policies:               DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, H1
                              Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision
                              Within New Housing Developments, ST11 Location of New
                              Development, A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, A8
                              Impact of Development on the Highway Network, A10 Provision of
                              Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development, EN14
                              Pollution Control, EN22 Resource Conservation, DES5 Tall
                              Building, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, CH1
                              Development Effecting the Setting of a Listed Building

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1    –       Regional Development Principles
L4     -       Regional Housing Provision
MCR2 -          Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the density, design, layout and mix of the proposal is
acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the
proposal would have any impact upon highway safety; whether the proposal impact upon the
setting of a listed building; whether the scheme is appropriate within the conservation area; and
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.



The Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. With regards to the principle of the
proposed development, the site is located within an area of mixed uses.

National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered
in accessible locations.

The release of draft RSS in January 2006, proposes to significantly increase the housing
requirement in Salford with over a threefold increase in the annual requirement from 530 to 1600
units per annum. Whilst the provision of housing is relevant in the consideration of this scheme, it
should be noted that little weight can be afforded to draft RSS at this time.

Policy MX1/1 states that the intention of the Council is to develop this area of the City as a vibrant
mixed-use area with a broad range of uses and activities. Appropriate uses include housing, offices
and retail uses. In determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to
a number of factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the


                                                 70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




wider area, the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed development would
support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the mixed-use area, the
prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the site. Paragraph 2 of the
reasoned justification to policy MX1 states that:-
        In particular the policy will be used to ensure that residential development does not unduly
        predominate, to the detriment of the vitality and sustainability of the area. On larger sites,
        single use residential developments are unlikely to be acceptable, and a significant
        proportion of non-residential uses will normally be required.

Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. The
sequential order is defined below:

   1       The re use and conversion of existing buildings
   2       Previously-developed land in locations that:
               (i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
              of means of transport; and
              (ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
   3       Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of
           accessibility and infrastructure provision could be provided
   4       Green field locations
              (i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
              of means of transport; and
              (ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure

It is clear that the site has been previously developed and therefore is considered as a brownfield
site. The site is also in close proximity to the City Centre and high frequency bus corridors.

As such I consider that this site to be defined as criteria 2(i) in the sequential order and therefore
accords with Policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

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

Given that this site is located within the regional centre and having regard to the existing public
transport infrastructure, I am satisfied that the density is appropriate for this location.

Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1, of this policy states that all new housing
development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability.

Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal.
Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in
accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas


                                                 71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




where there is evidence of an unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing . At the




                               “




                                                                                           ”
current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important
to take into consideration evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests
that household growth is likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is
proposing to significantly increase annual housing provision for Salford. However, at present I
consider that some weight, albeit little, should be afforded to the draft RSS.

Planning Guidance for Housing has now been adopted by the Council (20 th December 2006) and
replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The thrust of this guidance
is to ensure a balanced mix in accordance with policy H1 of the UDP. Whilst the guidance is less
prescriptive than the draft SPD in terms of specifying an amount of any one type of
accommodation, it does seek to provide an appropriate mix. The guidance has been adopted by the
City Council and is therefore a material consideration.

The site is located within the Regional Centre as defined within the Planning Guidance for
Housing. Policy HOU1 of the guidance states Within the Regional Centre, the very high level of
                                                “


accessibility, the scale of the existing buildings, and the need to support that area’s development as
a vibrant city centre location means that apartments will normally be the most appropriate
          “




                        ”




form of housing provision
                          ”




The residential accommodation proposed in this scheme would comprise of 7 three bedroom town
houses and the following apartment mix:

29 studio apartments (15% in total)
48 one bedroom apartments (25% in total)
98 two bedroom apartments (52% of the total)
8 three bedroom apartments and 7 three bedroom townhouses (8% of the total)

The floor area for the apartments would be as follows:

         Type 7 studio apartments (29) 30 sq m
         Type 5 one bedroom apartments (51) 43-45sq m
         Type 6 two bedroom apartments (40) 59-65sq m
         Type 6A two bedroom apartments (58) 79sq m
         Type 3 three bed penthouse (2) 95sq m
         Type 4 three bed apartment (6) 73-75sq m

The floor area for the town houses would provide 6 at 120sq m and 1 at 110sq m.

Criterion C of policy H1 goes on to state that in determining the appropriate mix, one of the factors
that should be taken into consideration is the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area.

Whilst Policy HOU1 identifies this site as being within the regional centre and that apartments will
normally be the most appropriate form of housing, the site is within the St Phillips conservation



                                                 72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




area and adjacent to a number of listed buildings. Therefore, the introduction of seven town houses
provides an appropriate scale of development within this context. Moreover, the apartment
element also inclusion three bedroom accommodation and in totality exceed 50% accommodation
at 57sq m or greater. I consider that the mix identified above and having regard to the wider area is
sufficient to satisfy the Planning Guidance for Housing and policy H1 of the adopted UDP.

Affordable Housing
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing of appropriate types.

Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance requires that on all residential sites over
1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more
dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable dwellings.

Policy HOU4 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance provides advice on the types of
affordable housing.

Policy HOU5 of the Housing Planning Guidance proposes that affordable housing provided on-site
should be integrated into the rest of the development, and visible differences between tenures of
provision should be minimised, as far as practicable.

As stated above Policy H4 of the UDP requires developers to provide an element of affordable
housing where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs. There is a need citywide for
affordable housing, with an Affordable Needs Assessment showing the need for around 600
affordable units per annum, over the period 2006-16. Amongst other things, this need is a result of
rising house prices to household incomes, an increase in those on the Housing Register, the Right to
Buy scheme, and a decrease in the vacant local authority and RSL stock.

A full Market Demand Study for Salford was produced in 2003, and the details of its findings in
relation to the need for affordable housing are summerised in paragraph 7.15 of the UDP. It
explains that the study’s analysis suggested a demand for around 1,000 affordable dwellings
                          “




from households currently in need or those likely to fall into need over the next 5 years (to 2008)
  (ibid), which would equate to 200 households per annum. This equates to 38.5% of Salford’s
”




housing provision figure of 530 dwellings per annum net of clearance.

Moreover, there is evidence that the affordability situation in Salford may have worsened since the
2003 study. Having regard to the increase in the number of people of the Housing Register
(increasing from 8,026 in 2003 to 12,791 in 2006) and utilising an OPDM Housing Needs
Assessment Model, the need for affordable housing could have trebled to as high as 600 dwellings
per annum over the next 10 years.

However, the Housing Planning Guidance also acknowledges that the a reduced proportion of
affordable housing or lower commuted sum may be appropriate where the development may
otherwise become unviable. Of particular relevance is the final bullet point of policy HOU3



                                                 73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




‘Quantity of Affordable Homes’, The bullet point states      The scheme was substantially developed




                                                           “
before the adoption of this Guidance




                                       ”
In this particular case, pre application discussion were held with the developer prior to the applicant
withdrawing the previous scheme and since that time. These discussions have significantly
improved the external form of the development and relationship to key buildings within the
conservation area. Given the location of the site pre-application discussions have also included
English Heritage, the URC and officers of both the City Council and Urban Vision

The application was submitted on 8th November 2006. I consider that the scheme, having the
benefit of substantial pre-application discussion and amendment, was ‘substantially developed’
before the adoption of the guidance. I also consider that the amendments made to the scheme have
resulted in an exemplar design in close proximity to several listed buildings, one of which is grade
II*. Given that substantial discussions and changes to the scheme were undertaken prior to the
adoption of the guidance and given that the application was submitted prior to this date, I do not
consider it appropriate to secure affordable housing provision as part of this scheme.

Design, Scale and Massing
Adopted 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.

Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area. The reasoned
justification for the policy goes on to say that tall buildings are more likely to be appropriate within
the mixed use areas identified policy MX1.

Given that the proposal includes apartments which would step up to 14 storey in height, I consider
that it is appropriate to consider the scheme against this policy.

Adopted Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the
proposal takes account of the need for good design. In accordance with the requirements of this
policy a written statement has been submitted which explains the design concepts and how these



                                                  74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site
and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.

The scheme would provide town houses which would front Wilton Place. The height of this
elevation would be 10.15m, 0.7m higher than the ridge of Lowry House which would adjoin this
elevation. The town houses would also be 1.3m lower than the main entrance to St Phillips Church.

The height of the town houses would continue onto the new pedestrian route to the rear of ‘The
Royal’ before stepping up to five storey in height towards Adelphi Street. The Royal is four storey
in height. Both elevations include main habitable windows. Whilst the design features include
‘punched’ balconies with recessed windows the closest separation distance between each elevation
would be 11.2m. The angle of the Adelphi Place elevation would increase this separation distance
15.4m. Privacy issues are discussed later in this report.

The taller proportion of the Adelphi Place elevation (16.1m) would continue onto Adelphi Street
and effectively help the scheme ‘turn the corner’. The use of patinated copper would further
articulate this corner. The proposed elevation adjacent to the former hospital building would be
equivalent to the height of the faēade. This elevation would step up to 12 storey in height (37.2m)
and again to 14 storey (43.3m) on the corner of Adelphi Street and Upper Cleminson Street further
away from the former hospital. The width of the tower element along this elevation would be
32.2m.

The Upper Cleminson Street elevation would include the tower element on the corner. The width
of the tower would be 17.2m at its widest point. The proportions of the elevation would step down
to five storey (17.8m) and would maintain 18.8m to the Old Court House. The area of land between
gables is part of the curtilage of Lowry House.

A stone plinth wraps round the building rising up as the building moves from 3 to 5 storeys. A
white rendered faēade provides a backdrop on Wilton Place allowing the stone to rise up and for 2
storey promontories that mark the townhouses. The stone plinth accommodates the steps and
entrances to the dwellings on Wilton and Adelphi Place, a the plinth turns onto Adelphi and Upper
Cleminson Street it provides a framing to the glazed commercial units.

At key vistas such as the corner of Adelphi Street and Adelphi Place and the corner of Adelphi
Street and Upper Cleminson Street patinated copper cladding is used as a vibrant contrast to the
reconstituted stone cladding.

Further hints of colour are introduced by balcony dividing screens in a bright red metal, taking a
contemporary cue from the red brick of the former hospital building. Sections of the stone cladding
receive a grooved finish to provide a further level of careful detailing and contrast. The applicant
has provided a samples panel in conjunction with the submitted details. I consider that the
proposed materials demonstrate quality. However, the main material proposed would be
reconstituted Portland stone panels. Peter Hunter has raised some concern regarding the
appropriateness of the reconstituted stone element within this conservation area. Given the
importance of the quality of this material, I have attached a condition requiring larger samples of
materials to be constructed on site prior to the commencement of development. This will ensure
that the proposed materials for the main bulk of the proposal are appropriate.


                                                75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Where balconies are set into the main external facades and also the courtyard windows onto these
balconies are interspersed with horizontally boarded wooden panels, providing a warm natural
material to the balcony internal wall.

Therefore, with regard policies DES1 and DES2, I consider that the scheme complies with these.
Policy DES5 considers that tall buildings are acceptable providing that they do not result in an
unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a
conservation area. Therefore, the impact of the proposal is discussed later in this report.

Effects residential amenity
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.

I have received a number of objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the
proposed development on their amenity, and in particular loss of light and privacy.

The Adelphi Place elevation would be the only proposed elevation which would directly face an
existing residential unit. Both the proposed elevation and the existing elevation to the Royal
contain main habitable windows. The separation distances between these elevations would be
11.2m at its closest increasing to 15.4m. A number of the bedroom elements have been designed so
that they would have their aspect overlooking the apartments own balconies and not facing the
neighbouring apartments. Members may recall that in granting planning permission for the
conversion of the former hospital, this site was indicated as a future development opportunity,
however, there is no extant permission that defines this relationship.

Given the city centre location of the site and the nature of the development, it is not appropriate to
apply the interface standards that are used to guide development elsewhere within the city. Such
concerns must also be considered against the benefits of the scheme, namely the redevelopment of
an underused and largely unattractive site, the provision of a mixture of uses, including active uses
along the Adelphi Street and Upper Cleminson Road frontages, and the construction of buildings
which would enhance the conservation area and which accord fully with other Council policies.

The internal relationships of the residential blocks within the court yard would provide an
appropriate level of separation and privacy in accordance the Councils normal separation distances.

I consider that the reinstatement of Adelphi Place would result in a high quality public realm that
both the occupiers of the Royal and this proposal would benefit from. I also consider that this
public realm would open up an historic street pattern which would re-establish a key view of an
important grade II* listed building. In conclusion, I consider that the benefits outlined above and
having regard to this city centre location, outweighs the Councils normal separation distances in
this instance.

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


                                                 76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Policy CH3 states that development will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the conservation area.

There are a cluster of listed buildings within the Conservation Area in close proximity to the site.
To the south, is the Old Court House which is grade II listed and St Philips Church which is grade
II* listed.

The proposal would also introduce a new pedestrian road (Adelphi Place) from Adelphi Street to
Wilton Place. This route would re-instate part of Salford’s historic street pattern. The new route
would open up a new vista leading to the front elevation of St Philips Church from Adelphi Street.

The listed buildings are located to the east of the proposal. As discussed earlier in this report the
heights of the proposal in close proximity to the neighbouring listed buildings are similar.
Moreover, I consider that the town houses, adjacent to Lowry House, complete the existing urban
grain and would therefore continue the distinct character on this part of the conservation area.

The tower element of the proposal is situated at the opposite corner of the scheme from the listed
buildings and on the periphery of the conservation area. Whilst the height of the tower at 14 storeys
would be 43.3m it would be approximately 60m from the closest element of St Phillips Church and
further still from the tower of St Phillips

I have consulted English Heritage due to the potential impact of the proposal on the setting of a
Grade II* listed building and conservation area. English Heritage offer no detailed comments on
the application but advise that issues relating to the height of the building are discussed with the
local conservation officer.

The Councils heritage officer does not object to the proposal but considers that the tower is
                                                                                       “

appropriate but the proposed height of the tower would dilute the visual dominance currently
enjoyed by St Phillips Church.
                               ”




A key view of this building would be reintroduced through the provision of Adelphi Place. Given
the tight urban form around the listed building, the tower of St Phillips church is only visible from a
distance. The main view is therefore, obtained from the Crescent on the approach into the City
Centre. At the junction of Chapel Street and Adelphi Street the former hospital obscures any view
of the church. The tower element is located to the north of the proposal and would therefore
maintain this key view. Moreover, only limited views of the tower of St Phillips are presently
available looking south from Adelphi Street. The majority of the these views are afforded due to
the vacant site opposite.

I am also conscious of the recent approval and current application for two 25 storey towers to the
north west of the site. In this context, I do not consider that this scheme would have any detrimental
impact on views of St Phillips from the north west.

However, on balance, I consider that the scheme would result in a significant improvement in terms
of townscape through the opening up of Adelphi Place and allowing views of St Phillips Church


                                                  77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




from Adelphi Street. I am also satisfied that the scale and massing proposed would preserve and
enhance the special character of this conservation area and would enhance the setting of the of the
neighbouring listed building. Therefore, subject to a condition requiring samples of materials to be
provided on site, I do not consider that the proposed development has any detrimental effect on the
Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area or neighbouring listed buildings.

Sunlight / Shadowing
The applicant has submitted a sun path study within the design statement. The sun path study
demonstrates that the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact upon existing residents of
The Royal by way of loss of sun light and shadowing. The proposal is located to the north of the
Royal. Given the height of this neighbouring building, coupled with the orientation of the sun,
there is currently a shadow cast on the area of land which would accommodate Adelphi Place at
varying times throughout the day and year. Therefore, as the building is located to the north of the
Royal, I do not consider that this scheme would result in an unacceptable increase in shadowing.

The bungalows on Devine Close to the north east of the site would be over 100m from the tower
element, as such I do not consider that these properties would be unduly affected by way of shadow.

In conclusion, I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect
of the sunlight and shadowing.

Landscaping
Policy DES9 relates to landscaping and considers that development will be required to incorporate
hard and soft landscaping provision, where appropriate.

Further to the introduction of the new Adelphi Place the scheme would also include landscaped
areas around the outside of the building and within an inner court yard. The Council’s heritage
officers consider that Adelphi Place should be pedestrian only and that the hard landscaping should
also define the former street pattern through quality materials.

There is a need to provide emergency access onto Adelphi Place. For reasons of highway safety I
have attached a condition requiring details of a hard landscaping scheme which would provide all
of Adelphi Place to be provided as a pedestrian route only and that the scheme should include
details which would define the historical street pattern. I have also attached a condition requiring
details of emergency access to be provided.

I consider that with the inclusion of the above conditions Adelphi Place would be an attract public
realm to the benefit of the listed building and residents of the City. Therefore, I consider that the
scheme would accord with the policy highlighted above with regard landscaping.

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.




                                                 78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




As state earlier the proposal would reintroduce a proportion of the historical street pattern, Adephi
Place. The residential accommodation within the elevation facing Adelphi Place includes main
aspects and ground floor entrance points. I consider that this, coupled with the two existing
entrance points into ‘The Royal’ would ensure pedestrian movement and natural surveillance.
Moreover, the proposed town houses would include a main aspect to Wilton Place and therefore
provide additional natural surveillance to the main entrance and rear elevation of St Phillips
Church.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
designing out crime.

Car Parking and Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of
the adopted UDP.

I have considered the information provided within the TA and I am satisfied that the level of
development proposed would not have an unacceptable impact upon the highway network. I am
satisfied that sufficient visibility would be provided at the entrance to the site to safeguard highway
safety.

The proposal would provide 235 off street car parking spaces within two complete basement levels.
Disabled, motorcycle and cycle parking provided at acceptable ratios. 26 spaces are designated for
the commercial area. The car parking proposed would be provided at basement level.

Access to the car parking area would be from Upper Cleminson Street. The Greater Manchester
Passenger Transport Executive has no objection to the proposal in principle.

Given the site’s location in relation to existing community, public transport and other local
facilities, I consider that the level of car parking provision across the site to be appropriate for this
part of the City.

Given the likely time period to construct the proposal I have attached a condition requiring the
submission of a site operating statement. This will require information to be provided and agreed
on:

         provision of permitted hours for construction works
         delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment
         provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles
         wheelwashing facilities
         street sweeping

I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.



                                                   79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                  1st February 2007




Subject to the above conditions I have no highway objections and I am satisfied that the proposal
accords with the requirements of the policies highlighted.

Open Space Provision
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.

Adopted policy R2 states that planning permission will be granted for recreational development
provided it would satisfy a number of criteria.

The scheme is not proposing any on-site open space. The Planning Statement confirms an
agreement to provide a financial contribution in lieu of on-site open space provision. For formal
and informal/ capital and maintenance open space provision, for this development, the total
financial contribution would be: £274,320 (508 X £540).

As such, I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted Policy H8 and R2 of the
adopted plan subject to the provision of an appropriate S106 agreement to secure this level of
contribution.

Trees
Policy EN10 states that development which would be likely to have an adverse impact on legally
protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the
population level of the species at a favourable conservation status within its natural range.

There are two groups of trees on the site; first is a group along the northern boundary. This group
appears to consist of several self-seeded trees and several planted specimens. Many of the trees in
this group are suppressed, or have grown phototrophically, due to growth competition for the
available light. Several have signs of mechanical damage to the stems; the one or two specimens
which are in reasonable condition are not considered worthy of constraining the development. One
tree, however, stands out from the group; this is a large, mature Ash tree, which has a broad,
symmetrical crown shape and shows no signs of ill health. An assessment was carried out on this
tree, using the TEMPO system, to determine whether this tree was worthy of retention and
protection from a TPO. The Ash tree is, at present, highly visible and can be seen by a large
proportion of the passing public and is considered worthy of the protection afforded by a Tree
Preservation Order.

The second group of trees on the site are on the eastern boundary, adjacent to Wilton Place. This
group consists of 17 poplar trees, many of which have co-dominant stems. Two of the stems at the
south end of the group have grown twisted together, which has led to a section of the cambial layer
being rubbed away, which will lead to safety issues in the future. Some of the stems have grown
phototropically to take advantage of the available light conditions, which has led to suppressed,
asymmetrical, and unbalanced crown formations. It appears as though these trees have all been
planted at the same time to provide a screen to the site, but unfortunately they have not been
maintained, and so the growth habits have allowed them to become disorderly, which will give
problems in the future. Again, the Council’s consultant arborist has assessed these trees using the
TEMPO system of assessment to decide if the group was worthy of protection. The arborist does
not consider that these trees were worthy of protection.


                                                80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




It is clear that there is one tree on this site which is worthy of protection. However, the tree is
positioned within the centre of the site and in a position where it could not be reasonably retained. I
consider that the improvements to the setting of the listed building and bringing forward this vacant
site within the conservation area outweighs the loss of one tree in this instance. However, the loss
of this tree would be further mitigated through the creation of a high quality public realm and
reopening of St Philips Place. The area of public realm will include the provision of replacement
tree planting.

Therefore, whilst the scheme would result in the loss of trees, of which only one is considered
worthy of protection, I consider that the benefits to the setting of the listed building, conservation
area and coupled with the wider environmental improvements, the loss of this tree would be
acceptable.

Chapel Street Obligation
The applicant has agreed to contribute an additional £190,000 towards environmental
improvements in accordance with the Council’s normal policy with regard to developments in the
Chapel Street area.


VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an
agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a
total of £274,320. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.

The applicant has agreed to contribute an additional £190,000 towards environmental
improvements in accordance with the Council’s normal policy with regard to developments in the
Chapel Street area.

The reinstatement of Adelphi Place would create a new vista of the entrance to St Phillips church.
The scheme has also been substantially improved through negotiation with English Heritage, the
URC and both officers of the City Council and Urban Vision.

CONCLUSION

I am satisfied that the amended design is of a high quality and that the application would not have
any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the surrounding
area in general. I am satisfied that the proposed development would contribute to the character of
the conservation and improve the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings, particularly St
Phillips Church as a result of opening up the new street and views from Adelphi Street. I am also
satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable. I am satisfied that the application complies
with policies of the development plan as a whole.



RECOMMENDATION:


                                                  81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
   approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
   include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary, surface treatment
   and the hard landscaping for Adelphi Place and shall be carried out within 18 months; of the
   commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
   Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
   replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of
   the external elevations of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and
   approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include the construction of a
   1m by 1m structure using samples of the materials and any mortar to be provided on site. The
   development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.

4. 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 permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
   collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
   vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no development or activities related or
   incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
   report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
   distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
   identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
   Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
   waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health
   and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping
   schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.

    The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
    investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved
    report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.

    Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
    submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
    validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
    the LPA.

6. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
   disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning


                                                 82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




    Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved
    scheme

7. An assessment shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority which
   details the levels of internal noise likely to be generated from the proposed commercial uses.
   This assessment shall be used to identify and determine appropriate noise mitigation measures
   (such as soundproofing) required to protect the amenity of adjoining noise sensitive properties
   (the residential properties above). Any noise mitigation measures identified by the assessment
   shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the proposed use and retained thereafter.

8. Acoustically glazed units comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air
                                                                  de
   gap (6/12/6.4) shall be installed in all windows along the fa軋 of Adelphi Street. The units
   shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps
   when fitting the frames. Alternative means of ventilation, which must be sound attenuated
   must be provided. The applicant shall submit details of the proposed ventilation system to the
   Local Planning Authority for written approval. Once agreed, all approved measures shall be
   implemented prior to first occupation and retained thereafter.

9. The windows of all other habitable rooms to the North and South elevations facing Upper
   Cleminson Street and Adelphi Place respectively shall be acoustically dual glazed to the
   standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). Unless otherwise agreed in
   writing by the Local Planning Authority.

10. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
    of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
    1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
    1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
    Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
    commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP and as required by the Chapel
    Street Planning Obligations Development Control Policy Note, having regard to the standards
    set out in Policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and Salford's Greenspace Strategy will be paid to the
    Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes and public realm
    improvements.

11. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing the emergency access for
    Adelphi Place shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The
    scheme shall include the method to control access and any markings required to ensure that the
    access is kept clear from obstruction and a timetable for implementation. The approved details
    shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable for implementation and shall be
    retained at all times thereafter.

12. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing
    by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the
    occupation of any dwelling in that phase and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise
    agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme demonstrating, as a minimum, an Eco


                                                83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                  1st February 2007




    Homes or BREEAM "very good" rating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
    Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
    approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted to
    and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
    implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.

15. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing the form and
    appearance of all public realm works has been submitted for the approval of the Local Planning
    Authority. No development shall commence until such scheme has been approved in writing by
    the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling, or commercial unit shall be occupied unless and
    until all public realm works as approved under the above scheme have been constructed and are
    open for public use. Once constructed the public realm works shall remain open for members of
    the public.


(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

5. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

6. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan

7. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

8. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

9. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

10. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
    for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP.

11. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety

12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

13. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with


                                               84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                  1st February 2007




    Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.

14. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

15. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area


Note(s) for Applicant

1. The applicants attention is drawn to the advice provided by United Utilities

2. 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.

3. Any disused access points should be made good at the developers expense.                Further
   information regarding this can be obtained by contacting 0161 909 6505

4. The applicants attention is drawn to teh advice provided by the Environment Agency

5. City of Salford Environmental Health Officer can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further
   discussions on the requirements of any noise assessments or mitigation schemes as detailed by
   the planning permission.




                                                85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




APPLICATION No:                 06/53886/DEEM3

APPLICANT:                      Childrens Services Directorate

LOCATION:                       Irlam And Cadishead Community High School Macdonald
                                Road Irlam M44 5LH

PROPOSAL:                       Outline application for access to a building to be used in
                                connection with Irlam and Cadishead Community High School
                                including the creation of vehicular access from Station Road
                                (Layout, Scale, Landscaping and Appearance reserved)


WARD:                           Irlam


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an outline planning application (with layout, scale, appearance and
landscaping reserved) for an extension to the existing school with access arrangements.

Existing Site

This application relates to an area land within the grounds of Irlam and Cadishead Community
High School, between a cluster of existing two and three storey school buildings to the west and
Station Road to the east. Two-storey houses adjoin the site to the north and east. Having once
accommodated former school buildings that have since been demolished, the application site is
predominantly an area of unutilised hardstanding that serves no obvious formal recreational
purpose. The site is largely flat and contains a number of trees and some areas of soft landscaping.
It is enclosed by a brick wall with railings above, incorporating two pedestrian access points, on the
Station Road frontage and security fencing elsewhere along the boundary.

Although the site is well served by public transport, with bus stops on Liverpool Road and Irlam
Railway Station nearby, many pupils are currently dropped off and picked up from cars that park on
Station Road.

Proposal

The proposal forms part of Salford’s Building Schools for the Future programme (BSF) that aims
to rebuild or renew secondary schools across the City.

The development at Irlam and Cadishead Community High School is for the erection of a 450
square metre, single-storey building, adjacent to existing school buildings, in the northern part of
the site. It is anticipated that the building would be used primarily as ancillary office space for both
school administrative staff and community workers that are currently based in offices on Astley
Road. The applicants state that the relocation of administrative staff will release much needed


                                                  86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




space in the main school buildings prior to their refurbishment under the BSF programme. It
should be noted that the proposed refurbishment of the main school buildings does not form part of
this application.

Although other matters are reserved, permission for detailed access arrangements is being sought at
this stage. The proposals include the creation of a circular vehicular turnaround for dropping off
and picking up within the application site to formalise existing practices and the creation of
vehicular access and egress points on Station Road. The proposed turnaround would connect with
an access road leading to a parking area to serve the proposed extension building that includes bays
for fourteen cars (two disabled), eighteen bicycles and three motorcycles. Pedestrian access would
also be formalised by enhancing an existing access from Station Road to create a clearly defined
footpath leading to the proposed new building and the main school buildings to the west.

The indicative layout plans submitted show that the potential for creating an all weather pitch on
the site is also being considered.

Public Consultation

The applicants have detailed in the submitted planning statement public consultation exercises they
have carried out and intend to carry out as part of the City’s wider Building Schools for the Future
Programme, summarised below.

An extensive public consultation exercise, entitled ‘Inspiring Schools IN Salford’ was undertaken
between 13th September and 25th October 2006 and involved:

         25,000 consultation documents and questionnaires were printed
         Approximately 19,000 documents were mailed out directly to parents of primary and
         secondary school children and school governors. The rest of the documents were made
         available at a series of road shows and within public buildings. All documents were also
         made available on the City Council’s website.
         3296 questionnaires were returned (17% response rate)
         Various organisations were asked to comment and 12 did so
         Children and young people’s views were sought through school visits and presentations

A report has been complied by Ipsos MORI and has been made available to all.

Additional informal information sharing/consultation was carried in the run up to the submission of
this planning application with the overall aim of providing customer-focused information to local
audiences to explain the proposal. The following audiences were targeted:

          Headteachers, governors and feeder primary schools
          Residents living in the vicinity of the application site
          Businesses located in the vicinity of the application site
          Local residents and community groups
          Ward Members
          Community Committees and Political Executives



                                                 87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




The applicants state that consultation and engagement exercises will continue during further
development of the Building Schools for the Future programme to inform design development.

Statutory school consultations will also be undertaken as appropriate for new schools and school
enlargements.

SITE HISTORY

There are not considered to be any previous decisions of particular relevance to this application.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objection in principle but recommend that conditions
are attached in relation to dust, noise, provision of an acoustic barrier, hours of use on outdoor
sports provision and gas protection.

United Utilities – No objection providing the site is drained on a separate system with only foul
drainage connected into the foul sewer.

Environment Agency - No objection in principle but do recommend that consideration is given to
attaching a condition controlling the possible ingress of landfill gas as the site is within 250 metres
of a landfill site.

Police Architectural Liaison Advisor - No objection

Greater Manchester Geology Unit – No objections in principle, but recommend risk from onsite
and offsite gas is investigated in more detail.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 4th December 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Salford Advertiser on the 7th and 14th December 2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

         2-4 Station Road
         3-27 Cromwell Road (odds)
         1-11 Cromwell Court
         St Teresa’s RC Primary School, Clarendon Road
         1-12 Clarendon Road
         The Old Fire Station, Clarendon Road
         591-629 Liverpool Road (odds)
         602-608 Liverpool Road (evens)
         Craig Hall Day Centre, Preston Avenue
         1-9 Bradburn Road


                                                  88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




         1-8 Richbell Close

REPRESENTATIONS

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

One letter has been received by a resident of 1 Richbell Close questioning the accuracy of the site
location plan in relation to the boundaries of their property. As their comments relate solely to land
outside the application site they are not considered relevant to this application.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

         Policy DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
         Policy DP2 – Enhancing the Quality of Life
         Policy DP3 – Quality in New Development
         Policy DP4 – Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social
         Inclusion.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

         Policy ST11 – Location of New Development
         Policy DES1 – Respecting Context
         Policy DES2 – Circulation and Movement
         Policy DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
         Policy DES9 – Landscaping
         Policy DES10 – Design and Crime
         Policy EN17 – Pollution Control
         Policy EHC1 – Provision and Improvement if Schools and Colleges
         Policy A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
         Policy A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
         Policy EN16 – Contaminated Land
         Policy EN17 – Pollution Control
         Policy EN19 – Flood Risk and Surface Water


DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

         Policy L1 – Health and Education Services Provision

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The application is for all matters reserved except access, the main planning issues relating to this
application are whether an extension to the existing school is acceptable in this location, whether
the indicative scale, size and layout of the proposed development is acceptable in principle and
whether the proposed access points are acceptable.




                                                 89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




The principle of the proposed development should be considered against UDP Policy EHC1 that
places a general presumption in favour of improvements to schools providing six fundamental
criteria are met. Each criteria is considered in turn below:

         The development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
         neighbouring uses

         The key test here is whether the proposed development would adversely affect the amenity
         of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties on Richbell Close, Station Road,
         Cromwell Road and Cromwell Court.

         The proposed layout plan indicates that the proposed building is likely to be sited in the
         northern corner of the application site and be single storey in height. Given the fact the
         proposed building would be closely related to the existing cluster of school buildings, be
         low rise and sufficient distance away from neighbouring dwellings I have no objection to
         the application in design terms. The precise siting, scale and detailed design of the
         building will be considered at the reserved matters stage. Therefore it is considered that the
         application is in accordance with policies DES1 and DES7.

         There are not considered to be any adverse impacts arising that cannot be properly
         controlled through the imposition of planning conditions at the reserved matters stage.

         An adequate standard of playing field and other recreational provision in an
         accessible and convenient location is provided

         Existing playing fields at the school will be unaffected by the proposed development and as
         the application site does not currently serve any formal recreational function I have no
         objection to the proposal in this regard.

         It should also be noted that the proposed layout plan indicates that the possibility of
         creating an all weather pitch is currently being considered which would significantly
         enhance sports provision at the school.

         The development be accessible by a range of means of transport, particularly foot,
         cycle and public transport

         The school is already well served by public transport, with bus stops on Liverpool Road
         and Irlam Railway Station nearby. The proposed development also incorporates bicycle
         and motorcycle parking facilities in accordance with UDP Policy A10. I therefore have no
         objection to the application in this regard.

         The development incorporates adequate provision for disabled access

         The proposed development would be DDA compliant and disabled car parking spaces
         would be provided in accordance with UDP Policy A10. I therefore have no objection to
         the application in this regard. More detailed consideration will be given to disabled access
         at the reserved matters stage in terms of surfacing, access thresholds, ramps etc.


                                                  90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




         The development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or
         have an adverse impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or
         servicing

         The Transport Assessment (TA) submitted as part of the application indicates that the
         proposed development is likely to generate a maximum of 33 trips to the site each working
         day. Given the development would be used to accommodate existing school
         administrative staff and community workers currently working in close proximity to the
         site, traffic generation is considered insignificant. The TA also indicates that Station
         Road/Liverpool Road does not have a historic accident record. The creation of a
         formalised pick up and drop off point within the application site will also largely eliminate
         on-street parking and associated manoeuvring on Station Road at the beginning and end of
         the school day. Parking facilities would be provided in full accordance with UDP Policy
         A10. I therefore have no objection in principle to the development in this regard.

         The development makes provision, wherever possible, for community use of the
         building and grounds

         As the proposed building is essentially ancillary office space for the school and community
         uses it is not considered appropriate to open the building up to community use. I therefore
         have no objection to the development in this regard. It should also be noted that it is
         anticipated that community use will be incorporated as part of the School’s comprehensive
         refurbishment under the BSF programme that do not form part of this application.

I therefore have no objection in principle to the proposed development and recommend that
permission be granted accordingly.

Design/Visual Impact

NOTE: Scale, Layout Landscaping and Appearance are reserved matters.

In order to ensure a high quality outcome, it is recommended that conditions are applied to the
relevant reserved matters requiring the submission and written approval of all materials and
surfaces as well as works to the boundary wall on Station Road.

Crime Prevention

I have no objection to the application in crime prevention terms at this stage. Further, detailed
consideration will be given to crime prevention at the reserved matters stage in accordance with
UDP Policy DES10 and the adopted Design and Crime SPD.

Amenity

Policy DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours seeks to protect the amenity of existing and
future residents and occupiers.



                                                 91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Given the indicative single storey height and position of the building it is not considered that the
proposed development would unduly affect amenity, particularly in respect of
privacy/overlooking. Further detailed consideration will be given to amenity impacts at the
reserved matters stage when the scheme is further developed.

Policy EN17 – Pollution Control seeks to ensure that development proposals do not result in a
significant increase in pollution (noise, vibration, air quality etc.) unless adequate mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development are included. It is
recommended by Environmental Services that conditions are attached in regards to the following;
Noise, Air Quality, Overlooking and External Lighting. Given that the application is for a 450m²
office building with the creation of 14 car parking spaces it is not considered not felt that the
proposed development would have a significant enough impact to warrant a Noise or Air Quality
Survey to be undertaken. In regards to overlooking, I am satisfied that any potential issues relating
to overlooking to neighbouring residential dwellings can be suitable controlled by the imposition of
conditions at the reserved matters stage.

Land Contamination

Although not highlighted by the submitted Environmental Protection Report. The Environment
Agency have stated that the application site is within 250 metres of a known landfill site and
therefore they recommend that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission and
approval of a landfill gas investigation together with the implementation of appropriate mitigation
measures. I agree with their recommendation and recommend a condition be attached accordingly.

Access and Parking Provision

NOTE: Permission for access arrangements are being sought at this stage.

The Transport Assessment (TA) submitted as part of the application indicates that the proposed
development is likely to generate a maximum of 33 trips to the site each working day. Given the
development would be used to accommodate existing school administrative staff and community
workers currently working in close proximity to the site, traffic generation is considered
insignificant. The TA also indicates that Station Road/Liverpool Road does not have a historic
accident record. The creation of a formalised pick up and drop off point within the application site
will also largely eliminate on-street parking and associated manoeuvring on Station Road at the
beginning and end of the school day. Parking facilities would be provided in full accordance with
UDP Policy A10. I therefore have no objection in principle to the development in this regard
subject to the imposition of conditions requiring:

         the proposed parking facilities to be made available prior to the building being occupied
         and thereafter;
         the submission and written approval of visibility splays prior to development commencing;
         and
         floorspace being limited to 450 square metres to ensure parking provision meets the needs
         of the development.




                                                 92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




The size of the proposed development does not justify a travel plan in its own right (see Policy A1)
however it should be noted that the School already has a Travel Plan in operation and that
applicants have stated that the end users of the building would be included in its audience.

Trees

NOTE: Landscaping is a reserved matter

A Tree Survey submitted as part of the application identified the presence of 123 trees on the
application site, none of which are protected and 22 are marked for removal under the proposed
indicative layout. An arboriculturalist` has visited the site and concluded that the site’s numerous
mature trees are of a varying quality but those along the boundaries are of particular amenity value
in that they offer both visual screening and have noise reduction potential. It is recommended that
healthy mature trees are retained wherever possible to enhance and add maturity to the landscaping
scheme.

A detailed landscaping scheme will be considered at the reserved matters stage where it is
considered necessary to attach conditions requiring the submission, written approval,
implementation and maintenance of a detailed landscaping scheme as well as a condition requiring
proper tree protection measures to be put in place before development commences.

Environmental Sustainability

Although the City Council’s policy on the environmental performance of buildings does not apply
to a development of this size (UDP Policy EN22) all buildings delivered through the BSF
programme are required to achieve a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ BREEAM rating.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

The proposals have been formulated in close consultation with representatives from across the
Council, Urban Vision and other consultees.

CONCLUSION

Although the proposed extension has not been fully developed, the provision of the proposed
building will create addition office space for the existing school, allowing space within the existing
school buildings to be utilised better. The creation of the proposed access road for ‘pick up’ and
‘drop off’ will formalise the existing situation and relieve congestion on station road, which is a
significant problem for local residents.

The indicative proposed layout plans demonstrate how the proposed building and all weather pitch
can be accommodated within the site, whilst respecting the amenity of local residents. It is
considered that appropriate conditions can be granted to any consent to ensure that the future
amenity of local residents is protected and the proposed building is built to a high standard of
design.




                                                 93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




The proposed development accords with the policies set out in the RSS and the Adopted Salford
Unitary Development Plan and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted
subject to conditions.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Application for approval of reserved matters must 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.

2. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall be started until full details of the
   following reserved matters have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
   Authority:

    a) appearance
    b) landscaping
    c) layout
    d) scale

3. The gross internal floorspace of the building hereby approved in outline shall not exceed 450
   square metres.

4. The car, cycle and motorcycle car parking indicated on the approved plan shall be surfaced,
   demarcated and made available for use prior to the building hereby approved being first
   occupied. The parking shall then remain available at all times whilst the building is occupied
   unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5. Notwithstanding the submitted Environmental Protection Report, no development shall take
   place until a survey for the presence or otherwise of landfill gas, and migrating landfill gas
   affecting the site has been undertaken. A copy of the results and method of the site survey shall
   be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. If the presence of landfill gas is confirmed,
   development shall not commence until remedial measures have been agreed in writing with the
   Local Planning Authority. Remedial measures shall then be carried out in accordance with the
   method agreed by the Local Planning Authority.




(Reasons)

1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act


                                                94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




    1990 (as amended).

2. Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
   applicant for subsequent approval.

3. Reason: To ensure that access arrangements and parking provision hereby approved meet the
   needs of the development in accordance with Policies A1 and A10 of the City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

4. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate car, cycle and motorcycle parking for the
   development hereby approved. This is in accordance with Policy A10 of the Unitary
   Development Plan for the City of Salford 2004-2016.

5. Reason : In the interests of public safety. This is in accordance with Policy EN16 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

Note(s) for Applicant


1. Notwithstanding the fact that details may have been submitted with this application, the
   applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that this permission is granted in outline only and that
   further permissions must be obtained with regard to such details before any part of the
   development commences.

2. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the following plans:

    Location Plan numbered C11542/IAC/01
    Proposed Plan numbered C11542/IAC/03




APPLICATION No:                06/53888/DEEM3

APPLICANT:                     Childrens Services Directorate




                                                 95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




LOCATION:                      Land Bounded By Trafford Road, The Broadway And King
                               William Street Salford 5

PROPOSAL:                      REVISED DESCRIPTION: Outline application with all
                               matters reserved for a new secondary school and sixth form
                               college for 1150 pupils with associated car parking, outdoor
                               play space and sports facilities (Access, Layout, Scale,
                               Landscaping and Appearance reserved)


WARD:                          Ordsall


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the development of a new high school with academy status as part of the
City’s Academy Programme. The application is in outline with all matters reserved (layout, scale,
appearance, access and landscaping).

Existing Site

This application relates to a 2 hectare, triangular piece of land in the Ordsall area of the City
bounded by Trafford Road to the east, Broadway to the north, King William Street to the west and
a petrol filling station to the south.

The site lies immediately adjacent to a key gateway into the Quays created by the junction of
Broadway and Trafford Road. The prominence of this gateway is currently emphasised by the bulk
and massing of the four storey, United Reformed Church building (URC) that occupies a back of
pavement position at the northern corner of the site. Formerly the Salford Central Mission, this
Edwardian, red brick and buff stone building is of historic significance and has considerable
townscape presence and architectural value and though not listed, in the statutory sense, does
appear on the City’s local list with Grade B status. The URC building still operates as a church and
contains a large auditorium, a number of smaller worship, meeting, and office spaces together with
a three shop premises currently trading at ground floor level.

The Broadway Industrial Estate occupies the remainder of the site, which comprises 26 small scale,
low-rise, warehouse/industrial units, comprising a total of 7041 square metres of employment
floorspace. There are currently 14 businesses trading on this part of site that support an estimated
100 jobs. Currently, vehicular and pedestrian access to the industrial units is taken from King
William Street and the site is enclosed by palisade fencing.

Within the site there are elements of soft landscaping including over 50 trees, focused particularly
along the Trafford Road frontage, however they are of a generally poor quality. The site slopes,
falling approximately 8 metres north to south, down from Trafford Road, and 6 metres east to west
along Broadway.




                                                96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Uses surrounding the application site include predominantly two-storey, terraced housing to the
north and east set well back from the roads, a further collection of low rise, warehouse/industrial
units immediately to the west on the far side of King William Street known as the King William
Enterprise Park, beyond which is The Anchorage, a multi-storey office development.

Proposed Development

Outline planning consent is sought for a new secondary school and sixth form college for 1150
pupils with associated car parking, outdoor play space and sports facilities with all matters reserved
(layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping). The application includes a layout plan
demonstrating how a school could be accommodated within the site.

The development will require the demolition of the Broadway Industrial Estate, however the layout
plan was revised during the application process to demonstrate how the existing, URC building
could be retained, and incorporated into the final design. The indicative plan shows the school
building focused on the northern corner of the site, emphasising the gateway to the Quays and
responding positively to the geometry of the site and its primary frontages. Building heights are
shown to be four storeys on the corner (the site of the URC building) dropping down to three
storeys on the Broadway and Trafford Road frontages. Pedestrian access is gained from two points
set slightly back from the corner on both Trafford Road and Broadway. Vehicular access is gained
from two existing access and egress points on King William Street leading to a staff and visitor car
park and pick up and drop of point bordering an area of hard landscaping. Parking areas are shown
as comprising a total of 62 spaces for cars, including 5 disabled bays, 3 dedicated spaces for
motorcycles and 125 cycle parking spaces. To the south is an area of soft landscaping, including
outdoor play space, a habitat area and a multi purpose games area for outdoor sports. The plans
also indicate the provision of a landscape buffer along the Trafford Road frontage.

The applicant submitted the following documents in support the application:

         Proposed layout plan and scale parameters (revised during the application process)
         Planning Statement
         Design and Access Statement (revised during the application process)
         Environmental Protection Report
         Preliminary Risk Assessment
         Transport Statement
         Tree Survey
         Air Quality Report
         Acoustic Report
         Flood Risk Assessment




Rationale and Site Selection




                                                 97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The applicant has provided contextual information in the submitted planning statement that sets out
their approach to the development and the underlying rationale, including reasons for discounting
other potential sites, summarised below.

The need for a new high school has been generated by the decision to replace Hope High with an
Academy. Hope High is currently located on a suburban site in Weaste and Seedley, very close to
Buile Hill High School. The school buildings are in a poor condition and need to be replaced.
Given the fact that Buile Hill is currently being comprehensively redeveloped, the decision has
been taken to find a new location for the replacement Academy in the inner city to provide a better
geographical spread across the City.

The decision to locate the Academy in the Quays area was based on two principles:

         This part of the City is currently poorly served by high schools, the nearest ones (Albion
         High, All Hallows RC High and Buile Hill) are over 3 kilometres away. The development
         of a high school in this location would also underpin the regeneration of Central Salford by
         improving access to education in Ordsall, making the area significantly more attractive and
         helping to promote the creation of a sustainable urban neighbourhood.

         Linking the school with the ever expanding cluster of media related industries forms a key
         part of the strategic vision for mediacity:UK. The development of a high school, as an
         integral part of mediacity:UK will support the economic diversification of the City by
         increasing the skilled labour force and creating a direct connection between education and
         media related growth industries. This will enhance the life chances of young people in the
         City and underpin the long-term success of the vision.

The site for a school of the size proposed would ideally be between 7.4 and 8.4 hectares, including
outdoor sports pitches, under normal Department for Education and Skills (DfES) space standards.
However, these standards do provide a model for development of a confined site, with sports
pitches provided off-site, in which case, a site as small as 0.97 hectares would be considered.
Problems around the lack of available space typical in inner city areas, does not prevent the
development of high quality schools providing innovative design solutions are found.

The applicants state that there are few sites within or near mediacity:UK suitable for development
of a new high school. The only significant vacant sites within the Quays are land at Quays Point,
which is the identified core site that already has the benefit of planning permission for the
development of BBC North HQ, and the former cinema site at Clippers Quay that is already the
subject of a planning application for comprehensive redevelopment. Neither is considered to be
practically available for the development of a school.

The applicants go on to state that consideration was given to the site of Radclyffe Primary School,
due to become available for development on completion of the new school premises. This site is to
the east of the application site, on the opposite side of Trafford Road, outside the boundaries of
mediacity:UK and would not be so well integrated with other key elements of the vision.
Moreover, proposals for the redevelopment of this site for non-education uses are already being
developed, in accordance with the Framework for Improvement for Ordsall, formally endorsed by
the Council as the basis for the regeneration of the area. Redevelopment of this site is considered


                                                 98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




critical to the successful regeneration of the Ordsall Estate and it is not considered to be available
for the development of a high school.

In the absence of any suitable vacant sites, options for the redevelopment of currently occupied
sites were considered and the application site was identified as the only suitable and viable option
on the basis that the Broadway Industrial Estate is of relatively low value and the freehold of the
Broadway Industrial Estate is owned by the City Council. The owners of the URC building have
since granted a long lease to the Oasis Trust (the Council’s delivery partner) on the basis that the
church will be rehoused within the site envelope.

On that basis, the applicants state that the application site is the only suitable and viable site that
meets the selection criteria set out above.

Public Consultation

The applicants have detailed in the submitted planning statement public consultation exercises they
have carried out and intend to carry out as part of the City’s wider Building Schools for the Future
Programme, summarised below.

An extensive public consultation exercise, entitled ‘Inspiring Schools IN Salford’ was undertaken
between 13th September and 25th October 2006 and involved:

         25,000 consultation documents and questionnaires were printed
         Approximately 19,000 documents were mailed out directly to parents of primary and
         secondary school children and school governors. The rest of the documents were made
         available at a series of road shows and within public buildings. All documents were also
         made available on the City Council’s website.
         3296 questionnaires were returned (17% response rate)
         Various organisations were asked to comment and 12 did so
         Children and young people’s views were sought through school visits and presentations

A report has been complied by Ipsos MORI and has been made available to all.

Additional informal information sharing/consultation was carried in the run up to the submission of
this planning application with the overall aim of providing customer-focused information to local
audiences to explain the proposal. The following audiences were targeted:

          Headteachers, governors and feeder primary schools
          Residents living in the vicinity of the application site
          Businesses located in the vicinity of the application site
          Local residents and community groups
          Ward Members
          Community Committees and Political Executives

Tenants occupying the council owned Broadway Business Park have been notified of the proposals
and offered assistance in finding alternative premises.



                                                  99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                       1st February 2007




The proposals were reported to a meeting of the Ordsall Community Forum on 28th November
2006, who welcomed the principle of a new school being built on the application site.

The applicants state that consultation and engagement exercises will continue during further
development of the Building Schools for the Future programme to inform design development etc.

Statutory school consultations will also be undertaken as appropriate for new schools and school
enlargements.


SITE HISTORY

There are not considered to be any previous planning decisions of relevance to the proposed
development.


CONSULTATIONS

Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – Support the application as it closely accords
with the Company’s Vision and Regeneration Framework. They note that the proposed high
school would be located in The Quays and Waterfront Transformation Area and would help deliver
strategic regeneration objectives, which include the following:

         to promote sustainable growth through key improvements to infrastructure, open spaces
         and transport;
         to support the further development of first class education, skills and health services; and
         to ensure that transformation benefits existing residents of Salford and attracts new life to
         the City.

The Company’s Vision and Regeneration Framework stresses that high educational quality and
achievement is vital, and to deliver that the provision of good schools and high quality further
                                            “




and higher education facilities is key to unlocking the area’s growth and competitiveness . They
                                                                                               ”




consider the potential link between the proposed school, with its Media/ICT specialism, and the
BBC North HQ and mediacity:UK to be very exciting.

However, they do express some reservations about the size of the site, the proposed layout, design,
scale and massing and the loss of established businesses.

In reference to the size of the site, they state that in order to deliver the quality of educational
opportunity required in this inner city location, a school of the highest quality, in every respect, is
necessary. They believe that although the proposed school does fall within minimum guidelines,
they consider the site to be extremely cramped. They therefore strongly support the assembly of a
larger site to allow all necessary facilities, as far as is possible, to be provided in a single location.




                                                  100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




In relation to the proposed indicative layout they make the following comments and request that
existing proposals are reviewed to take account of them:

         They express concern about the main entrance at the corner of Trafford Road and
         Broadway on the grounds that it is extremely busy, particularly at peak hours. They
         believe that this has the potential to create problems relating to highway safety as well as
         having the potential to disrupt traffic entering the Quays. They suggest taking pedestrian
         access from a point further down Broadway/King William Street in the interests of
         highway safety.

         Commenting on the plans originally submitted that have since been revised; they find the
         provision of surface car parking on the Broadway frontage to be a poor solution in
         townscape terms. It should be noted that this issue has been addressed in revised indicative
         plans, by relocating parking areas to the rear of the site on the secondary King William
         Street frontage.

         They request greater clarity on the provision of pick up and drop off facilities.

Whilst appreciating these matters are reserved for the purpose of this outline application, they
consider the point of access and the scale, massing and siting of the school building to be closely
linked. They argue that some set back of the school building, from the busy junction and the
Trafford Road frontage, to be desirable from a highway safety and an educational standpoint (noise
and disruption). In reference to the existing URC building, they go on to stress the need for the
provision of a building with a strong architectural and townscape presence at this pivotal location at
the entrance to the Quays. They recommend that the design is developed to ensure that buildings
define and enclose the corner of the junction with a strong emphasis along Broadway, albeit set
back. They also highlight the need to carefully consider the proposed height of the school building
given the backdrop of large-scale buildings, such as the Anchorage.

Finally, commenting on the resultant loss of businesses and employment land, they are encouraged
by the fact that the applicant has fully acknowledged the need to carefully consider the relocation of
existing businesses within the City. They offer their full support to retaining displaced businesses
currently on site within the Central Salford area and state that it is their intention to work with the
City Council’s Economic Development staff to achieve this.

Director of Environmental Services – No objection providing appropriate conditions are attached
to any consent.

Based on an assessment of the submitted preliminary noise report that indicates that the effect of
traffic noise from Trafford Road and Broadway will need to be mitigated through design and
acoustic protection measures, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any consent
requiring the submission of a detailed noise report that identifies measures needed to bring noise
levels down to an acceptable level, including the provision of acoustic barriers along site
boundaries, where necessary. The potential of noise from the proposed school also needs to be
considered and additional conditions covering noise from plant and machinery, and time
restrictions on the use of outdoor sports facilities are recommended accordingly.



                                                 101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




It is also recommended that conditions are attached to any consent requiring:

         the submission, written approval and implementation of an external lighting scheme to
         protect residential amenity;
         the submission, written approval and implementation of a fume extraction system to
         protect residential amenity; and
         the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed Considerate Contractors
         Scheme that includes a Construction Environmental Management Plan to minimise
         disruption during the construction and demolition phase.

In respect of air quality, state that the application site is adjacent to busy roads within a designated
Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Given the existing high levels of traffic, it is unlikely that
there would be a significant impact on air quality from the users of the school, however a further
assessment is of impact is requested at a later date when detailed traffic impact data is made
available. The need for appropriate ventilation is stressed to adequately mitigate the impact of air
pollution on end users.

Based on the submitted preliminary assessment it is recommended that conditions are attached to
any consent requiring:

         A further detailed air quality assessment is undertaken based on a more detailed traffic
         impact assessment to assess the existing and future air quality for years 2010, 2020 and the
         opening year with and without the development for the nitrogen dioxide. The assessment
         should identify the worst-case exposure and any changes in pollution levels as a result of
         the development and detail appropriate mitigation measures. This should be submitted,
         approved in writing and implemented prior to school building being first occupied and
         include a diffusion tube survey to determine the need for additional ventilation to mitigate
         pollution from Trafford Road and Broadway.
         A detailed School Travel Plan be produced, implemented and advertised before the school
         building is first occupied to reduce the number of vehicles entering the site.

In respect of land contamination, based on the findings of the submitted preliminary risk
assessment that identified the likely presence of contamination and ground gases, it is
recommended that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission of a detailed site
investigation report, including appropriate mitigation measures, to be submitted, approved in
writing and implemented in full prior to first occupation.

United Utilities – Object to the application on the grounds that a large diameter public sewer
crosses the site where the proposed school building is sited on the proposed layout plan and they
will not permit building over it. They require an access strip of no less than 13 metres wide,
measuring at least 6.5 metres either side of the line of the sewer for maintenance and replacement
and therefore a modification of the site layout or a diversion of the sewer at the applicant’s expense
is required. Similarly, they go on state that a water main and underground electricity cables run
under the site and therefore the applicant is obliged to fully address these constraints, along with
detailed drainage proposals, during design development, prior to starting on site and during
construction.



                                                 102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




The Environment Agency – Initially objected to the application on the grounds that the
application site lies in an area that may present a significant flood risk from the generation of
surface water run-off. In order to remove their objection, they required the submission of a flood
risk assessment, based on an assessment of existing and proposed surface water drainage regimes.

Following submission of a satisfactory flood risk assessment, the Agency have now formally
withdrawn their objection with no further recommendations made.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No objection but make a number of
comments. Recognising the school has the potential to attract pupils from a wide area, they stress
the importance of locating it on a site that is accessible by a range of transport modes to ensure it is
socially inclusive. As stated in the submitted Transport Statement, the site is within walking
distance of Metrolink stations in the Quays and a number of local bus stops, however they state that
the level of bus services connecting the site to other parts of Salford is relatively very poor. They
therefore state that dedicated home to school bus services are required. They go on to express their
willingness to work in partnership with the applicants to advise how this can be delivered,
including the location of additional safe boarding and alighting points in close proximity to the site.
In addition, they state that the schools media specialism and lack of on-site sports facilities will
require pupils to travel off site and therefore bus related infrastructure will be required on site.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection or comments to make
at this stage.

Chief Executive’s Directorate (Economic Development) – Support the application on the basis
that the proposal will facilitate the further development of Salford Quays linked to mediacity:uk
and that the school will offer educational and training opportunities to local children so that they
can enter the employment market with skills developed at the Academy. They go on to state that
they are working with the potentially displaced businesses on the Broadway Industrial Estate to
ascertain what their requirements are in terms of relocating them within the City so that jobs can be
retained locally. Finally, they stress the importance of engagement with schemes aimed at ensuring
contract work is undertaken by the local labour force through Salford Construction Partnership.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objection but do state that the URC building has the
potential to be used by bats and therefore a bat survey and appropriate method statement detailing
how any disturbance to bats (if found) will be avoided is required before development commences.
Once approved the survey should be implemented in full. They go on to welcome the inclusion of
a new habitat area and additional tree and shrub planting in the indicative plans.


PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 4th December 2006
Press notices were displayed in The Salford Advertiser on the 7th and 14th December 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:



                                                 103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                  1st February 2007




         Alexander Court – Block 1 and 2
         New Primary School, Phoebe Street
         Radclyffe Community Primary School, Phoebe Street
         Employment Services Department, Trafford Road
         Broadway Industrial Estate (Units E3, E4, G2, H1, F1, F2, F3, F4, G1, A1, H1, A2, C1, C3,
         C4, D2, D3, E1, E2, H2, B2, B1, D1, J1, J2, D4)
         4-8 Trafford Road
         1-5 Broadway
         21 Broadway
         Salford URC, Broadway
         1-10 Brigantine Close
         1-27 Summerseat Close
         2-12 Jennings Avenue (evens)
         2-8 Brandsby Avenue (evens)
         1-9 Stern Avenue
         1-9 Lascar Avenue
         1-21 Crowther Avenue (odds)
         1-7 Grain View
         60-70 Goodiers Drive (evens)
         63-91 Goodiers Drive (odds)
         1-8 Isaac Close
         10-56 Isaac Close (evens)
         1-11 Byrom Street (odds)
         1-42 Joule Close
         1-19 Rowland Street (odds)
         Halyard Court, 31 Broadway
         Broadway Inn, 32 Broadway
         Spinnaker Court, 37 Broadway, JDS Trucks, Broadway
         1-3 Aubrey Street
         Maple Leaf Service Station, 138 Trafford Road
         Parkside Court, 22 Furness Quay
         Northern House, 24 Furness Quay
         Custom House, Furness Quay
         Gateway Building, 5 Anchorage Quay
         1 –21 Gertrude Close (odds)


REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, two from
local residents and another from the owners of a newsagent currently operating from within the
URC building.

The newsagent objects solely on the grounds of being displaced from their current premises in the
URC building.




                                               104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Commenting on the plans originally submitted that have since been revised, the following issues
have been raised by local residents:

         Site is very small
         No justification for demolishing building on local list
         Site selection poor, other preferable alternative sites exist, including the site of the former
         Radclyffe Primary School and land within the Ordsall Estate on the opposite side of
         Trafford Road
         Replacement massing out of context, more suited to a suburban setting
         Church building should be incorporated into scheme


REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
DP2 – Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3 – Quality in New Development
DP4 – Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth, Competitiveness and Social Inclusion
UR1 – Urban Renaissance
UR2 – An Inclusive Social Infrastructure

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:

MX1/3 - Development in Mixed Use Area
E5 – Development within Established Employment Areas

Other policies:

ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST3 – Employment Supply
ST6 – Major Trip Generating Development
ST8 – Environmental Quality
ST9 – Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST11 – Location of New Development
E3 – Knowledge Capital
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping
DES10 – Design and Crime
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
A1 – Transport Assessment and Travel Plans
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A5 – Buses



                                                  105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN10 – Protection of Species
EN16 – Contaminated Land
EN17 – Pollution Control
EN19 – Flood Risk and Surface Water
EN22 – Resource Conservation
CH8 – Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological or Historic
Interest

OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

Mediacity:UK & Quays Point Planning Guidance
Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document
Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document
Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1 – Regional Development Principles
L1 – Health and Education Services Provision


PLANNING APPRAISAL

As the application is in outline with all detailed matters reserved, the main planning issues relating
to this application are whether the principle of a new school is acceptable in this location; whether
the loss of employment land is acceptable; whether the proposed approach to design and access are
acceptable; the impact on the locally listed building; whether site constraints can be overcome; the
impact on amenity; whether an adequate standard of playing field and recreation provision can be
secured in an accessible and convenient location; whether the site can be accessed by a range of
means of transport; whether acceptable access arrangements can be delivered; provision for the
community use of the buildings and grounds and whether flood risk issues can be adequately
resolved.


Principle

UDP Policy ST11 – Location of New Development calls for development sites to be brought
forward in a certain order following a four-point sequence. The first being the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings followed by previously developed land in an accessible location
that is well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure. Given that the
development proposed is on previously developed land and that the revised plans allow for the
retention and potential reuse of the locally listed URC building I have no objection to the
application in this regard. The existing low rise, industrial/warehouse buildings that would
inevitably be demolished are not considered worthy of retention in design terms due to their


                                                 106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




relatively poor appearance and negative townscape impact on this strategic regeneration area (the
loss of this established employment area is considered below).

The application site is included within the UDP Policy MX1/3 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
(Salford Quays) policy area that seeks to create a vibrant mixed use area with a broad range of uses
and activities in this part of the Quays. Uses identified as being appropriate for the area include
education and community facilities. The policy states that in determining the appropriate mix of
uses on individual sites, regard will be had to:

         the positive impact that the proposed development could have on the regeneration of the
         wider area;
         the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed development would support
         the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the mixed-use area;
         the contribution that the proposed development would make towards securing activity in
         the area throughout the day;
         the prominence of the location, particularly in relation to key pedestrian and other transport
         routes;
         the size of the site; and
         the potential to support the establishment, expansion and success of the Knowledge
         Capital, in accordance with Policy E 3 - Knowledge Capital.

The proposed development would deliver education uses and community facilities that are deemed
appropriate in this location under Policy MX1/3. In addition to the primary education function,
documents submitted with the application state that the needs of existing church community would
be fully accommodated on site and that the school is intended to be a ‘Full Service Extended
Academy’ with an increased range of facilities for the local community, particularly in relation to
the Academy’s proposed ICT and media specialism. Indeed, through its specialisms, the intention
is for the Academy to provide its students and the community with opportunities to develop a wide
range of skills that will enable them to service the expanding media industry in the area. This
arrangement will complement Salford University’s media specialism and be able to fully capitalise
on opportunties offered by mediacity:UK and in this sense supports the expansion and success of
the Knowledge Capital initiative. The proposed development would also significantly increase
activity throughout the day due to community and church use in the evenings and at weekends and
generally enliven this prominent, well-connected and strategically important location. In
summary, the regeneration benefits offered by the proposed mix of uses are considered to fully
complement and strengthen existing initiatives and the City Council’s strategic aspirations for the
area and as such are considered to be in full accordance with Policy MX1/3.

The principle of the proposed development must also be considered against UDP Policy EHC1 –
Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges that places a general presumption in favour of
such provision providing six fundamental criteria are met. Each criteria is considered in turn
below:

         The development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring
         uses




                                                 107
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




The key test here is whether the proposed development would adversely affect the amenity of the
occupiers of neighbouring residential and industrial/commercial properties. An assessment of the
documents submitted as part of the application indicates that amenity would not be adversely
affected subject to conditions being attached to any consent that adequately control any
environmental effects arising (see below for further details). Indeed, visual amenity will be
significantly improved by the proposal. I therefore have no objection to the proposals in this
regard.

         An adequate standard of playing field and other recreational provision in an accessible and
         convenient location is provided

The application site is too small to accommodate the amount of playing fields and other recreation
provision ordinarily required for a school of this size. However, the proposal does comply with
DfES standards that recognise that schools may need to be developed on confined sites such as this.
In accordance with DfES model standards, the layout plan shows that there is sufficient space
on-site to provide areas of soft and hard landscaping for informal outdoor play together with a
Multi Use Games Area of a size equivalent to 3 tennis courts or 3 netball/basketball courts. In order
to address the overall shortcoming, the applicant has stated that the school will have access to
sports facilities off-site, specifically Salford Quays Water Sports Centre, Fit City Ordsall and, for
match games and contact sports, the playing fields at Stott Lane, Weaste, where on site changing
facilities exist. Though not ideal, I am satisfied that the lack of sufficient on-site sporting and
recreational provision can be adequately resolved in accordance with DfES standards, and
therefore I have no objection to the application in this regard, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.

Clearly, such an arrangement will require the provision of adequate coach/bus pick and drop off
points within the application site (see GMPTE’s comments) and as such it is recommended that a
condition be attached to any consent requiring details of such provision to be submitted, approved
in writing and implemented in full prior to first occupation. GMPTE have expressed their
willingness to provide the applicant with advice on how this can be best achieved. Similarly,
although it is anticipated that access to remote facilities will be largely controlled by the
appropriate education authorities, it is also considered necessary for the purposes of this application
that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission, written approval and full
implementation of a playing fields strategy, detailing precisely how adequate provision will be
delivered. The advice of Sport England will be sought as part of that process.

         The development be accessible by a range of means of transport, particularly foot, cycle
         and public transport

The submitted Transport Statement concluded that the site is readily accessible by a range of means
transport, including Metrolink and bus services and that an initial survey of walking routes
indicates that pavements and footpaths are of a good width, in good order and that controlled
pedestrian crossing points are in place in appropriate locations. It also highlighted that enhanced
facilities for travel by walking and cycling within the area are being developed as part of the
Sustainable Travel IN Salford initiative. It goes on to state that although the proposal is considered
sustainable, further detailed information should be provided in the form of a detailed Transport
Assessment and School Travel Plan.


                                                 108
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




The proposed layout plan indicates that car, motorcycle, and cycle parking can be accommodated
on site in accordance with City Council standards set out in UDP Policy A10.

Commenting on the findings, GMPTE agree that the site is within walking distance of Metrolink
stations in the Quays and a number of local bus stops; however they state that the level of bus
services connecting the site to other parts of Salford is relatively very poor (realistically limited to
the hourly 69 on Broadway and the 53 twenty minute service from Pendleton Precinct). Given that
the school will attract pupils from a wide catchment area they state that dedicated home to school
bus services are required. GMPTE have expressed their willingness to provide the applicant with
advice on how this can be best achieved.

It is considered that although the site is relatively readily accessible by a range of means of
transport, the proposed development does generate the need for additional public transport
provision. Clearly, these matters need to be fully addressed in a detailed Transport Assessment and
School Travel Plan at the reserved matters stage, with a particular focus on highway safety given
the sites location adjoining busy roads and uses. However, I am confident that satisfactory
solutions can be found and given that this application is in outline with all matters reserved, I have
no objection to the application in this regard at this stage providing conditions are attached to any
consent requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed Transport
Assessment and a School Travel Plan for staff and pupils.

         The development incorporates adequate provision for disabled access

The design statement states that the development would be DDA compliant and that disabled car
parking spaces would be provided in accordance with UDP Policy A10. I therefore have no
objection to the application in this regard. More detailed consideration will be given to disabled
access at the reserved matters stage in terms of surfacing, access thresholds, ramps etc.

         The development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or have
         an adverse impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or servicing

In terms of congestion, the submitted Transport Statement found that Trafford Road is currently
operating within capacity for the majority of the day but as would be anticipated suffers from peak
hour congestion and delays. Its junction with Broadway is signal controlled with pedestrian
crossing facilities. Broadway itself is a major feeder road into the Salford Quays area and currently
operates well within capacity. Although traffic levels may increase as development currently under
construction becomes occupied it is considered that it will remain well within capacity. King
William Street has adequate capacity given that it only serves sites fronting onto it and
consequently carries only small volumes of traffic.

The proposed development is expected to generate around 390 car borne trips at the key morning
peak hour (110 by staff and older students and 190 cars delivering pupils offset against the 100
vehicle movements daily that the existing uses generate). From this, the Transport Statement
concludes that Broadway, King William Street and Trafford Road are able to accommodate the
increased number of trips without having an unacceptable impact on the free flow of traffic. They
do however state that further detailed examination as the proposals are developed would be


                                                 109
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




beneficial especially given the likely number of pedestrian movements at the Broadway/Trafford
Road junction.

An analysis of accidents around the application site was undertaken as part of Transport Statement,
which found that recorded accidents fall within the accepted norm. As discussed above, Trafford
Road, Broadway and King William Street were found to have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the additional number of trips generated by the development and I have no reason to question that
assertion.

In terms of parking provision, the Transport Statement estimated that the proposed development
would generate the need for 110 car parking spaces, based on one space per member of staff
(estimated at 80) and an additional 30 spaces for visitors and older pupils. This far exceeds the 62
being indicated at this stage. However, the applicant based the indicative provision shown on the
Council’s adopted maximum standard for higher and further education uses under UDP Policy A10
(there are no adopted standards for high schools). The adopted standards do state that the level of
parking provision needs to be backed up with a more detailed justification, including Green Travel
Plans that promote sustainable transport choices and thus reduce the demand for parking. On that
basis the matter should be revisited at the reserved matters stage, based on the findings of a detailed
Transport Assessment and School Travel Plan. I therefore have no objection to the level of parking
provision at this stage, given that the proposals indicate a level of provision in accordance with
adopted standards.

Servicing arrangements are currently unknown, particularly given the current uncertainties relating
utility infrastructure crossing the site, and therefore I am unable to reach a conclusion on their
implications for highway safety at this stage. This must be fully addressed in a detailed Transport
Assessment and will be considered in detail at the reserved matters stage.

My overall conclusion at this stage is that the proposed development would not give rise to
unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or adversely affect highway safety providing these matters
are adequately addressed at the reserved stage and informed by a detailed Transport Assessment
and School Travel Plan. I therefore have no objection to the application, in this regard, subject to
conditions being attached to any consent requiring the submission, written approval and
implementation of a detailed Transport Assessment and a School Travel Plan for staff and pupils.

         The development makes provision, wherever possible, for community use of the building
         and grounds

In addition to the primary education function, documents submitted with the application state that
the needs of the existing church community would be fully accommodated on site and that the
school is intended to be a ‘Full Service Extended Academy’ with an increased range of facilities for
the local community, particularly in relation to the Academy’s proposed ICT and media specialism.
I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard but do consider it necesasry to attach
a condition to any consent requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a
community use statement to ensure such an outcome.




                                                 110
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




In conclusion, I have no objection to the principle of development in that I consider the proposed
development to comply with UDP Policies ST1, ST6, ST8, ST9, ST11, E3, E5, MX1/3, EHC1 and
A10, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions discussed above.


Loss of Employment Land

Of central importance to the outcome of this planning application is the resultant loss of
employment land on the Broadway Business Park and businesses within the URC building.

UDP Policy ST3 – Employment Supply states that a good range of local employment opportunities
will be secured by maintaining an adequate supply and variety of land and buildings for
employment purposes, protecting and increasing the attractiveness of existing employment areas,
enabling the diversification of the local economy and using planning obligations to secure local
labour contracts and training opportunities. This strategic policy is strengthended by UDP Policy
E5 discussed below.

UDP Policy E5 seeks to safeguard ‘established employment areas’, as defined in Paragraph 8.40 of
the UDP. The application site is considered an ‘established employment area’ by virtue of its size
and the number of business units it contains.

Before permission could be granted for non-employment uses it must be shown that the proposed
development would not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses.
In this case the impact on the King William Enterprise Park to the west of the application site, on
the opposite side of King William Street, the business unit adjoining the site to the south and to a
lesser extent, office developments further into the Quays should be considered. The proposed
school use is considered relatively benign, its main potential environmental impact being traffic
generation and as discussed above, the Transport Statement has shown that the surrounding roads
have the capacity to safely accommodate additional traffic generated by the proposal. Similarly, an
assessment of the information submitted so far in relation to noise, fumes, odours and air quality
indicate that the proposal would not generate environmental effects that would compromise the
operating conditions of remaining employment uses providing appropriate conditions are imposed.
It is considered that a condition requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a
Considerate Contractors Scheme, incorporating a Construction Environmental Management Plan,
will adequately address potential disruption during construction. On that basis, I can reasonably
conclude that the proposed development will not unduly compromise the operating conditions of
other remaining employment uses.

In addition to the above, Policy E5 states that one or more of four ‘exceptional circumstances’ must
apply, before established employment areas will be released for non-employment related uses. I
will consider each exception in turn:

         The developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for
         the site or building for employment purposes

         Given the fact the Broadway Business Park and the URC Building are, at least in part,
         currently occupied this criterion is not applicable.


                                                111
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




          There is a strong environmental case for rationalising land uses or creating open space

          Not applicable.

          The development would contribute to the implementation of an approved regeneration
          strategy or plan for the area

   The recently approved mediacity:UK planning guidance, prepared jointly by the City Council
   and Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, though non-statutory, sets out a series of policies
   and guidelines which the two Councils will apply when considering planning applications
   within the policy area with the overall strategic aim of creating a globally significant new
   media city. Key objectives include the creation of a place that is designed to stimulate




                                                                            “
   linkage and exchange ideas ,          a place where people live, work, play and learn      and    a
                                     ”
                                     “




                                                                                           ”

                                                                                                     “
   place where new ways of informing, educating and entertaining will be created .




                                                                                       ”
   Policy MC:UK 2 – Mix of Uses states that a mixed list of land uses will be promoted in the
   wider policy area including:

            Community facilities: Appropriate facilities will be needed to support the scale of
          “




          development envisaged within the mediacity:UK area, including the provision of a
          new high school to serve Salford’s part of the Regional Centre, potentially with a
          media/performing arts speciality, helping to ensure that the area is attractive to a
          diverse range of households and that all sections of society benefit from the
          opportunities within it.
                                     ”




   It is considered that such an explicit reference to the need for a new high school to support
   the wider mediacity:UK Vision in this approved regeneration strategy/plan demonstrates
   that exceptional circumstances exist in this case.

   In addition, although not considered to satisfy the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test in
   itself, this finding is supported by the strategic objectives of The Vision and Regeneration
   Framework for Central Salford that highlight the need                to support the further
                                                                      ” “




   development of first class education, skills and health services     in recognition of the fact
   that     the provision of good schools and high quality further education facilities is key to
          “




   unlocking the area’s growth and competitiveness .
                                                       ”




          The site is allocated for another use in the UDP

   Although the application site falls within the area based UDP Policy MX1/3 – Mixed Use
   Areas (Salford Quays) and education and community facility uses are encouraged, the policy is



                                                 112
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                       1st February 2007




    not considered to be an ‘allocation’ for the purposes of Policy E5 and as such is not applicable
    in this case.

Given the proposed use would not compromise the operating conditions of remaining businesses
nearby and that the need for a new high school in this area is identified as strategic regeneration
objective in an approved plan to support and facilitate the development of mixed and balanced
community, I consider the resultant loss of employment land, in accordance with UDP Policy E5,
to be acceptable in this case.

In should be noted that the applicants, with the help of the City Council’s Economic Development
officers and Central Salford Regeneration Company, have stated that ongoing support and
assistance is being offered to businesses that would be displaced with the overall intention of
ensuring that each business is given the opportunity to relocate to alternative premises within the
City.

Recognition should also be given to that fact that it is anticipated that the proposed school will
support approximately 80 jobs in itself, compared to the estimated 100 jobs currently supported on
site. Consideration is also given to the use of local labour and training contracts below.


Impact on Locally Listed URC Building

UDP Policy CH8 states that the impact of any building, structure or feature that is identified on the
Council’s Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological or
Historic Interest will be a material consideration.

The City Council maintains a Local List of around 450 buildings, structures and features that have
been identified as being of value due to their contribution to the local street scene or their local
historical association. Whilst they do not enjoy statutory protection, any material impact that a
proposed development may have on them is taken into account as part of the development control
process.

The United Reform Church Building, formerly the Salford Central Mission, has Grade B status on
the local list and therefore warrants positive efforts to ensure its retention. Its value is identified as
being in its tremendous townscape presence at this important gateway to the Quays, the
architectural quality of its impressive faēade and its historic association with the Ordsall
community.

Whilst the layout plans originally submitted in support of the application, indicated that the
building would be demolished, this approach has since been revised at the request of officers to
allow for its retention to be fully explored during design development. The approach taken to its
retention will be fully explored at the reserved matters stage. The City Council’s Conservation
Officer is keen to discuss its retention in greater detail with the applicants.

As this application is in outline with all matters reserved and current proposals do not preclude its
retention I have no objection to the application in this regard at this stage.



                                                  113
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Design

In considering the design of the development it is important to note that the application is in outline
with all matters reserved. Detailed issues relating to layout, scale and appearance are therefore to
be determined at a later date. Nonetheless, the design and access statement combined with the
submitted layout plan and scale parameter drawing set out a series of broad design principles that
should be adhered to during design development, having regard to opportunities and constraints,
and as such must be considered at this stage of the application process.

UDP Policy DES1 requires developments to respond positively to their physical context and to
respect the character and local identity 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, the desirability of protecting an existing building line and the
impact on and quality of views and vistas.

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

In accordance with national planning policy and UDP Policy DES11, the applicants have submitted
a design and access statement that describes the broad design principles and concepts that have
been applied to the particular aspects of the proposal based on:

         the amount of development;
         the layout, including the approximate location of buildings, routes and open spaces; and
         the approximate scale of the proposed building in relation to its surroundings.

It should be noted that matters relating to the appearance of the proposed building in terms of
materials, elevational treatment etc. and hard and soft landscaping are dealt with at the reserved
matters stage when detailed designs are submitted and are not directly relevant to the consideration
of this application.

I shall deal with each aspect in turn.

The amount of the development proposed is based on national guidelines set out in DfES Building
Bulletin 98 that provides design and area guidelines for secondary schools. These standards dictate
that the gross building accommodation requirements for the proposed school are between 10,157
and 10,520 square metres. Provision for formal and informal outdoor recreation space is also
required and is broken down into a multi-use games area (2,000 square metres), an area of hard
landscaping (1,350 square metres), an area of soft landscaping (3,475 square metres) and a habitat
area (575 square metres). The proposed layout plan illustrates how these component parts could be
provided on the application site and I am satisfied that there is sufficient space to accommodate the
required amount of development. In order to ensure the necessary amount of development is
delivered in accordance with the submitted plans it is considered necessary to attach a condition to


                                                 114
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                       1st February 2007




any consent limiting the amount of development to the parameters set out above. However, it is not
considered appropriate to attach a condition limiting the amount of car parking to that currently
proposed as the amount required will be fully determined when detailed access arrangements,
informed by a detailed Transport Assessment and School Travel Plan, are considered at the
reserved matters stage. This approach is in full accordance with UDP Policies A1 and A10 (see
below).

As discussed above, the proposed indicative layout was amended to allow for the retention of the
URC building at the key Trafford Road/Broadway junction to ensure its valuable townscape role in
boldly defining this gateway to the Quays is properly addressed during design development. This
has been achieved by clustering the school building in the northern corner of the site centred upon
the footprint of the URC building with additional elements either side. The City Council’s Design
Team and I agree that this is the most appropriate and desirable solution, in that it positively
responds to the geometry of the site, emphasises the corner, fully addresses the primary frontages
and strengthens the site’s landmark status. The position of the car, cycle and motorcycle parking
area has been relocated to the rear of the building on the western side of the site fronting the
secondary King William Street frontage. This approach ensures that the visual impact of surface
car parking is minimised. Although regard must be had to United Utilities requirements, I am
satisfied that the approach taken to site layout is the best solution for the future development of the
site, in full accordance with UDP Policy DES1. I therefore have no objection to the application in
this regard providing appropriate conditions are imposed fixing the layout to the locations
discussed above. The matter will be revisited in detail at the reserved matters stage.

Following revisions, the indicative scale of the proposed building is four storeys high on the site on
the existing URC building stepping down to three storeys on either side on the Trafford Road and
Broadway frontages. This approach ensures that context set by the site’s topography is respected
and the dominance of the corner and landmark gateway is maintained without overwhelming
adjacent residential properties and low-rise industrial units. Given that the indicative height of the
proposed building is no higher than the existing URC building I have no concerns regarding
overshadowing or loss of daylight and sunlight. Providing the building’s additional bulk fronts and
further encloses the Trafford Road and Broadway frontages I do not consider it necessary to place
additional restrictions on the height, width and length of the building. This will give the applicant
sufficient freedom and three-dimensional flexibility to develop a high quality and innovative
building design solution that is fully respects its setting. I am therefore satisfied that the approach
taken to the scale of the building is an appropriate to the site context and that it is in full accordance
with UDP Policies DES1 and DES7. I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard.

The applicant has stated that Wilkinson Eyre have been appointed as architects for the proposed
new school building. The Panel may recall that Wilkinson Eyre have also been appointed as the
architects for the BBC North HQ buildings at the core of mediacity:UK.


Landscaping

Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must be of a high
quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety and security, form an


                                                  115
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.

The Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document contains further policies and
guidance in relation to tree protection that includes the requirement to replace trees that are lost on
a two for one basis.

As this application is in outline with all matters, including landscaping, the applicant is not required
to provide specific landscaping information at this stage. Nonetheless, the indicative layout plan
suggests that the proposal will significantly increase the amount of soft landscaping on the site and
significantly improve the nature and quality of hard landscaping. I therefore have no objection to
the application in this regard.

In relation to trees, the applicant has submitted a tree survey that highlights the presence of well
over 50 trees on the site, over twenty of which were found to be of a poor quality, in poor health or
of low value and have therefore been marked for removal. None of the trees are protected. The
Tree Survey has been verified. The trees along the Trafford Road boundary represent the best and
largest trees on the site and are valuable in that they soften the hard lines of the adjacent buildings
and the impact of the Broadway Industrial Estate as well as providing a partial acoustic barrier and
adding a feeling of maturity to the location. The indicative layout reflects this in that the provision
of additional tree and shrub planting is particularly focused along the primary Trafford Road
frontage to provide valuable visual and acoustic screening. I therefore have no objection to the
application in this regard.


Crime Prevention

UDP Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. Further detailed policies and
guidance are provided in the adopted Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.

In accordance, with the Design and Crime SPD, the Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Officer (ALO) has reviewed the proposal and has no objections at this stage. The applicant
has stated their full commitment to achieving Secured By Design accreditation through ongoing
dialogue and discussion with the ALO. Compliance would be fully considered at the reserved
matters stage when detailed designs have been developed. I therefore have no objection to the
application in this regard at this stage.


Environmental Performance

UDP Policy EN 22 states that development proposals of this size will only be permitted where it
can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources, and on the
local and global environments, has been minimised as far as practicable; and full consideration has
been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options, and such measures have been
incorporated into the development where practicable.



                                                 116
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Although we are unable to assess the environmental performance of the proposed building until
detailed designs are submitted at the reserved matters stage, I can confirm that it is a requirement of
the DfES for the development of schools of this stage that they achieve a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’
BREEAM Schools rating. This is the stringent, industry standard, Building Reseacrh
Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Methodology tailored specifially for schools. I am
therefore satisfied that the requirements of Policy EN22 will ultimately be met and that an
environmentally responsible, sustainable, resource efficient building will be delievred. To ensure
such a positive outcome for the purposes of this planning application it is recommended that a
condition be imposed to that effect.


United Utilities Objection

United Utilities have objected to the application on the grounds that a large diameter public sewer
crosses the site where the proposed school building is sited on the indicative layout plans and they
will not permit building over it. They go on to state that they require an access strip of no less than
13 metres wide, measuring at least 6.5 metres either side of the line of the sewer for maintenance
and replacement and therefore a modification of the site layout or a diversion of the sewer at the
applicant’s expense is required. Similarly, a water main and underground electricity cables run
under the site that must be addressed.

The possible implications of these constraints should not influence the determination of this
application. Whilst they may have significant implications for the layout of the proposed
development this does not prevent planning permission being granted as these matters are
controlled by separate legislation and controls. National planning policy makes clear that it is not
the role of the planning system to duplicate other control regimes.


Access

In considering access to the development it is important to note that the application is in outline
with all matters reserved, including access. Detailed access arrangements are therefore determined
at a later date. Nonetheless, the design and access statement and the proposed layout plan
submitted in support of the application are required to indicate and justify the location of points of
access to the site.

UDP Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport
assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.

UDP 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.

UDP Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would compromise highway
safety by virtue of traffic generation and access.



                                                 117
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




UDP Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

UDP 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 layout plan shows that vehicular access is gained from two existing access and egress
points on King William Street leading to a staff and visitor car park and pick up and drop of point
bordering an area of hard landscaping.

A Transport Statement, submitted in accordance with UDP Policy A1, found that Trafford Road is
currently operating within capacity for the majority of the day but, as would be anticipated, suffers
from peak hour congestion and delays. Its junction with Broadway is signal controlled with
pedestrian crossing facilities. Broadway itself is a major feeder road into the Salford Quays area
and currently operates well within capacity. Although traffic levels may increase as development
currently under construction becomes occupied it is considered that it will remain well within
capacity. King William Street has adequate capacity given that it only serves sites fronting onto it
and consequently carries only small volumes of traffic.

The proposed development is expected to generate around 390 car borne trips at the key morning
peak hour (110 by staff and older students and 190 cars delivering pupils offset against the 100
vehicle movements daily the existing uses generate). From this, the Transport Statement concludes
that Broadway, King William Street and Trafford Road are able to accommodate the increased
number of trips without having an unacceptable impact on the free flow of traffic or highway
safety. They do however state that further detailed examination would be beneficial as the
proposals are developed given the likely number of pedestrian movements at the
Broadway/Trafford Road junction.

An analysis of accidents around the application site was undertaken as part of Transport Statement,
which found that recorded accidents fall within the accepted norm. As discussed above, Trafford
Road, Broadway and King William Street were found to have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the additional number of trips generated by the development and I have no reason to question that
assertion.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed vehicular access arrangements are in accordance with
UDP Policy A8 in that they would not compromise highway safety by virtue of traffic generation. I
recommend that a condition be attached to any consent fixing the vehicular access points to that
applied for. Detailed matters in terms of visibility splays, kerb radii etc. will be considered at the
reserved matters stage.

Parking areas are shown as comprising a total of 62 spaces for cars, including 5 disabled bays, 3
dedicated spaces for motorcycles and 125 cycle parking spaces. The Transport Statement
estimated that the proposed development would generate the need for 110 car parking spaces, based


                                                 118
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




on one space per member of staff (estimated at 80) and an additional 30 spaces for visitors and older
pupils. This far exceeds the 62 being indicated at this stage. However, the applicant based
provision on the Council’s adopted maximum standard for higher and further education uses under
UDP Policy A10 (there are no adopted standards for high schools). The adopted standards do state
that the level of parking provision needs to be backed up with a more detailed justification,
including Green Travel Plans that promote sustainable transport choices and thus reduce the
demand for parking. On that basis the matter should be revisited at the reserved matters stage,
based on the findings of a detailed Transport Assessment and School Travel Plan. I therefore have
no objection to the level of parking provision at this stage, given that the proposals indicate a level
of provision in accordance with adopted standards.

Pedestrian access is gained from two points set slightly back from the corner on both Trafford Road
and Broadway. The submitted Transport Statement concluded that the site is readily accessible by
a range of means transport, including Metrolink and bus services and that an initial survey of
walking routes indicates that pavements and footpaths are of a good width, in good order and that
controlled pedestrian crossing points are in place in appropriate locations. It also highlighted that
enhanced facilities for travel by walking and cycling within the area are being developed as part of
the Sustainable Travel IN Salford initiative that would further enhance the sites accessibility for
cyclists and those travelling on foot. It goes on to state that although the proposal is considered
sustainable, further detailed information should be provided in the form of a detailed Transport
Assessment and School Travel Plan. The proposed pedestrian access points have been relocated to
points away from the Trafford Road/ Boardway corner to address the concern raised by Central
Salford URC to minimise conflicts between pedestrians and road users. The proposed layout plan
indicated that motorcycle, and cycle parking can be accommodated on site in accordance with City
Council standards set out in UDP Policy A10. I am satisfied that proposed access arrangements
made adequate provision for safe and convenient access by pedestrians and cyclists, in accordance
with UDP Policies A2 and DES2 subject to conditions being attached to any consent requiring the
submission, written approval and implementation of a details Transport Assessment and a School
Travel Plan for staff and pupils. The matter will be revisited in detail at the reserved matters stage.

In terms of public transport infrastructure, GMPTE agree with the Transport Statement’s findings
in that the site is within walking distance of Metrolink stations in the Quays and a number of local
bus stops; however they state that the level of bus services connecting the site to other parts of
Salford is relatively very poor (realistically limited to the hourly 69 on Broadway and the 53 twenty
minute service from Pendleton Precinct). Given that the school will attract pupils from a wide
catchment area they state that dedicated home to school bus services are required. GMPTE have
expressed their willingness to provide the applicant with advice on how this can be best achieved.
Similarly, given that the school would also need access to off-site sports facilities, the provision of
adequate coach/bus pick and drop off points within the application site is considered vital and as
such it is recommended that a condition be attached to any consent requiring details of such
provision to be submitted, approved in writing and implemented in full prior to first occupation.
Although the site is relatively readily accessible by a range of means of transport, the proposed
development does generate the need for additional public transport provision. Clearly, these
matters need to be fully addressed in a detailed Transport Assessment and School Travel Plan at the
reserved matters stage, with a particular focus on linkages and highway safety given the sites
location adjoining busy roads and uses. However, I am confident that satisfactory solutions can be



                                                 119
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




found and given that this application is in outline with all matters reserved, I have no objection to
the application in this regard at this stage providing appropriate conditions are imposed.

Finally, in terms of access for people with disabilities within the site itself, the design and access
statement states that the development would be DDA compliant and that disabled car parking
spaces would be provided in accordance with UDP Policy A10. I therefore have no objection to the
application in this regard. More detailed consideration will be given to disabled access at the
reserved matters stage in terms of surfacing, access thresholds, ramps etc. Similarly, issues relating
to access from outside the application site would be addressed in detail by the Transport
Assessment and a School Travel Plan and considered at the reserved matters stage.


Flood Risk and Surface Water

UDP Policy EN 19 states that development will not be permitted where it would be subject to an
unacceptable risk of flooding, materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere or result in an
unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of dealing with
flooding issues. Any application for development that is considered likely to be at risk of flooding,
or to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere materially, will need to be accompanied by a formal
flood risk assessment that should accurately assess the level of flood risk involved. Where
appropriate, it should clearly identify the mitigation or other measures to be incorporated into the
development or undertaken on other land which are designed to reduce that risk of flooding to an
acceptable level. It goes on to state that, development will not be permitted unless adequate
provision is made for the discharge of foul and surface water associated with the proposal.

The Environment Agency initially formally objected to the application on the grounds that the
application site lies in an area that may present a significant flood risk from the generation of
surface water run-off. On that basis, they required the submission of a flood risk assessment, based
on an assessment of existing and proposed surface water drainage regimes, to be agreed before the
application is determined. Based on a Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) solution, they
stated that should any increase in discharge from the site occur then the development must provide
an element of on-site storage for excess water run off with a restricted discharge to the connecting
sewer.

This response was unexpected given the buildings within the application site sit within an area of
almost unbroken hardstanding and the application would introduce a significant area of soft
landscaping. Nonetheless, recent government policy (Circular 04/06 The Town and Country
Planning (Flooding)(England) Direction 2007) requires local planning authorities to notify the
Secretary of State of any application for major development in a flood risk area, where it is minded
to grant permission against advice on flood risk grounds from the Environment Agency. In such
situations, the guidance encourages, where possible, a speedy resolution to the issue to enable the
Environment Agency to withdraw its objection.

The applicant immediately responded to the objection by commissioning a flood risk assessment
and the Agency have now formally withdrawn their objection with no further recommedations
made.



                                                 120
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Noise, Vibrations, Odours and External Lighting

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

An assessment of the submitted preliminary noise report by the Strategic Director of
Environmental Services indicates that the effect of traffic noise from Trafford Road and Broadway
will need to be mitigated through design and acoustic protection measures, it is recommended that
condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission of a detailed noise report that
identifies measures needed to bring noise levels down to an acceptable level, including the
provision of acoustic barriers along site boundaries, if necessary. The potential of noise from the
proposed school also needs to be considered and additional conditions covering noise from plant
and machinery, and time restrictions on the use of outdoor sports facilities are recommended
accordingly. These matters will be revisited at the reserved matters stage where detailed proposals
are available.

It is also recommended that conditions be attached to any consent requiring:

         the submission, written approval and implementation of a fume extraction system to
         protect residential amenity; and
         the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed Considerate Contractors
         Scheme, which includes a Construction Environmental Management Plan, to minimise
         disruption and adverse environmental effects during the construction and demolition
         phase.

I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with these conditions, the application accords with Policy
EN17.


Air Quality

Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution) will not be permitted unless
they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.

An air quality assessment was submitted as part of the application based on impacts arising from
demolition and construction activities, as well as from road traffic and service plant arising from
the completed development. The demolition and construction effects of the development would be
related to dust emissions and exhaust emissions from demolition and construction plant and
vehicles. The effects of the completed development would result from traffic associated with the
development and operational plant and ventilation systems.

The assessment found that the application site is adjacent to busy roads within a designated Air
Quality Management Area (AQMA) and given the existing high levels of traffic, it is unlikely that


                                                 121
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




there would be a significant impact on air quality from the users of the school, however a further
assessment is of impact is requested at a later date when detailed traffic impact data is made
available. The need for appropriate ventilation is stressed to adequately mitigate the impact of air
pollution on end users.

Based on the findings of the submitted assessment, the Strategic Director of Environmental
Services has recommended that conditions be attached to any consent requiring:

         A further detailed air quality assessment is undertaken based on a detailed traffic impact
         assessment to assess the existing and future air quality for years 2010, 2020 and the
         opening year with and without the development for the nitrogen dioxide. The assessment
         should identify the worst-case exposure and any changes in pollution levels as a result of
         the development and detail appropriate mitigation measures. This should be submitted,
         approved in writing and implemented prior to school building being first occupied and
         include a diffusion tube survey for nitrogen dioxide to determine the need for additional
         ventilation to mitigate pollution from Trafford Road and Broadway.
         A detailed School Travel Plan be produced, implemented and advertised before the school
         building is first occupied to reduce the number of vehicles entering the site.

In order to ensure a satisfactory outcome, I recommend that conditions be attached accordingly.
The matter will be revisited in detail at the reserved stage. In light of the above comments, and
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined above, I am satisfied at this stage that any
adverse impacts on air quality as a result of the proposed development would be properly mitigated,
in accordance with Policy EN17.


Contamination

Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will
require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying the
nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future users/occupiers of the
site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the contamination.

The applicant has carried out a preliminary risk assessment (PRA). The PRA revealed that a site
investigation, including gas monitoring should be undertaken before development commences, as
records indicate contamination may cause an unacceptable risk to the health of future occupiers and
users of the site.

The Greater Manchester Geological Unit, on behalf of the Strategic Director of Environmental
Services agrees with these findings and has advised that an appropriate condition be attached to any
consent. I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with the condition, there would be no
unacceptable detrimental impact as a result of the existing ground conditions, in accordance with
Policy EN16.


Nature Conservation and Biodiversity



                                                122
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                  1st February 2007




Policy EN10 states that development which would be likely to have an adverse impact on legally
protected species will only be permitted where adequate mitigation measures are put in place.

Further detailed policies and guidance are provided in the adopted Nature Conservation and
Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document.

The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) raised no objection to the development but did
state that the URC building has the potential to be used by bats and therefore a bat survey and
appropriate method statement detailing how any disturbance to bats (if found) will be avoided is
required before development commences. Once approved the survey should be implemented in
full. I agree with this advice and recommend that a condition be imposed accordingly. The matter
would be revisited in detail at the reserved matters stage.

GMEU welcomed the inclusion of a new habitat area and additional tree and shrub planting in the
proposed layout plans in that they would enhance biodiversity and the nature conservation value of
the site in accordance with Policy NCB1 of the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD.


Other Issues

The Council’s Economic Development officers requested that schemes aimed at ensuring contract
work is undertaken by the local labour force, through Salford Construction Partnership, are used.
UDP Policy ST3 states that a good range of local employment opportunities will be secured by
using planning obligations to secure local labour contracts and training opportunities. The Draft
Planning Obligations SPD seeks contributions from major developments to support and fund
training delivered by the Salford Construction Partnership. This policy requirement relates solely
to major residential and commercial development and therefore it is not considered appropriate to
enter into a legal agreement for that purpose in this case. It is however recommended that an
informative be added to any consent requesting that the Salford Construction Partnership be
engaged in the development process.




VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

The proposals have been formulated in close consultation with representatives from across the
Council, Urban Vision and other consultees. Of particular benefit has been the revision to the site
layout plan to allow for the retention of the locally listed URC building at the key Trafford
Road/Broadway junction to ensure its valuable townscape role in boldly defining this gateway to
the Quays is safeguarded. Similarly, the parking area has been relocated to the secondary King
William Street frontage to minimise its visual impact.

The Environment Agency’s initial objection to the proposals on flood risk grounds was formally
withdrawn during the application process following the submission of a satisfactory flood risk
assessment.


                                               123
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




CONCLUSION

Although the proposals have not yet been fully developed, the regeneration benefits offered by the
proposal represent a unique opportunity to address many of strategic imperatives set out in ‘Making
the vision real: Salford's community plan for 2006-2016’ relating to deprivation, educational
attainment, social inclusion, training and skills, environmental sustainability and improving the
overall environment. The proposals would also deliver a key element of the vision for
mediacity:UK and create a valuable link between the community and businesses and organisations
within it. The principle of developing a school on the site is in full accordance with the
Development Plan and I am satisfied that constraints associated with the size of the site can be
overcome.

Although in accordance with policy, the loss of employment land is a key issue and in response the
applicants and other stakeholders have committed to supporting displaced businesses to ensure
they can be relocated to alternative sites within the City.

Plans have been revised to allow for the retention of the locally listed URC Building and I am
confident that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions a high quality and sustainable
design solution will be developed prior to the submission of an application(s) for the approval of
reserved matters. I am also satisfied that proposed access arrangements, in terms of both the site’s
overall accessibility and highway safety, though not yet fully developed are satisfactory. The likely
predicted impacts of the proposal on the amenity and the environment have been assessed and I am
satisfied that, subject to a number of conditions, there would be no adverse effects arising.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions



1. Applications for approval of reserved matters must 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.

2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
   submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

         a) access
         b) appearance
         c) landscaping
         d) layout
         e) scale



                                                124
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




3. Any application for the approval of reserved matters, in respect of access, layout, shall include
   provision and details of safe a bus alighting and boarding point(s) within the site. Once
   approved the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before
   the proposed development is first brought into use and retained thereafter.

4. Before development commences, a playing fields, sports and recreation facility strategy,
   detailing how an adequate standard of playing field and other sports facilities will be provided,
   delivered and managed, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning
   authority. Once approved, the strategy shall be implemented in full from the date the
   development is first brought into use and remain in place thereafter unless otherwise agreed in
   writing by the local planning authority.

5. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a detailed Traffic
   Assessment. Development shall not commence until details of any off-site highway works
   have been approved by the local planning authority. The development shall not be first used
   until the works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

6. Any application for the approval of reserved matters in relation to access shall be accompanied
   by a School Travel Plan. The School Travel Plan shall include details on 'Safer Routes to
   Schools' measures for pupils, parents and staff, and measures ensuring opportunities for
   sustainable travel are maximised. Once approved, the Plan shall be implemented prior to first
   occupation and thereafter be maintained whilst the development is in use, unless otherwise
   agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

7. Before development commences, a community use scheme, relating to the school building
   itself and its sporting facilities, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
   planning authority. The Scheme shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by
   non-school users/non-members, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for
   review. The approved scheme shall be implemented upon commencement of the use hereby
   permitted and shall remain in place whilst the use is in operation unless otherwise agreed in
   writing by the local planning authority.

8. No demolition or construction activities shall be commence until a Considerate Contractors
   Scheme, including a Construction Environmental Management Plan, has been submitted to and
   approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Considerate Contractors Scheme shall
   be adhered to in full for the duration of any demolition or construction work.

9. The gross internal floospace of the building(s) hereby approved shall not exceed 10, 520 square
   metres.

10. The siting of the school building(s) hereby approved shall be centred on the northernmost part
    of the site.

11. The development hereby approved shall acheive a post-construction Building Research
    Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) Schools rating of 'very good' or
    'excellent', 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


                                                125
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




    planning authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first occupied, unless
    otherwise agreed in writing.

12. Vehicular access to the site shall be from King William Street only.

13. Before development commences, a detailed noise assessment shall be submitted and approved
    by the local planning authority. The noise assessment, as a minimum shall include:

    - an assessment of the noise levels affecting the site from Trafford Road and Broadway to
    determine the external noise levels that the proposed school and external play areas will be
    exposed to;
    - details of measures necessary to mitigate disturbance from Trafford Road and Broadway
    having due regard to PPG24 - Planning and Noise and Building Bulletin 93 - Acoustic Design
    of Schools; and
    - details of measures necessary to mitigate disturbance to surrounding residential properties;
    and

    The approved mitigation measures identified in the assessment shall be implemented in full
    before the site is first brought into use and thereafter maintained to satisfaction of the local
    planning authority.

14. The rating level of noise from any building or from any fixed plant or machinery shall not
    exceed the existing background noise level by more than -5dB(A) at any time measured at the
    nearest noise sensitive premises.

15. The use of the outdoor playing fields and sports facilities shall be restricted to 08:00 hrs to
    21:00hrs Mondays to Sundays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning
    authority.

16. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking and or food preparation areas shall
    be designed such that there will be no odour or noise to the detriment to the amenity of
    residential premises and shall be approved by the local planning authority prior to first use. The
    approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are used for
    cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with
    manufacturer's recommendations.

17. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a further detailed
    Air Quality Assessment. The assessment shall:

    - be undertaken using the Traffic Assessment data to assess the existing and future air quality
    for years 2010, 2020 and opening year with and without the development for Nitrogen Dioxide
    pollutants;
    - identify the worst case exposure and identify any changes in pollution levels where public
    exposure occurs as a result of the development;
    - the predicted levels shall be compared with the relevant Air Quality Objectives set out in the
    Air Quality Regulations 2000 and amendments thereof;
    - include a detailed methodology and results of a diffusion tube survey for Nitrogen Dioxide


                                                 126
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




                                                  de
    undertaken at the location of the southern fa軋 of the building to determine the need for
    additional ventilation; and
    - identify any mitigation measures necessary.

18. Before development commences, 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 ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
    identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
    Protection Act 1990, PartIIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
    waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health
    and safety of workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping
    schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.

    The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the local planning
    authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial
    works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to first
    occupation of the site.

    Prior to this condition being discharged, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to and
    approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Site Completion Report shall validate
    that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those previously agreed in
    writing by the local planning authority.

19. Development shall not commence until the existing Unired Reform Church has been surveyed
    for evidence of use by bats and the results of this survey have been submitted to and approved
    in writing by the local planning authority. If bats are found to inhabit the buildings, no
    development shall commence until a scheme for the conservation of this species has been
    agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

(Reasons)

1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
   1990 (as amended).

2. Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
   applicant for subsequent approval.

3. Reason: In the intersts of highway safety. This is in accordance with Policies DES2, A2 and A5
   of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

4. Reason: To ensure pupils have access to an adequate standard of playing field, sports and
   other recreation facilities. This is in accordance with Policy EHC1 of the City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

5. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access arrangements are provided from the public
   highway. This is in accordance with Policies A1, A2, A5, A8, A10 and DES2 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.


                                                127
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




6. Reason: To ensure an acceptable level of accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking
   is provided. This is in accordance with Policies EHC1, A1, A2, A5, A8, A10 and DES2 of the
   City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

7. Reason: To secure well-managed and safe community access to the school building and its
   sports facilities. This is in accordance with Policies EHC1 and R1 of The City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

8. Reason: To protect residential amenity and to ensure environmental impacts associated with
   the demolition and construction phase are minimised. This is in accordance with Policy EN17
   of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

9. Reason: To ensure the submission of reserved matters is consistent with the outline permission
   in the interests of certainty and community involvement. This is in accordance with DCLG
   Circular 01/2006 - Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System.

10. Reason: To ensure that due regard is paid to the site's landmark status as a gateway to Salford
    Quays, to ensure the development positively responds to the geometry of the site and to allow
    for the retention of the locally listed United Reform Church building. This is in accordance
    with Policies DES1 and CH8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

11. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability. This is in
    accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

12. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the submission of reserved matters is
    consistent with the outline permission in the interests of certainty and community involvement.
    This is in accordance with Policy A1, DES2 and EHC1 of the City of Salford Unitary
    Development Plan 2004-2016 and DCLG Circular 01/2006 - Guidance on Changes to the
    Development Control System.

13. Reason: To protect residential amenity and to ensure the future users of the site are not
    subjected to unacceptable levels of noise pollution. This is in accordance with Policies EN17
    and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

14. Reason: To protect residential amenity and to ensure the future users of the site are not
    subjected to unacceptable levels of noise pollution. This is in accordance with Policies EN17
    and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

15. Reason: To protect residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies DES7, EN17,
    EHC1, R1 and R2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

16. Reason: In the interests of pollution control and to protect residential amenity. This is in
    accordance with Policies EN17 and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
    2004-2016.

17. Reason: To assess and control risks associated with air quality and to ensure the proposed


                                               128
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




    building(s) are adequately ventilated. This is in accordance with Policies EN17 and DES7 of
    the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

18. Reason: To ensure that the presence of or the potential for contamination is detected and
    appropriate remedial action is taken. This is in accordance with Policy EN16 of the City of
    Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

19. Reason: To protect bats and their roost sites that are protected species under the Wildlife and
    Countryside Act 1981. This is in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford Unitary
    Development Plan 2004-2016.


Note(s) for Applicant


1. The fume extraction systems for fume cupboards in any laboratory within the school building
   should fully comply with the guidance document 'Building Bulletin 88 - Fume Cupboards in
   Schools'.

2. There is an ideal opportunity from the outset to protect watercourses, canals and groundwater
   from the effects of pollutants, and reduce flood risk in urban areas by altering the design of
   drainage systems. We are promoting, with the help of The Environment Agency, Sustainable
   Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). These include a range of structures with a flexible series of
   options (i.e. retention ponds, swales, porous pavements etc.) to reduce the damage upon our
   freshwater resources. This development should assess the feasibility of incorporating SUDS as
   well as other sustainable development options such as green roof structures etc.

3. We recommend the applicant incorporate a landscaping scheme composed solely of native
   species. If there are distinct local varieties where the local gene pool should be maintained, then
   stocks of local provenance should be used. British forms tend to be more resistant to frost and
   damp than their European counterparts, and flower and fruit at times more appropriate to the
   British animals that depend on them. I refer you to the requirements of the City Council's Trees
   and Development Supplementary Planning Document.

4. All breeding birds in the wild are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). It is
   therefore an offence to disturb or kill any wild bird while it is nest building, or at a nest
   containing eggs or young, or to disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

5. All bat species are legally protected from any harm, damage or disturbance under the Wildlife
   and Countryside Act (1981), as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). It
   is a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly harm, damage, or disturb bats or their roosts.
   Bats are also protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations (1994).
   Approval must be sought from Natural England for any works affecting bats or their roost sites.

6. I refer you Sport England's guidance notes relating to the construction and layout of various
   sports facilities available at www.sportengland.org/index/get resources/resource
   downloads/facilities guidance/ facilities guidance documents.htm.


                                                 129
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




7. For further information on dealing with the requirement(s) of the Contamination and Air
   Quality conditions please contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Environment
   Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).

8. As a minimum, the Transport Assessment should include:

        - be based on a survey of actual demands generated by staff and pupils;
        - be used to inform the level of demand for on-site parking provision;
        - include detailed proposals for the means of access and egress for pedestrians, cyclists and
    vehicles including buses;
        - include detailed proposals for the internal road network demonstrating how conflicts
    between pedestrians and other vehicles would be minimised;
        - provide detailed proposals of on-site bus and parent pick up/drop off points;
        - include a detailed analysis of the operational capacity of local junctions and access points
    affected by the proposals and identify any subsequent mitigation highway improvement
    measures that may be required; and
        - include detailed proposals for on-site servicing and ground maintenance access
    arrangements.

9. All external lighting shall be erected and directed so as to avoid detriment to the amenity of
   residential accommodation and should be designed to provide a standard maintained
   illumination (LUX) of not more than 20 LUX at the nearest residential window.




APPLICATION No:                06/53889/DEEM3

APPLICANT:                     Childrens Services Directorate

LOCATION:                      Land Bounded By Hawthorn Ave, Birch Rd, Laburnum Rd
                               And Railway Line (existing School Site); And Land To The
                               South Of Ash Gr, Laburnum Rd, Reedmace Cl, Willowmoss Cl,
                               Rydal Cres, Beck Gr, Mereclough Ave, Meremanor (existing
                               Playing Field)

PROPOSAL:                      REVISED DESCRIPTION: Outline application with all
                               matters reserved for a replacement high school for 1500 pupils
                               with associated parking, outdoor play space and sports facilities
                               and additional sports facilities with associated parking on the
                               site of the existing high school following demolition of school
                               buildings (Access, Layout, Scale, Landscaping and Appearance
                               reserved)



                                                130
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




WARD:                          Walkden South


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the relocation and redevelopment of an expanded Walkden Community
High School as part of the City’s Building Schools for the Future programme. The application is in
outline with all matters reserved (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping).

Existing Site

Walkden Community High School currently operates on a split site with school buildings and a
limited amount of outdoor play space and playing fields located on the Birch Road Site whilst the
majority of the School’s outdoor sports facilities are detached and occupy an area of recreational
green space some 500 metres to the south east, on the Playing Fields Site.

The Birch Road Site is surrounded by low-density housing on three sides (Birch Road to the south,
Hawthorn Avenue to the west and Laburnum Road to the east) and a railway line to the north. It is
terraced with three levels, falling towards the south, with the school buildings straddling the lowest
embankment fronting Birch Road itself. The original school building was built in 1932 and is of
traditional construction with brick walls and pitched slate roofs and is predominantly single storey.
The school has been extended in a number of phases since then including:

         a single-storey timber framed lab block dating from the late 1960s early 1970s;
         a concrete-framed, two-storey 1970s extension providing Craft and technology teaching
         facilities;
         a detached, two-storey, concrete framed kitchen/dining block added in 1974;
         a sports hall, completed in 1980;
         a brick two-storey lab block with a pitched roof built in 1996; and
         more recently a number of prefabricated blocks, some two-storey.

This eclectic collection of buildings of varying architectural styles gives the Birch Road Site a
generally poor and uncoordinated appearance that is exacerbated by the need for surface parking on
the playground between the back of pavement and school buildings on the primary Birch Road
frontage. The playing field to the rear of the Birch Road site is heavily waterlogged rendering it
unusable for 6 to 7 months of the year. Other current operational difficulties arising from the
un-coordinated and fragmented nature of the Birch Road Site, confirmed by OFSTED, are provided
in greater detail below.

The Playing Fields Site occupies a substantial area of previously undeveloped, recreational green
space surrounded by two-storey, predominantly semi detached housing to the north and east (Ash
Grove, Laburnum Road, Reedmace Close, Willowmoss Close, Beck Grove, Mereclough Avenue,
Meremanor and Old Clough Lane).              The long southwestern boundary follows the
Worsley/Walkden Loopline (a disused railway line, now a public footpath/cycleway) designated in



                                                 131
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




the UDP as both an Existing Strategic Recreation Route (Policy R5) and a Safeguarded Potential
Transport Route (Policy A15). Mature trees and other vegetation that line this route partially
screen views of housing on Blakefield Drive and Thornhill Drive, the Ash Field and Mesne Lea
Primary School sites, the A580 East Lancs Road and a large telecommunications mast to the south,
giving the site an expansive natural feel. The playing fields are divided by a steep-banked, tree
lined meandering stream called Whittle Brook forming an attractive landscape feature. The
smaller part of the Playing Fields Site, to the east of Whittle Brook is flat, on higher ground and
occupied by an overgrown running track accessed via Mereclough Avenue.

The entire Playing Fields Site is designated as a Wildlife Corridor under Policy EN9 of the UDP
and is also identified as a Priority Sports Pitch (Dual Use Schools) in the adopted Greenspace
Strategy. The central part of the Playing Fields Site is heavily waterlogged and identified as an area
in risk of flooding (see below). A public sewer also crosses the central part of the site. Access to
the Playing Fields Site is currently unrestricted however a public right of way (Ref: Definitive
Footpath Worsley 31) crosses the site linking Ash Grove with the Worsley/Walkden Loopline. The
submitted ecological survey has highlighted the presence of Japanese Knotweed in the western
corner of the site.

Proposed Development

The proposal is based on the relocation and redevelopment of the school buildings from the Birch
Road Site to the Playing Fields Site. The proposed indicative layout shows a single, three-storey,
13,500 square metre school building, incorporating a sports hall, located on the southern boundary
of the site on higher ground east of Whittle Brook, currently occupied by the overgrown running
track. Vehicular access to the site would be gained from Mereclough Avenue. Pedestrian and
cycle access, in addition to Mereclough Avenue, would be gained from Laburnum Road and from
the A580 East Lancs Road/Loopline, adjacent to the site of a proposed bus stop serving the
forthcoming Leigh Guided Busway. The existing public rights of way crossing and running
adjacent to the site southern boundary would remain unaffected, although improvements are
anticipated. The layout plan submitted in support of the application indicates that areas of hard and
soft landscaping and playspace, a multi use games area (equivalent in size to 4 tennis courts, or 3
netball courts), car, cycle and motorcycle parking areas and car and bus drop of points would be
centred around the school building to the east of Whittle Brook. Indicative parking provision is
shown as comprising a total of 67 spaces for cars, including 4 disabled bays, 3 dedicated spaces for
motorcycles and 161 cycle parking spaces.

Land to the west of Whittle Brook would remain in use as outdoor sports pitches whilst works to the
easternmost corner of the site would create an enhanced habitat area and remain open for
unrestricted recreational use.

The existing school buildings on the Birch Road Site would be demolished and replaced by outdoor
sports pitches, shown on the indicative plans as including an all weather pitch, two large 5-a-side
football pitches, a large rugby union pitch, a playing field area with a 400m athletics track, and 2
long jump landing areas. Access to the site would remain as existing, with vehicular access taken
from Birch Road leading to a parking area, comprising 24 car parking spaces (including 2 disabled
bays) to serve the needs of the wider community using the facilities outside school hours.



                                                 132
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The applicant submitted the following documents in support the application:

         Proposed layout plan and scale parameter drawings
         Planning Statement
         Design and Access Statement
         Environmental Protection Report
         Flood Risk Assessment
         Ecological Appraisal
         Preliminary Risk Assessment
         Transport Statement
         Tree Survey
         Air Quality Report
         Noise Assessment
         Review of Proposed Access Arrangements (submitted in response to resident’s objections)


Need for the Development

As part of the Planning Statement submitted in support of the application, the applicant’s set out
Salford’s Building Schools for the Future programme on a citywide level with a particular focus on
the key issue of educational need. They also explain in detail the inadequacies and operational
difficulties associated with the existing school stating that it is no longer fit for purpose. Issues
highlighted are summarised below to aid Member’s and the public’s understanding of the need for
a new school.

         The existing playing fields on the Birch Road Site are heavily waterlogged and are
         unusable for 6-7 months of the year and drainage throughout is real issue.
         The school currently operates from a number of prefabricated blocks that are in a poor
         condition.
         The main car parking area is situated within the playground on the Birch Road frontage,
         making management of pupils, staff, cars and visitors extremely difficult.
         The school has worked to provide a main entrance area and sufficient office space with
         extra pre-fabricated provision but the administrative area is poorly defined and office
         accommodation is restricted.
         The school has no assembly hall for collective use and the drama studio is a poor
         environment.
         There is inadequate storage throughout and the vast majority of the rooms within the main
         school are too small. Indeed, in 2004 OfSTED stated that:

               the safe movement of pupils, when all are on corridors at the same time is
            “




            only possible due to the supervision and the good behaviour of pupils.
            Tortuous links between rooms, small staircases and odd corners add to the
            problem. Most classrooms, old and new are rather small it is difficult to
                                                                       …




            see how larger classes could be accommodated many classrooms are also
                                                            …




                                                133
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




            badly lit with poor natural light      several letters from parents have




                                                 …
            expressed concerns with overcrowding.




                                                    ”
         There is no study support or extra space for withdrawal, social and or learning
         resource.
         The library is one third of the recommended size.
         Departments are not suited and curriculum time is lost managing pupils between
         locations.
         Language accommodation is too cramped.
         Most specialist rooms are laboratories are of a poor quality and require refurbishment.
         There is insufficient space for music and drama.
         Dining facilities are totally inadequate. The dining hall can only accommodate a small
         number of pupils and therefore six catering service points currently operate making the
         management of pupils problematic.
         Commenting on sports facilities, OfSTED found that:

                  Changing and showering accommodation for physical education and sport is
               “




               inadequate and well below the standards that pupils, teachers and parents
               should expect. The sports hall is too small for the numbers of pupils that have
               to use it.
                        ”




    1    There are no substantial informal/social areas for the pupils to congregate collectively at
         break times and lunchtime putting further strain on the corridors and classrooms. The lack
         of space has a negative affect on pupil behaviour and school discipline and supervision
         during break times is difficult.
    2    Commenting on ICT facilities, OfSTED found that:

                 there is a major problem with ICT provision and the school is well behind
               “




               general practice and far behind best practice.
                                                                ”




Public Consultation

The applicants have detailed in the submitted planning statement public consultation exercises they
have carried out and will carry out as part of the City’s wider Building Schools for the Future
Programme, summarised below.

An extensive public consultation exercise, entitled ‘Inspiring Schools IN Salford’ was undertaken
between 13th September and 25th October 2006 and involved:

         25,000 consultation documents and questionnaires were printed
         Approximately 19,000 documents were mailed out directly to parents of primary and
         secondary school children and school governors. The rest of the documents were made



                                                134
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                       1st February 2007




         available at a series of road shows and within public buildings. All documents were also
         made available on the City Council’s website.
         3296 questionnaires were returned (17% response rate)
         Various organisations were asked to comment and 12 did so
         Children and young people’s views were sought through school visits and presentations

A report has been complied by Ipsos MORI and has been made available to all.

Additional informal information sharing/consultation was carried in the run up to the submission of
this planning application with the overall aim of providing customer-focused information to local
audiences to explain the proposal. The following audiences were targeted:

         Headteachers, governors and feeder primary schools
         Residents living in the vicinity of the application site
         Businesses located in the vicinity of the application site
         Local residents and community groups
         Ward Members
         Community Committees and Political Executives

The applicants state that consultation and engagement exercises will continue during further
development of the Building Schools for the Future programme to inform design development etc.

Statutory school consultations will also be undertaken as appropriate for new schools and school
enlargements.




SITE HISTORY

There are no previous planning decisions affecting the Playing Fields Site.

The following permissions demonstrate the fragmented development of the school over time in its
current location on the Birch Road Site:

         Oct 1994 - Erection of single storey classroom unit (Ref: 94/33017/DEEM3)
         Oct 1995 - Erection of two storey science and language laboratory extension (Ref:
         95/34385/DEEM3)
         Aug 1997 – Alterations to Birch Road elevation (Ref: 97/36793/DEEM3)
         Dec 1999 – Erection of two storey extension to form four classrooms (Ref:
         99/39901/DEEM3)
         Mar 2000 – Erection of two storey extension to provide four classrooms for those in
         temporary accommodation and two additional classrooms (Ref: 00/40322/DEEM3)
         Sep 2001 – Retention of single storey classroom unit on frontage to Birch Road (Ref:
         01/42757/DEEM3)




                                                 135
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




         Jun 2002 – Construction of car park and hard play area with setaing and erection of 2.4
         metre high security fence (Ref: 02/43897/FUL)
         Feb 2003 – Erection of 2.4 metre high Palisade security fencing and 5.4 metre high Heras
         railings (Ref: 03/45356/DEEM3)
         Jan 2004 – Siting of two storey mobile units comprising four temporary classrooms (Ref:
         03/47330/DEEM3)
         Aug 2004 – Erection of a modular building within existing quadrangle (Ref:
         04/48641/FUL)
         Jun 2006 – Erection of a cycle shelter (Ref: 06/52754/DEEM3)


CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objection providing appropriate conditions
are attached to any consent.

In respect of the Playing Fields Site, the preliminary noise assessment has been considered and it is
recommended that conditions are attached to any consent requiring the submission, written
approval and implementation of a detailed noise assessment that identifies appropriate acoustic
mitigation measures necessary to address noise levels affecting the site from the A580 East
Lancashire Road and noise levels generated by outdoor play. The assessment should include the
provision of acoustic barriers on the southern edge of the site bordering the A580 East Lancashire
Road and along appropriate boundaries near outdoor play/recreation areas and controls to ensure
waiting buses do not leave their engines running.

It is also recommended that conditions be attached to any consent requiring:

         the submission, written approval and implementation of an external lighting scheme to
         protect residential amenity;
         the submission, written approval and implementation of a fume extraction system to
         protect residential amenity; and
         the use of outdoor sports facilities to be restricted to 09:00 to 21:00 hours Mondays to
         Fridays and 09:00 to 20:00 hours on Saturdays and Sundays in the interests of residential
         amenity.

In respect of the Birch Road Site, the proximity of the proposed pitches/playing fields to adjacent
residential properties should be controlled and as such a condition is recommended that requires the
layout of the pitches, playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities are brought forward in
accordance with the National Playing Fields Association’s Guidance – The 6 Acre Standard. It is
also recommended that the use of outdoor sports facilities to be restricted to 09:00 to 21:00 hours
Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 to 20:00 hours on Saturdays and Sundays in the interests of
residential amenity.

The submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed Considerate Contractors
Scheme that includes a Construction Environmental Management Plan is recommended to




                                                136
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




minimise disruption during the construction and demolition phase for both the Playing Fields and
Birch Road Sites.

In respect of air quality, the preliminary assessment submitted has been considered and it is
recommended that conditions be attached to any consent requiring:

         A further detailed air quality assessment is undertaken based on a more detailed traffic
         impact assessment to assess the existing and future air quality for years 2010, 2020 and the
         opening year with and without the development for the nitrogen dioxide. This should be
         submitted, approved in writing and implemented prior to school building being first
         occupied and include a diffusion tube survey to determine the need for additional
         ventilation to mitigate pollution from the A580 East Lancashire Road.
         A detailed School Travel Plan be produced, implemented and advertised before the school
         building is first occupied to reduce the number of vehicles entering the site.

In respect of contamination, based on the findings of the preliminary risk assessment that identified
the possible presence of contamination and ground gases, it is recommended that a condition be
attached to any consent requiring the submission of a detailed site investigation report, including
appropriate mitigation measures, to be submitted, approved in writing and implemented in full
prior to first occupation.

United Utilities – No objection in principle providing the site is drained on a separate system with
only foul drainage connected to the main sewer. They go on to state that twenty-four access is
required to the public sewers that pass under the football pitches, as shown on the submitted
indicative plan.

The Environment Agency – No objection in principle. They consider the Flood Risk Assessment
to be acceptable for the purposes of this outline application, based on the indicative site layout
showing the school buildings to the east of Whittle Brook. They go on to recommend that a number
of conditions be attached to any consent requiring:

         the submission and written approval of a scheme for the provision and implementation of a
         surface water regulation system to reduce the increased risk of flooding;
         an undeveloped, marginal strip of land at least eight metres wide between the development
         and the bank top of Whittle Brook to be provided to protect and enhance the ecological
         value of the Whittle Brook Corridor
         the submission and written approval of a bat survey before the existing school buildings are
         demolished to protect bats and their roosts;
         the submission, written approval and implementation of a planting scheme for the Whittle
         Brook Corridor comprising solely native species to protect, conserve and enhance
         biodiversity within this important wildlife corridor;
         the submission, written approval and implementation of a scheme for the boundary
         treatment adjacent to Whittle Brook to protect its ecological value;
         the submission, written approval and implementation of a scheme for the eradication of
         Japanese Knotweed before development commences;




                                                137
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




         the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed scheme for
         investigation and recording of contamination and its potential to pollute the water
         environment to prevent pollution and assess the risks to the water environment.

They go on to recommend that a series of informatives be attached to any consent for advisory
purposes.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No objection in principle but do make a
number of comments.

They express regret that the existing Birch Road Site is far more accessible by public transport than
the proposed Playing Fields Site insofar as the existing site is well within reasonable walking
distance of Walkden Station and bus stops on Walkden Road that are served by a number of
frequent bus services whereas the proposed Playing Fields Site is just beyond reasonable walking
distance of the station (800 metres) and these bus stops (400 metres). They note that bus stops on
the A580 East Lancs Road and Old Clough Lane are within walking distance of the proposed new
school building however these offer access to a more limited number of bus services. They
therefore stress the importance of very effective measures developed through a School Travel Plan
to promote public transport, walking and cycling to school in order to reduce car travel otherwise
generated by the proposed development.

State that the proposed Leigh Salford Manchester (LSM) Busway Scheme will, in time, run along
the A580 East Lancs Road and a stop is proposed near the junction with Old Clough Lane that is
within walking distance of the proposed school site. In order to maximise benefits, they
recommended that a safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian route is provided to link the LSM stop
to the school.

State that there are four morning and five evening dedicated school bus services to Walkden High
School and they envisage that as a minimum, these services would continue to serve the new
school. In the interests of safety, they regard the provision of a bus turning facility within the new
school grounds as essential, preferably in a location closer to the school entrance than parent drop
off/pick up points and where pupils would not have to cross the carriageway.

Recommend that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission and written
approval of comprehensive School Travel Plan.

Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – No objection or comments to make at this stage.

Sport England – No objection on the basis that the proposals will deliver a slight increase in the
area of playing field land available for use and perhaps more significantly, the playing fields would
be enhanced in quality due to associated drainage works and reconstruction of pitches that would
enable them to be used all year round by the school and the community. Sport England therefore
consider the proposal to be an acceptable exception to national policy, that seeks to protect playing
fields from development, providing conditions are attached to any consent controlling community
use, the quality of pitch provision, the subsequent maintenance of pitches and phasing to ensure
continued access for existing users.



                                                 138
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




The Ramblers Association – No objection providing the public right of way that crosses the
Playing Fields Site is unaffected as shown on the submitted plans. They request that a condition be
attached to any consent to that effect.

The Peak and Northern Footpaths Association – No objection in principle but do request that a
condition be attached to any consent preventing any obstruction to the public right of way that runs
through the Playing Fields Site.

The Open Spaces Society – No response to date.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objection on nature conservation grounds providing:

         site clearance works do not take place during the bird nesting period (March to July
         inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent;
         the Japanese Knotweed found on site is properly controlled/removed;
         any future landscaping proposals seek to conserve and enhance the site’s ecological value;
         a bat survey should is carried out of the existing school buildings prior to demolition and if
         bats are found an approved mitigation scheme should be implemented in full; and
         appropriate precautions are taken to prevent pollution of the watercourse following
         Environment Agency best practice guidelines.


Greater Manchester Pedestrian Society – No response to date.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was erected on 04th December 2006
A press notice was displayed in The Salford Advertiser on the 7th and 14th December 2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

            2-18 Ash Grove (evens)
            18-49 Poplar Road
            1-16 beck Grove
            1-34 Langdale Drive
            1-31 Thornhill Drive
            1-32 Kirkstone Avenue
            2-28 Hawthorn Avenue (evens)
            33-43 Hawthorn Avenue (odds)
            1-47 Chestnut Avenue
            1-96 Devike Avenue
            1-29 Shap Drive
            1-14 Shap Crescent (evens)
            1-10 Kendal Grove
            1-12 Ghyll Grove
            1-10 Dales Grove



                                                 139
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




            1-6 Fells Grove
            1-16 Mereclough Avenue
            1-11 Meremanor
            111-229 Old Clough Lane (odds)
            56-100 Holyoake Road
            1-8 Old Oake Close
            56-76 Hopefold Drive (evens)
            22-42 Ash Grove (evens)
            78-100 Hopefold Drive (evens)
            25-34 Meadow Gate
            Ashfield School, Silkhey Grove
            Mesne Lea Primary School, Walkden Road
            First Worsley Scout Group, Old Clough Lane
            44-90 Ash Grove (evens)
            1-65 Ash Grove (odds)
            1-50 Laburnum Road
            1-5 Reedmace Close
            1-9 Willowmoss Close
            2- 108 Birch Road (evens)
            3-95 Birch Road (odds)
            1-75 Rydal Crescent
            1-14 Tam Grove
            1-16 Poplar Road


REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 62 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.

The following issues have been raised:

         Increase in vehicular traffic (58 objections)
         Adequacy of proposed Mereclough Avenue access (53 objections)
         Loss of outdoor recreational greenspace (47 objections)
         Birch Road Site should be redeveloped instead (48 objections)
         Noise (50 objections)
         Disruption during construction (43 objections)
         Lack of public consultation (40 objections)
         Increase in pedestrian traffic (8 objections)
         Impact on property values (5 objections)
         Increased levels of air pollution (6 objections)
         Increased on-street parking pressures (5 objections)
         Proximity of telecommunications mast (3 objections)
         Length of planning application consultation period (3 objections)
         Highway Safety (4 objections)




                                                140
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                1st February 2007




         Object to any resulting Traffic Regulation Orders/alterations to Mereclough Avenue (3
         objections)
         Increased litter/Anti Social Behaviour (4 objections)
         Car parking provision insufficient (4 objections)
         Strategic approach wrong (2 objections)
         Overbearing visual impact on neighbouring properties/overshadowing (2 objections)
         Loss of view (1 objection)
         Likely to be vandalised due to its relative isolation (1 objection)
         Whittle Brook is a danger to children (1 objection)
         Mud from waterlogged pitches will create high cleaning costs (1 objection)
         Acoustic Barriers would be an eyesore (1 objection)
         Loss of privacy (1 objection)
         Adverse ecological impact (1 objection)
         Loss of open access to most of playing fields site (1 objection)
         Loopline footpath unsafe for children (1 objection)
         Disturbance from community use outside school hours (1 objection)
         Alternative location preferable (1 objection)


REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
DP2 – Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3 – Quality in New Development
DP4 – Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth, Competitiveness and Social Inclusion
UR1 – Urban Renaissance
UR2 – An Inclusive Social Infrastructure


UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:

EN9 – Wildlife Corridors

Other policies:

ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST6 – Major Trip Generating Development
ST8 – Environmental Quality
ST9 – Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping



                                             141
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




DES10 – Design and Crime
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
A1 – Transport Assessment and Travel Plans
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A5 – Buses
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
A15 – Safeguarding Potential Transport Routes
EN10 – Protection of Species
EN12 – Important Landscape Features
EN16 – Contaminated Land
EN17 – Pollution Control
EN18 – Protection of Water Resources
EN19 – Flood Risk and Surface Water
EN22 – Resource Conservation
EN23 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
R1 – Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
R5 – Countryside Access Network
E5 – Established Employment Areas
EN1 – Development Affecting the Green Belt
R6 – New and Improved Recreational Land and Facilities

OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document
Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document
Salford Greenspace Strategy Supplementary Planning Document


DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1 – Regional Development Principles
L1 – Health and Education Services Provision


PLANNING APPRAISAL

As the application in outline with all detailed matters reserved, the main planning issues relating to
this application are whether the principle of a new school is acceptable in this location, particularly
given its location on a greenfield site, whether acceptable access arrangements can be delivered, the
impact on the amenity of local residents, whether site constraints can be overcome, the impact on
ecology and biodiversity, whether an adequate standard of playing field and recreation provision
will be provided and provision for the community use of the buildings and grounds.




                                                 142
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Principle of development

The main planning policy considerations for assessing whether the principle of a new school on the
Playing Field Site are Policy DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and UDP Policies ST11, EHC1
and R1 and Policy GS12 of the Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD.

The principle of introducing additional sporting facilities on the Birch Road Site must be assessed
against UDP Policy R2.

RSS Policy DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings calls for the most efficient use of
land and promotes a sequential approach to development. Firstly it promotes the use of existing
buildings within urban areas, including the re-use or conversion of empty buildings, secondly the
use of previously developed land accessible by public transport and lastly the development of
previously undeveloped land where this avoids all areas of important open space and is well located
in relation to houses, jobs, infrastructure and public transport.

UDP Policy ST11 further expands on RSS Policy DP1 and adopts a four-point sequence in which
development sites should be brought forward. The first being the reuse and conversion of existing
buildings followed by previously developed land in an accessible location that is well related to
housing, employment, services and infrastructure. The third relates to previously developed land in
other locations, provided that adequate levels of accessibility and infrastructure provision could be
achieved and finally previously undeveloped land in locations that are well served by a choice of
means of transport and are well related to housing, employment and services.

It is proposed that the new school building be located on the previously undeveloped or greenfield
Playing Fields Site. Given the site is well within the City’s urban fabric and enclosed on all sides
by housing, the proposed location is the least preferred location in the sequential order set out in
UDP Policy ST11.

In order to justify this less sustainable location, the applicant has submitted information relating to
their site selection criteria and their reasons for discounting alternative, sequentially preferable
sites.

The applicants considered seven alternative options for redeveloping Walkden High prior to
deciding on the proposed Playing Fields Site. These alternative options are considered in more
detail below.

Firstly, in accordance with UDP Policy ST11, priority was given to the reuse or conversion of the
existing school buildings on the Birch Road Site. The poor condition and unsuitability of the
existing building stock and the operational difficulties associated with it have been discussed in
detail above. In addition, given the constrained nature of the site and the substantial amount of
works required to improve the existing school campus, it was not conceivable that undertaking
comprehensive refurbishment and additional building work with the existing pupils in situ could
occur without resulting in major disruption to the education of the school’s 1200 pupils, over
several terms. For these reasons the applicant reasonably discounted the reuse of and conversion of
the school existing buildings.



                                                 143
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The applicant then went on to consider previously developed land in an accessible location that is
well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure. The use of the existing Birch
Road Site was an obvious first choice but was discounted for two reasons. The first being that the
site is too small to accommodate a 1500 place high school, and given the scale and suburban
character of the area a high-density solution was not considered appropriate or deliverable. The
site’s topography (terraced on three levels) would further limit the form of any new development.
As above, the second reason for rejecting the redevelopment of the existing site was the inability to
meet the educational needs of the School’s existing pupils during the demolition and construction
phase. I am satisfied that the applicant’s reasons for discounting this option were both reasonable
and balanced.

Walkden High School currently draws pupils mainly from the Boothstown and Ellenbrook Areas
and therefore the applicant’s search focussed initially on alternative sites with the school’s
catchment area. Based on national DfES standards, (Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for
Secondary School Projects) a new 1500 place high school would require land of between 8 and 10
hectares to accommodate school buildings and playing fields. Although only partially previously
developed, a single site was identified as being of the required size and possessing at least some of
the characteristics of the second point in the sequence, this being land on the Linnyshaw Industrial
Estate, off Manchester Road in Walkden. The site mostly comprised of land identified for
residential development in the draft replacement plan for residential purposes before being
removed on the recommendation by the UDP Inspector. The applicant discounted the site for the
following reasons:

         The site forms part of an ‘established employment area’ that UDP Policy E5 seeks to
         safeguard for employment generating uses given the City’s overall shortage of
         employment land. The development of a school on the site would conflict with this policy
         objective.
         The site is peripheral to the catchment of the existing school and located well away from
         the main concentration of the school pupils within Boothstown and Ellenbrook areas.
         Much of the land has been acquired by a prospective residential developer and therefore is
         unlikely to come forward for purchase at a realistic price and within the timeframe required
         by the BSF Programme.

Taken together I am satisfied that the applicant’s reasons for discounting this option were balanced
and sound.

The applicants then searched for suitable, previously developed sites in other locations that
potentially could be made accessible and made to provide an adequate level of infrastructure but
were unable to identify any. Given school’s particular requirements relating to land take,
accessibility and catchment areas I have no reason to doubt this assertion.

Finally, having reached the last point in the sequence set out in UDP Policy ST11, five sites were
identified on previously undeveloped land in locations that are or could be made to be well served
by a choice of means of transport and are well related to housing, employment, services and
infrastructure. I will discuss each one in turn.

Booths Bank Farm, Worsley


                                                144
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Booths Bank Farm is located on Leigh Road in Worsley. The farm is located within the Green Belt
and therefore any development within the site would be subject to UDP Policy EN1 and Planning
Policy Guidance 2 on Green Belts. A construction of a large 1,500 pupil high school would
undoubtedly be considered ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt and could only be
approved if ‘very special circumstances’ can be shown to exist. Given that alternative, sequentially
preferable sites exist, including the site applied for, it is not considered that a case for very special
circumstances could be made and for this reason Booths Bank Farm has been rightly discounted.

Bridgewater Canal Site

The Bridgewater Canal Site is a large 20-hectare site located south of Worsley and Boothstown.
The applicants discounted this site for the following reasons:

         The site is allocated as recreational land under UDP Policy R6/19 and is identified as
         providing a key informal recreational amenity for the residents of Boothstown as well as
         providing an important setting for the Bridgewater Canal. The provision of a school on this
         site would conflict with UDP Policy R1.
         The site is poorly served by public transport due to its peripheral location.
         Opportunities for access onto the site are limited; for example, Vicars Hall Road turns into
         a track on the approach up to the site and is very narrow.
         The development would give rise to a significant amount of congestion in the surrounding
         streets.
         The playing fields appear to be well used and have a recently built sport and recreation
         facility on site for use by the sports teams.
         The site is close proximity to the Green Belt and the development of a large school would
         have a detrimental visual impact on it.
         The land is in private ownership.

Again, taken the reasons cited above collectively, I am satisfied that sequentially preferable sites
exist, including the site applied for, and therefore accept the applicant’s reasons for discounting this
option.

The Wardley Campus Site

This is the site formerly occupied by Salford College, located off Manchester Road adjacent to the
junction of the M60 and the M61 and is also within the Green Belt. As with the Booths Bank Farm
site, the provision of a large new school on the site would undoubtedly be considered ‘inappropriate
development’ and could only be approved if ‘very special circumstances’ can be shown to exist.
Given that alternative, sequentially preferable sites exist, including the site applied for, it is not
considered that a case for very special circumstances could be made and for this reason Booths
Bank Farm has been rightly discounted. The site is also located beyond the current catchment area
of Walkden High and on the periphery of the urban area.

Burgess Farm Site




                                                  145
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




Burgess Farm is located off Hilton Lane in Walkden, in very close proximity to the Harrop Fold
PFI school site. The land is currently in private ownership and is not currently being marketed or
considered available for development. The site owners have previously sought permission for
residential development on the land and are likely to consider it to have a potentially high long-term
value, which could render the provision of a new school unviable. The site is also in a more
peripheral location and not particularly well served by public transport and would not provide the
desired, balanced geographical spread of schools across the City.

Walkden High School Playing Fields Site

This is the site of the current proposal. Although previously undeveloped and designated as a
wildlife corridor in the UDP, the proposals ensure that the provision of playing fields and
recreational open space in the locale will increase in both quantitative and qualitative terms in
accordance with UDP Policy R1 and Policy GS12 of the Salford Greenspace Strategy. It is
therefore considered that the site’s status as a Dual Use Priority Sports Pitch would be enhanced.
The site is in c1ose proximity to the existing school site and therefore the flow of traffic in the area
would not change exponentially. The site is relatively well served by public transport accessibility
and overall accessibility would be required to be significantly improved. It is well related to
housing, employment, services and existing infrastructure. The proposals would minimise
disturbance to existing pupils and would enable the school to have continued access to playing
fields throughout the construction period. The site is also in the ownership of the local education
authority and is therefore financially viable. Importantly, the school would also retain its place in
the community.

I am therefore satisfied that there are no suitable, sequentially preferable sites that could
accommodate a 1500 pupil school within a reasonable area of search and on that basis consider the
proposal to be in full accordance with UDP Policies ST1, ST11 and RSS Policy DP1.

UDP Policy R1 – Protection of Recreation Land states that the redevelopment of existing recreation
land will not be permitted unless, amongst other things, adequate replacement recreation provision,
of equivalent or better accessibility, community benefit and management is made in a suitable
location to the satisfaction of the City Council.

Salford Greenspace Strategy Policy GS12 – Development Involving the Loss of a Priority Sports
Pitch states that development involving the loss of a Priority Sports Pitch will be required to
provide a replacement pitch of at least equal size and quality in an appropriate location, irrespective
of when that existing pitch was last used or its current condition.

The proposal would result in the loss of a proportion of recreation land designated as Dual Use
Priority Sports Pitch in the Salford Greenspace Strategy. The area that would be lost is an
overgrown running track. Currently, the pitches on both sites are in a poor state of repair and of a
generally poor quality. The playing pitches on the Birch Road Site are heavily waterlogged and
unusable for a substantial portion of the year. It is proposed that the existing school buildings be
demolished and replaced with high quality sports pitches and other sports facilities, including a
400-metre athletics track. It is also proposed that as well as the provision of high quality pitches,
including all weather pitches, that associated drainage works and reconstruction be carried out on
the existing playing fields improving the quality.


                                                 146
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                       1st February 2007




Currently, the public have unrestricted access to the Playing Fields Site however, in the interests of
safety, security and maintenance it is proposed that a large proportion of the site be fenced. The
easternmost corner of the site, east of the public footpath, would remain open for informal,
unrestricted recreational use and be enhanced as a habitat area. In addition, through the extended
schools agenda, provision will be made for use of the school and its sports facilities by the
community outside school hours. Given the facilities delivered would be of a very high quality and
transform the standard both educational and recreational provision in the area, I am satisfied that,
on balance, the wider community will benefit from the proposals.

Given the proposals ensure that the provision of playing fields and recreational open space in the
locale will increase in both quantitative and qualitative terms, I consider the application, subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, to be in full accordance with UDP Policy R1 and Policy
GS12 of the Salford Greenspace Strategy.

Given the above Sport England have raised no objection to the application but recommend that
conditions be attached to any consent regarding the quality of pitch/sports facility provision, their
subsequent maintenance, community use and phasing to ensure continued access to pitches for
existing users. I fully agree with their recommendation and have imposed conditions accordingly.

The principle of the proposed development must also be considered against UDP Policy EHC1 –
Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges that places a general presumption in favour of
such provision providing six fundamental criteria are met. Each criteria is considered in turn
below:

         The development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring
         uses

Both the Playing Fields Site and the Birch Road Site are surrounded by suburban residential
properties and therefore environmental impacts arising and their affect on resident’s quality of life
are of central importance to the outcome of this application. Proposed indicative vehicular access
arrangements via Mereclough Avenue, noise, traffic generation, pollution, highway safety and
disruption during construction are a particularly sensitive issues, highlighted by the number of
objections received. However, an assessment of effects has been carried out that indicates that
whilst residents will undoubtedly be affected, impacts would be kept to an acceptable level, subject
to appropriate conditions being attached to any consent. It should also be noted that this application
is in outline with all matters reserved and therefore issues relating to amenity will be revisited in
detail at the reserved matters stage.

         An adequate standard of playing field and other recreation provision in an accessible and
         convenient location is provided

As discussed above, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposals ensure that
the provision of playing fields and recreational open space will increase in both quantitative and
qualitative terms. The relocation of the school building to the Playing Fields Site will also ensure
the school building is better related to the majority of its sports facilities than is currently the case.
Remote facilities would remain easily accessible on foot. I therefore have no objection to the


                                                  147
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




application in this regard subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, relating to the quality
of pitch/sports facility provision, their subsequent maintenance, community use and phasing to
ensure continued access to pitches for existing users, as recommended by Sport England

         The development be accessible by a range of means of transport, particularly foot, cycle
         and public transport

The proposed site of the new school building is only a short distance away from the site of the
existing school (approximately 500 metres) and therefore continues to be accessible via public
transport, car, rail, as well on as on foot and by cycle. However, the second Transport Statement
(commissioned by the applicants in response to objections raised by residents) and the comments of
GMPTE, state that in relation to existing public transport services, the proposed site is poorly
served in comparison to the existing site, with many existing bus services and Walkden Railway
Station becoming just beyond reasonable walking distance. In order to address this shortcoming,
they stress the importance of very effective measures developed through a School Travel Plan to
promote public transport, walking and cycling to school in order to reduce car travel otherwise
generated by the proposed development.

Bus stops on the A580 East Lancs Road and Old Clough Lane are within walking distance of the
proposed new school building and the proposed Leigh Salford Manchester (LSM) Busway Scheme
will, in time, run along the A580 East Lancs Road and a stop is proposed near the junction with Old
Clough Lane, within easy walking distance of the proposed school site. In addition, there are four
morning and five evening dedicated school bus services to Walkden High School and it is
envisaged that as a minimum, these services would continue to serve the new school.

Access to the Playing Fields Site on foot and by cycle is considered good being accessible from a
number of points including the Worsley/Walkden Loopline, designated as a strategic recreation
route under UDP Policy R5. In addition, the proposed layout indicates the provision of over 160
cycle parking spaces.

In summary, it is considered that although the site is relatively readily accessible by a range of
means of transport, the proposed development does generate the need for additional public
transport provision. Clearly, these matters need to be fully addressed in a detailed Transport
Assessment and School Travel Plan at the reserved matters stage, with a particular focus on
highway safety given the nature of the use. However, I am confident that satisfactory solutions can
be found and given that this application is in outline with all matters reserved, I have no objection to
the application in this regard at this stage providing conditions are attached to any consent requiring
the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed Transport Assessment and a
School Travel Plan for staff and pupils.

         The development incorporates adequate provision for disabled access

The design statement states that the development would be DDA compliant and that disabled car
parking spaces would be provided in accordance with UDP Policy A10. I therefore have no
objection to the application in this regard. More detailed consideration will be given to disabled
access at the reserved matters stage in terms of surfacing, access thresholds, ramps etc.



                                                 148
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




         The development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or have
         an adverse impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or servicing

In terms of traffic generation and congestion, the submitted Transport Statement and Review of
Proposed Access Arrangements emphasise that access to the new school building would
fundamentally be utilising the existing highway network and that this infrastructure has adequate
capacity to cater for the marginal increase in transport movements that can be anticipated to arise
from an increase in the number of pupils from 1,200 to 1,500.

Access to the new school via the proposed access off Mereclough Avenue, will for the majority of
the generated traffic, require an extension to their current journey, past the existing school
continuing eastwards towards Rydal Crescent and then to Mereclough Avenue. Trips from the east
should result in a reduced journey length. The proposals are therefore unlikely to result in any
major redistribution of traffic movements, as the approach to the new school will utilise much of
the same highway network as presently used.

The anticipated increase in traffic movements was modelled using the industry standard TRICS
database that utilises existing data to forecast traffic generated. The results showed that the
additional vehicle movements forecast to be generated by the additional 300 pupils are 36 vehicles
in and 18 vehicles out during the morning peak and 15 vehicles in and 21 vehicles out during the
afternoon peak. The Review of the Proposed Access Arrangements, concluded that the increase in
traffic volumes predicted to be generated by the increase in pupil numbers are therefore unlikely to
produce a significant impact in relation to the operational capacity of the existing highway network,
irrespective of the success of any Travel Plan that would be implemented.

In terms of highway safety, an analysis of road accident injury records around the application site
was undertaken which found that very few accidents had occurred in last three years. As discussed
above, the highway network surrounding was found to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
additional number of trips generated by the development.

On the basis of the information submitted and following consultation with the City Council’s
Highway Engineers, I am satisfied that the proposed access arrangements would not give rise to
unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or adversely affect highway safety, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions and further detailed consideration at the reserved matters
stage. I therefore have no objection to the application, in this regard, subject to conditions being
attached to any consent requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a
detailed Transport Assessment, School Travel Plan for staff and pupils and a Considerate
Constructors Scheme.

         The development makes provision, wherever possible, for community use of the building
         and grounds.

In addition to the primary education function, documents submitted with the application state the
school is intended to be a ‘Full Service Extended Academy’ with an increased range of facilities for
the local community, including playing fields and proposed sports facilities. I therefore have no
objection to the application in this regard but do consider it necessary to attach a condition to any



                                                149
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




consent requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a community use
statement to ensure such an outcome.

The principle of introducing additional sports facilities on the Birch Road Site must be assessed
against UDP Policy R2.

UDP Policy R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities places a presumption in favour of
recreation development unless it would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity and
highway safety or fail to make adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and disabled people.

The provision of additional sports facilities on the Birch Road Site is necessary to offset the loss of
land on the Playing Fields Site given over to the school building, ancillary parking etc. The Birch
Road Site is surrounded by housing on three sides and is therefore considered vulnerable to
nuisance, particularly given proposed community use outside school hours.

The applicant submitted a detailed Environmental Protection Report and Noise Assessment to
address amenity issues arising. These reports have been reviewed by the Strategic Director of
Environmental Services who subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, is satisfied that
residential amenity will not be unduly affected. It is recommended that conditions requiring the
location of pitches and sports facilities to be laid out in accordance with the separation distances set
out in the National Playing Field Association’s 6 Acre Standard guidance document; limiting hours
of use to 09:00 to 21:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 – 20:00 hours on Saturdays and
Sundays; and the submission, written approval and full implementation of a Considerate
Contractors Scheme, including a Construction Environmental Management Plan. It is also
considered necessary to attach a condition controlling external lighting to ensure residents are not
subject to unacceptable levels of light pollution.

In visual amenity terms, the proposals are considered to be a significant improvement on the
cramped, uncoordinated and generally poor appearance of the existing school buildings.

In terms of traffic generation, it is envisaged that pupils using the proposed sports facilities on the
Birch Road Site would access the site on foot given its close proximity and therefore traffic
generated by the facilities would be negligible during school hours. Community use at evenings
and weekends is however likely to generate additional traffic. In recognition of this, the applicants
propose that the site have its own parking facilities to minimise pressure on on-street parking,
shown as including 24 spaces (including 2 disabled bays) on the indicative layout plan. Such
provision is in accordance with the standards set out in UDP Policy A10. Access to the car park
would be from an existing access/egress point on Birch Road. Overall, the removal of school
building will undoubtedly, significantly reduce traffic levels in the vicinity of the Birch Road Site
and is therefore considered in accordance with Policy R2 in this regard. The matter will be
considered in detail at the reserved matters stage where a detailed Transport Assessment and
School Travel Plan will identify the level and nature of on-site parking required.

In conclusion, I have no objection to the principle of development in that I consider the proposed
development to comply with RSS Policy DP1, UDP Policies ST1, ST6, ST8, ST9, ST11, EHC1,
R1, R2 and Policy GS12 of the Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions discussed above.


                                                 150
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




Access

UDP Policy A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans states that planning applications for
developments which would give rise to significant transport implications will not be permitted
unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.

UDP Policy A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled 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.

UDP Policy A5 – Buses requires development proposals to make adequate provision for access to
and the use of buses. In particular, developments should facilitate safe, direct and convenient
access to existing bus stops and services, make good any deficiencies in bus services, facilities or
associated highway infrastructure required to service the development and in the case of larger
developments, make specific provision for new bus stops and other associated infrastructure as an
integral part of the development, and, where appropriate, make financial contributions towards new
or improved bus services

UDP Policy A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network states that development will
not be permitted where it would compromise highway safety by virtue of traffic generation and
access.

UDP Policy A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists,
in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car parking
standards should not be exceeded.

UDP Policy DES2 – Circulation and Movement 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 indicative layout plan submitted shows that vehicular access to the Playing Fields
Site would be gained solely from Mereclough Avenue. Pedestrian and cycle access, in addition to
Mereclough Avenue, would be gained from Laburnum Road and from the A580 East Lancs
Road/Loopline, adjacent to the site of a proposed bus stop serving the forthcoming Leigh Guided
Busway. The existing public rights of way crossing and running adjacent to the site’s southern
boundary would remain unaffected. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed pitches and
sports facilities on the Birch Road Site would be from the existing access point on Birch Road.

When considering proposed access arrangements it is important to note that the application is in
outline with all matters reserved, including access. Detailed access arrangements are therefore
determined at a later date. Nonetheless, the Design and Access Statement and the proposed


                                                151
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




indicative layout plan submitted in support of the application are required to indicate and justify the
location of points of access to the site.

I have received numerous letters of objection from local residents in relation to the proposed access
arrangements, summarised as follows:

         Increase in vehicular traffic (56 objections)
         Adequacy of proposed Mereclough Avenue access (51 objections)
         Increase in pedestrian traffic (8 objections)
         Increased on-street parking pressures (5 objections)
         Highway Safety (3 objections)
         Object to any resulting Traffic Regulation Orders (2 objections)
         Car parking provision insufficient (2 objections)


Vehicular Access Arrangements

In accordance with UDP Policy A1, a Transport Statement was submitted as part of the application
that provides a justification for the approach taken. An additional, supplementary report, or second
opinion, that reviewed proposed access arrangements was submitted during the application process
in response to objections received.

Firstly, it is important to understand why Mereclough Avenue has been identified as the sole means
of vehicular access to the Playing Fields Site. The need to locate the school building to the east of
Whittle Brook, on the Playing Fields Site (considered in detail below) has, of course, had a major
influence on the access appraisal. The Transport Statement considered a total of five potential
access points before identifying Mereclough Avenue as the preferred option. I shall explain each
one in turn:

         From Walkden Road, along Silkney Grove and beside Mesne Primary School

This option was discounted for a number reasons, not least because it would represent the greatest
change in the pattern of access to the school site in terms of utilisation of the existing highway
network. This option would require major work to build a two-way highway link from Walkden
Road to link to the Playing Fields Site between two existing primary schools, Mesne Lea Primary
and Inscape House, a special needs primary. It is argued that this option would create vehicular
traffic between these existing schools and be undesirable in severance, amenity and highway safety
terms. The construction of this connection would also involve major works to enable access onto
the Playing Fields Site in the form of a bridging structure over the raised, and protected
Worsley/Walkden Loopline. Once onto the western half of the Playing Fields Site, access to the
school building itself would need to overcome or respond to site-specific constraints relating to the
impact on the site’s status as a wildlife corridor, the public right of way, the large diameter sewer
and the high-risk flood plain (see below for further details). In addition, the Transport Statement
considered Walkden Road to be too narrow and unlikely to offer satisfactory operating conditions
as an access to a major new school site.




                                                 152
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                        1st February 2007




For these reasons, this option is not considered viable.

         Via Laburnum Road

This is the route currently used by pupils to gain access to the Playing Fields Site. At 4.5 metres
wide, this road is too narrow to be considered as an access/egress point in its current state. Mature
trees that would make widening the road difficult line either side of the road. In addition, residents
currently use the road for on street parking which reduces the practical operational road width even
further and would lead to congestion on this road at peak times. Highway visibility at the point of
access to Birch Road is currently restricted, given the road’s geometry and the boundary treatments
of residential properties. This option would also require the construction of a road and parking/pick
up/drop off infrastructure on land to the west of Whittle Brook which again would have to respond
to the site’s specific constraints in respect of the impact on the site’s status as a wildlife corridor, the
public right of way, the large diameter sewer and the high risk flood plain (see below for further
details).

For these reasons, the Transport Statement concluded that this option is not viable.

         Via Reedmace Close

Again, at 4.5 metres wide, this road is also deemed too narrow to be considered as an access/egress
route to a large new school. On-street parking is again commonplace that would lead to congestion
during peak times. Current property boundaries also lie within close proximity of the carriageway
and therefore widening the road would be not be practical without having to remove the adjacent
footpath. Highway visibility at the junction with Birch Road is currently restricted given current
road geometries and gradients. Again, this option would also potentially require the construction of
a road and parking/pick up/drop off infrastructure on land to the west of Whittle Brook which again
would have to respond to the site’s specific constraints in respect of the impact on the site’s status
as a wildlife corridor, the large diameter sewer and the high risk flood plain (see below for further
details). Reedmace Close is also an unadopted highway and access to the Playing Fields Site is
obstructed by the driveway and gardens of a private residence.

For these reasons, this option is not considered viable.

         Via Willowmoss Close

Visibility from the Willowmoss access to Rydal Crescent was found to be good and to conform
with required standards however, forward visibility towards the egress on Rydal Crescent is
reduced by the curve in the road and residential properties. Again, at 4.5 metres wide, this road is
also deemed too narrow to be considered as a two-way access/egress route and on-street parking is
commonplace that would lead to congestion during peak times. Similarly, this option would also
potentially require the construction of a road and parking/pick up/drop off infrastructure on land to
the west of Whittle Brook which again would have to respond to the site’s specific constraints in
respect of the impact on the site’s status as a wildlife corridor, the public right of way, the large
diameter sewer and the high risk flood plain (see below for further details). Willowmoss Close is
an unadopted road and therefore land acquisition would be difficult.



                                                   153
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




For these reasons, this option is not considered viable.

         Via Mereclough Avenue

Mereclough Avenue is currently used to gain access to the higher part of the Playing Fields Site for
maintenance purposes. Existing gates at the end of the road afford direct access to the existing
running track and surrounding area of greenspace, to the east of Whittle Brook, that form the site of
the proposed new school building thus avoiding site specific constraints associated with land west
of the Brook. Mereclough Avenue is sufficiently wide to accommodate two-way traffic and an
increase in traffic movements. Residential properties on Mereclough Avenue have off-street
parking facilities. It is also an adopted highway.

For these reasons, Mereclough Avenue was identified as the most suitable and practical vehicular
access point for the new school. Nonetheless, it was recognised that detailed consideration would
have to be given to the introduction of traffic and on-street parking management, for example, by
way of traffic regulation orders, to prohibit waiting and loading on Mereclough Avenue at peak
times. It was also recognised that the proposals would generate the need for improved traffic
management schemes at the junction of Mereclough Avenue and Rydal Crescent.

The Review of the Proposed Access Arrangements, or ‘second opinion’, reached the same
conclusions in that Mereclough Avenue, being the widest highway link to the site, is viable as a
single access/egress point for the proposed school. Again, it was recognised that a number of
measures would be required to mitigate the impact on residents, such as the creation of parking
bays in the existing verges and the introduction of a mini-roundabout at the junction with Rydal
Crescent.

Whilst recognising that residential amenity would undoubtedly be affected by the proposed
vehicular access arrangements, for the purposes of this outline application with access as a reserved
matter, I am satisfied that the use of Mereclough Avenue as a single access/egress point is both
viable and the most appropriate solution for the reasons outlined above. The matter will of course
be revisited in detail at the reserved matters stage, where details of exactly how impacts will be
mitigated in terms of necessary junction improvements, on-street parking controls on Mereclough
Avenue would have been fully addressed.

In terms of traffic generation and congestion, the submitted Transport Statement and Review of
Proposed Access Arrangements emphasise that access to the new school building would
fundamentally be utilising the existing highway network and that this infrastructure has adequate
capacity to cater for the marginal increase in transport movements that can be anticipated to arise
from an increase in the number of pupils from 1,200 to 1,500.

Access to the new school via the proposed access off Mereclough Avenue, will for the majority of
the generated traffic, require an extension to their current journey, past the existing school
continuing eastwards towards Rydal Crescent and then to Mereclough Avenue. Trips from the east
should result in a reduced journey length. The proposals are therefore unlikely to result in any
major redistribution of traffic movements, as the approach to the new school will utilise much of
the same highway network as presently used.



                                                154
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                       1st February 2007




The anticipated increase in traffic movements was modelled using the industry standard TRICS
database that utilises existing data to forecast traffic generated. The results showed that the
additional vehicle movements forecast to be generated by the additional 300 pupils are 36 vehicles
in and 18 vehicles out during the morning peak and 15 vehicles in and 21 vehicles out during the
afternoon peak. The Review of the Proposed Access Arrangements, concluded that the increase in
traffic volumes predicted to be generated by the increase in pupil numbers are therefore unlikely to
produce a significant impact in relation to the operational capacity of the existing highway network,
irrespective of the success of any Travel Plan that would be implemented.

In terms of highway safety, an analysis of road accident injury records around the application site
was undertaken which found that very few accidents had occurred in last three years. As discussed
above, the highway network surrounding was found to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
additional number of trips generated by the development.

On the basis of the information submitted and following consultation with the City Council’s
Highway Engineers, I am satisfied that Mereclough Avenue as a single vehicular access and egress
point is both viable and the most appropriate solution to vehicular access and that the proposed
access arrangements would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or adversely
affect highway safety, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and further detailed
consideration at the reserved matters stage. I therefore have no objection to the application, in this
regard, subject to conditions being attached to any consent requiring the submission, written
approval and implementation of a detailed Transport Assessment, School Travel Plan for staff and
pupils and a Considerate Constructors Scheme. It is also considered necessary to fix the proposed
vehicular access point to Mereclough Avenue to ensure reserved matters are consistent with the
outline. This will provide certainty and guarantee that local residents are fully engaged and
informed throughout all stages of the application process. On that basis, should access proposals
change during design development then a new application would be required.

Parking Provision

Parking areas on the indicative layout plan are shown as comprising a total of 91 spaces for cars (67
on the Playing Fields Site and 24 on the Birch Road Site), including 6 disabled bays, 3 dedicated
spaces for motorcycles and 161 cycle parking spaces. This level of provision is based provision on
the Council’s adopted maximum standard for higher and further education uses under UDP Policy
A10 (there are no adopted standards for high schools) and therefore I have no objection to the
application in this regard, at this stage. The adopted standards do state that the level of parking
provision needs to be backed up with a more detailed justification, including Green Travel Plans
that promote sustainable transport choices and thus reduce the demand for parking. The Review of
Proposed Access Arrangements states that if the proposed level of car parking provision fails to
meet demand then this is likely to result in staff parking in the adjacent residential areas, potentially
causing amenity and highway safety problems. Clearly, on that basis and given the requirements of
UDP Policy A10 in terms of the need to provide a detailed justification for the level of provision,
the matter should be revisited at the reserved matters stage, based on the findings of a detailed
Transport Assessment and School Travel Plan.

Pedestrian Access, Public Transport and Cyclists



                                                  155
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




On the face of it, the proposed site of the new school building is only a short distance away from the
site of the existing school (approximately 500 metres) and therefore continues to be accessible via
public transport, car, rail, as well on as on foot and by cycle. However, the second Transport
Statement (commissioned by the applicants in response to objections raised by residents) and the
comments of GMPTE, state that in relation to existing public transport services, the proposed site is
poorly served in comparison to the existing site, with many existing bus services and Walkden
Railway Station becoming just beyond reasonable walking distance. In order to address this
shortcoming, they stress the importance of very effective measures developed through a School
Travel Plan to promote public transport, walking and cycling to school in order to reduce car travel
otherwise generated by the proposed development.

Bus stops on the A580 East Lancs Road and Old Clough Lane are within walking distance of the
proposed new school building and the proposed Leigh Salford Manchester (LSM) Busway Scheme
will, in time, run along the A580 East Lancs Road and a stop is proposed near the junction with Old
Clough Lane, within easy walking distance of the proposed school site. In addition, there are four
morning and five evening dedicated school bus services to Walkden High School and it is
envisaged that as a minimum, these services would continue to serve the new school.

Access to the Playing Fields Site on foot and by cycle is considered good being accessible from a
number of points including the Worsley/Walkden Loopline, designated as a strategic recreation
route under UDP Policy R5. In addition, the proposed layout indicates the provision of over 160
cycle parking spaces.

In summary, it is considered that although the site is reasonably accessible by a range of means of
transport, the proposed development does generate the need for additional public transport
provision. Clearly, these matters need to be fully addressed in a detailed Transport Assessment and
School Travel Plan at the reserved matters stage, with a particular focus on highway safety given
the nature of the use. However, I am confident that satisfactory solutions can be found and given
that this application is in outline with all matters reserved, I have no objection to the application in
this regard at this stage providing conditions are attached to any consent requiring the submission,
written approval and implementation of a detailed Transport Assessment and a School Travel Plan
for staff and pupils.

Disabled Access

The design statement states that the development would be DDA compliant and that disabled car
parking spaces would be provided in accordance with UDP Policies A10. I therefore have no
objection to the application in this regard at this stage. More detailed consideration will be given to
disabled access at the reserved matters stage in terms of surfacing, access thresholds, ramps etc.

Conclusion

This application is in outline with all matters reserved, including access, and as such detailed
proposals have not yet been developed. The minimum legal requirements in respect of access
arrangements for an outline application with all matters reserved are that indicative access points,
in the form of an area or areas in which the access points or points to the site will be situated are
shown. The applicant has provided this information together with two Transport Statements


                                                 156
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




providing a justification for the approach taken and an initial analysis of potential impacts and
mitigation measures required. Following consultation with the City Council’s Highway Engineers
and GMPTE, I am satisfied that for the purposes of this outline application, the proposed access
arrangements satisfy the requirements of UDP Policies A1, A2, A5, A8, A10, and DES2.

Detailed matters will not be fully resolved until a detailed Transport Assessment, School Travel
Plan incorporating Safer Routes to Schools Measures and a Considerate Contractors Scheme have
been prepared that will inform the preparation of detailed access arrangements. Nonetheless,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring such measures to be prepared,
approved and implemented in full, I have no objection to the application on access grounds.


Design

In considering the design of the development it is important to note that the application is in outline
with all matters reserved. Detailed issues relating to layout, scale and appearance are therefore to
be determined at a later date. Nonetheless, the design and access statement combined with the
submitted layout plan and scale parameter drawing set out a series of broad design principles that
should be adhered to during design development and as such must be considered at this stage of the
application process.

UDP Policy DES1 – Respecting Context requires developments to respond positively to their
physical context and to respect the character and local identity 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, the desirability of protecting an existing building
line and the impact on and quality of views and vistas.

UDP Policy DES7 –Amenity of Users and Neighbours requires all new development to provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity and not have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

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

UDP Policy EN23 – Environmental Improvement Corridors states that development along any of
the City’s major road, rail and water corridors, including the A580 East Lancs Road, will be
required to preserve, or make a positive contribution to the corridor’s environment and appearance.

In accordance with national planning policy and UDP Policy DES11, the applicants have submitted
a design and access statement that describes the broad design principles and concepts that have
been applied to the particular aspects of the proposal based on:

         the amount of development;
         the layout, including the approximate location of buildings, routes and open spaces; and


                                                 157
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




         the approximate scale of the proposed building in relation to its surroundings.

It should be noted that matters relating to the appearance of the proposed building in terms of
materials, elevational treatment etc. and hard and soft landscaping are dealt with solely at the
reserved matters stage when detailed designs are submitted and are not directly relevant to the
consideration of this application. The proposal has been reviewed by the City Council’s Design
and Heritage Officers who have raised no objection to the proposals at this stage.

I shall deal with each aspect in turn.

The amount of the development proposed is based on national guidelines set out in DfES Building
Bulletin 98 that provides design and area guidelines for secondary schools. These standards dictate
that the gross building accommodation requirements for the proposed school are between 11,800
and 12,100 square metres and that the overall site area be between 8 to 10 hectares. Provision for
formal and informal outdoor recreation space is also required and is broken down into the
following minimum standards:

   i.    Pitches (55,500 square metres)
  ii.    Multi-use games area (3,600 square metres)
 iii.    Soft play space (4,550 square metres)
 iv.     Habitat area (575 square metres)

The proposed layout plan illustrates how these component parts would be provided on the
application site and I am satisfied that there is sufficient space to accommodate the required amount
of development in a manner that enables the delivery of a high quality design solution that is both
fit for purpose and positively enhances the character of the area, in accordance with UDP Policy
DES1. In order to ensure the development is delivered in accordance with the submitted plans, it is
considered necessary to attach a condition to any consent limiting the amount of gross internal
floorspace to that applied for. However, it is not considered appropriate to attach a condition
limiting the amount of car parking to that currently proposed as the amount required will be fully
determined when detailed access arrangements, informed by a detailed Transport Assessment and
School Travel Plan, are considered at the reserved matters stage. This approach is in full
accordance with UDP Policies A1 and A10 (see above).

A number of site constraints and opportunities have had a profound influence on the proposed
indicative layout submitted as regards the location of the new school building, summarised below:

         The identification of Mereclough Avenue as the sole vehicular access and egress point, and
         the location of potential pedestrian access points, led the applicant to locate the new school
         building on the eastern side of the site to minimise environmental impacts and maximise
         accessibility.
         The central section of the Playing Fields Site to the west of Whittle Brook has been
         identified as being at a medium to high risk of flooding and therefore is not an appropriate
         location for school buildings if preferable alternatives exist whereas the risk of flooding on
         higher land to the east of Whittle Brook is far lower and thus considered an acceptable
         location for school buildings (see below).



                                                 158
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




         Locating school buildings in the south eastern corner of the Playing Fields Site provides
         the opportunity to ensure the school has a strong and visible presence on the A580 East
         Lancs Road, a designated environmental corridor under UDP Policy EN23. Although its
         main frontage would not be directly accessible from this carriageway it does provide the
         opportunity to act as beacon or landmark announcing a new stage of regeneration and
         investment in the area.
         Locating the school building in the south eastern corner of the Playing Fields Site will help
         minimise its visual impact and potential nuisance to neighbouring residents, by
         maximising the distances between dwellings and the school.
         Other site constraints such as the large diameter public sewer and public footpath that run
         across the western half of the Playing Fields Site.

The demolition of the school buildings on the Birch Road Site to be replaced by playing pitches and
outdoor sports facilities provides the opportunity to introduce an attractive and functional area of
greenspace in the urban fabric. Being surrounded by housing on three sides ensures a high level of
natural surveillance so vital to the creation of successful and safe areas of urban greenspace.

I am satisfied that the approach taken to site layout is the most appropriate and viable solution for
the future development of the site, and as such is considered to be in full accordance with UDP
Policy DES1. I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard subject to the
imposition of a condition fixing the location of the school building(s) on land to the east of Whittle
Brook. The matter would of course be revisited in detail at the reserved matters stage.

It is proposed that the school buildings be arranged over three storeys with a compact plan form.
This approach helps to ensure that ‘land take’ is minimised in the interests of maintaining the site’s
nature conservation and ecological value whilst delivering a building of a scale appropriate to its
suburban context. Such a scale would also reduce disruption to the ‘green horizon’ when looking
across the site and help maintain the feeling of being in an area of expansive greenspace. Given the
distance between the proposed building and neighbouring dwellings I have no concerns regarding
overshadowing or loss of daylight and sunlight. I consider it necessary to attach a condition to any
consent limiting the height of the building to a maximum of three storeys. Given the matter will be
revisited in detail at the reserved matters stage, I do not consider it necessary to place additional
restrictions on the width and length of the building. This will give the applicant sufficient freedom
and three-dimensional flexibility to develop a high quality and innovative building design solution
that fully respects its setting and context. I am satisfied that the approach taken to the scale of the
building is in full accordance with UDP Policies DES1 and DES7. I therefore have no objection to
the application in this regard providing appropriate conditions are imposed limiting the height of
the building to a maximum of three storeys.


Landscaping

UDP Policy DES9 – Landscaping states that developments will be required to incorporate
appropriate hard and soft landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a
development, it must be of a high quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract
from safety and security, form an integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect
adjacent land uses and wherever possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.


                                                 159
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




UDP Policy EN12 – Important Landscape Features states that development that would have a
detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not normally be
permitted and where appropriate, conditions or planning obligations will be used to secure the
appropriate management of important landscape features.

The Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document contains further policies and
guidance in relation to tree protection that includes the requirement to replace trees that are lost on
a two for one basis.

As this application is in outline with all matters reserved, the applicant is not required to provide
specific landscaping information at this stage. However, the Design and Access Statement
submitted as part of the application states that full account would be taken of relevant UDP Policies
and the site’s ecological sensitivity. More specifically, the applicant’s have stated they aim to:

         retain the expansive green feel of playing fields site;
         to concentrate all hard surfacing on the Playing Fields Site around the proposed school
         building, to the east of Whittle Brook;
         retain existing trees, reinstate the pond in the western corner of the Playing Fields Site,
         improve Whittle Brook and other natural features and habitats
         enhance the site’s biodiversity;
         create informal and social areas to enhance the social and cultural development of pupils;
         and
         redevelop the Birch Road Site as first class sports pitches and facilities.

I am satisfied that this approach is both appropriate and acceptable and therefore I consider the
proposals to be in full accordance with UDP Policies DES9 and EN12. The matter would be
revisited in detail at the reserved matters stage.

In relation to trees, the applicant has submitted a tree survey that highlighted the presence of 54
trees on the Birch Road Site and only 4 trees on the Playing Fields Site, as most lie outside the
boundary of the application site. None of the trees are protected. Of the 54 trees on the Birch Road
Site, 28 are marked for removal being of a poor quality. Trees on the Playing Fields Site are
marked for retention.

An independent arboriculturalist has reviewed and verified the findings. In relation to the Birch
Road Site, he notes that trees are located around the perimeter fence line, many of which are mature
specimens that have been planted as part of landscaping scheme. He states that the highest
concentration of trees on the western boundary form a significant group of trees that offer a
valuable amenity to the surrounding properties, as well as providing a valuable visual and acoustic
barrier. As regards trees within the Playing Fields Site itself, he states as it is sparsely populated
with trees, they will pose few problems and be less of an issue. I therefore have no objection to the
application in this regard on the basis that detailed proposals will be considered at the reserved
matters stage.




                                                 160
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Crime Prevention

UDP Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. Further detailed policies and
guidance are provided in the adopted Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.

In accordance, with the Design and Crime SPD, the Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Officer (ALO) has reviewed the proposal and has no objections at this stage. The applicant
has stated their full commitment to achieving Secured By Design accreditation through ongoing
dialogue and discussion with the ALO. Compliance would be fully considered at the reserved
matters stage when detailed designs have been developed. I therefore have no objection to the
application in this regard at this stage.


Environmental Performance

UDP Policy EN 22 states that development proposals of this size will only be permitted where it
can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources, and on the
local and global environments, has been minimised as far as practicable; and full consideration has
been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options, and such measures have been
incorporated into the development where practicable.

Although we are unable to assess the environmental performance of the proposed building until
detailed designs are submitted at the reserved matters stage, I can confirm that it is a requirement of
the DfES for the development of schools of this stage that they achieve a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’
BREEAM Schools rating. This is the stringent, industry standard, Building Reseacrh
Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Methodology tailored specifially for schools. I am
therefore satisfied that the requirements of Policy EN22 will ultimately be met and that an
environmentally responsible, sustainable, resource efficient building will be delivered. To ensure
such a positive outcome for the purposes of this planning application it is recommended that a
condition be imposed to that effect.


Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

UDP Policy EN9 – Wildlife Corridors states that development that would affect any land that
functions as a wildlife corridor, or that provides an important link or stepping stone between
habitats, will not be permitted where it would unacceptable impair the movement of flora and
fauna. It goes on to state that where development is permitted, conditions or planning obligations
may be used to secure the protection, enhancement and/or management measures designed to
facilitate such movement.

UDP Policy EN10 – Protection of Species states that development which would be likely to have an
adverse impact on legally protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are
put in place to maintain the population level of the species at a favourable conservation status
within its natural range.



                                                 161
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




UDP Policy EN12 – Important Landscape Features states that development that would have a
detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not normally be
permitted and where appropriate, conditions or planning obligations will be used to secure the
appropriate management of important landscape features.

Further detailed policies and guidance are provided in the adopted Nature Conservation and
Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document, including Policy NCB1 – Maintaining and
Enhancing Biodiversity that states that development proposals should seek to maintain and
enhance biodiversity and the nature conservation interest of sites.

The application site does not include any sites designated for their international, national or local
nature conservation value but the entire Playing Fields Site and the adjacent Worsley/Walkden
Loopline is designated as a Wildlife Corridor under UDP Policy EN9. In response, the applicant
submitted an ecological appraisal as part of the application that concluded that the majority of the
proposed site development area, as shown on the indicative layout plan, would remain as amenity
grassland and would not impact on the Worsley/Walkden Loopline’s importance as a wildlife
corridor.

The Appraisal went on to make the following recommendations:

         Whittle Brook should be retained and protected;
         Landscape design should incorporate areas of grassland maintained as a long sward,
         particularly along the site boundaries;
         The application of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) has the potential to
         further enhance the ecological value of the site through the creation of ponds and swales;
         The Japanese Knotweed found at the western end of the site should be controlled and/or
         removed following guidelines produced by The Environment Agency;
         No signs of protected species were found, although the existing school buildings may have
         the potential for roosting bats and therefore further surveys are required;
         Pre-construction surveys are required to check for breeding birds;
         Pollution prevention measures should be undertaken; and
         There is potential for the education and involvement of local school children in habitat
         creation and the wildlife interest of the site; and
         The design of the school should aim to meet sustainability targets.

Both the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) and The Environment Agency assessed the
ecological appraisal and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions raised no objection to
the proposals.

GMEU agreed that the majority of application site consists of low-diversity, intensively managed
grassland and the sites real value as a wildlife corridor lies in Whittle Brook and the lowland
broadleaved woodland, unmanaged neutral grassland, scattered trees and shrubs around the
perimeter of the Playing Fields Site. They went on to confirm that, with the exception of bats, there
is no evidence of protected species, including badgers and water voles and that the site is not
suitable for use by great crested newts. They did however record a number of bird species using the
site, including starling, house sparrow, jay, black headed gull, blue tit and great tit and that there is



                                                  162
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




potential for birds nesting on site. They also confirmed the presence of Japanese Knotweed at the
western boundary to the site.

In regard to the potential impact of the development on the functioning of the Wildlife Corridor,
GMEU concluded that:

  the corridor will not be entirely severed by the development and a significant area of
“




woodland and grassland that comprises the corridor here will not be affected (my estimate is
that approximately 14% of the existing greenspace will be lost to built development or hard
surfacing). I would conclude that the connectivity of the corridor can be maintained




                                                                                        ”
On that basis, GMEU go on to state that providing a number of recommendations are implemented,
they have no reason to object to the application on nature conservation grounds. Their
recommendations are as follows:

         the Japanese Knotweed on the site be controlled and prevented from spreading;
         no site clearance works should take place during the bird nesting season unless nesting
         birds have been shown to be absent;
         detailed proposals for landscaping must take into account the existing nature conservation
         value of the site in terms of maintaining important habitat corridors, any loss of habitat be
         adequately compensated and areas of rough grassland around the perimeter of the site be
         maintained not excessively ‘tidied’;
         a bat survey be carried out before development commences and if found properly
         addressed; and
         appropriate precautions be taken to prevent pollution of the water environment.

Similarly, The Environment Agency have raised no objections to the application on nature
conservation grounds providing the following recommendations are implemented:

         no development shall take place until a marginal strip at least 8 metres wide is established
         between the development and the bank top of Whittle Brook;
         no development shall take place until a planting scheme for the Whittle Brook corridor,
         comprising solely of native species has been approved;
         no development shall take place until a scheme detailing boundary treatments adjacent to
         Whittle Brook has been approved;
         no development shall take place until the existing school buildings have been surveyed for
         evidence of use by bats and if found no development shall commence until a scheme for
         their conservation has been approved;
         no development shall take place until a method statement for the eradication and disposal
         of Japanese Knotweed has been approved;
         no development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the investigation and recording
         of contamination and its potential to pollute the water environment has been approved.

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and informatives, as recommended by GMEU
and The Environment Agency, I am satisfied that functioning of the wildlife corridor will not be



                                                 163
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




unduly affected and that protected species and important landscape features would be duly
protected, in accordance with UDP Policies EN9, EN10, EN12 and the Nature Conservation and
Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document.

Issues relating to nature conservation and biodiversity will be revisited in detail at the reserved
matters stage.


Flood Risk, Surface Water, Drainage and Protection of Water Resources

UDP Policy EN 19 states that development will not be permitted where it would be subject to an
unacceptable risk of flooding, materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere or result in an
unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of dealing with
flooding issues. Any application for development that is considered likely to be at risk of flooding,
or to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere materially, will need to be accompanied by a formal
flood risk assessment that should accurately assess the level of flood risk involved. Where
appropriate, it should clearly identify the mitigation or other measures to be incorporated into the
development or undertaken on other land which are designed to reduce that risk of flooding to an
acceptable level. It goes on to state that, development will not be permitted unless adequate
provision is made for the discharge of foul and surface water associated with the proposal.

The central part of the Playing Fields Site, west of Whittle Brook, and part of the Birch Road Site
are identified as being at risk of flooding on The Environment Agency’s Flood Zone Maps. In
response and in accordance with UDP Policy EN19 a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was submitted
as part of the application. The FRA identified Whittle Brook as the source of the risk and
concluded that subject to the new school building being located on higher land to the west of
Whittle Brook where there is ‘little to no risk’ of flooding, the proposed development is considered
acceptable and in full accordance with UDP Policy EN19 and national planning policy in the form
of PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk. Although the remainder of the site is at greater risk of
flooding, the proposed playing field, outdoor sports and open space uses proposed in these areas are
identified in PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk as being appropriate uses for areas at this level
of risk. The Environment Agency’s assessment of the FRA concluded that it was acceptable for the
purposes of the outline application, based on the proposed site layout, showing school buildings to
the east of Whittle Brook, subject to appropriate conditions and informatives being attached to any
consent. They go on to state that there is an ideal opportunity from the outset to protect
watercourses and groundwater from the effects of pollutants and reduce flood risk in urban areas by
altering the design of drainage systems to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
(SUDS). I am therefore satisfied that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring
the proposed school building to be located on land to the east of Whittle Brook and the submission,
written approval and implementation of a scheme for the provision of a drainage and surface water
regulation system, that the risk of flooding has been reduced to an acceptable level, in accordance
with UDP Policy EN19.

The standard of the proposed playing fields would be controlled by a separate condition controlling
the quality of the facilities, to be agreed by the City Council in conjunction with Sport England.




                                                164
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




UDP Policy EN18 – Protection of Water Resources states that development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground water in terms of its quality, level
or flow.

The Environment Agency have recommended that a condition be attached to any consent requiring
the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed scheme for the investigation and
recording of contamination and its potential to pollute the water environment. Such a condition
would prevent the pollution of Whittle Brook and groundwater in accordance with UDP Policy
EN18 and I recommend that a condition be imposed accordingly.


Noise, Vibrations, Odours and External Lighting

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

Playing Fields Site

An assessment of the submitted preliminary noise report by the Strategic Director of
Environmental Services indicates that the effect of traffic noise from the A580 East Lancs Road
will need to be mitigated through design and acoustic protection measures, it is recommended that
condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission of a detailed noise report that
identifies measures needed to bring noise levels down to an acceptable level, including the
provision of acoustic barriers along site boundaries and around play areas, where necessary. The
potential of noise from the proposed school also needs to be considered and additional conditions
covering noise from plant and machinery, and time restrictions on the use of outdoor sports
facilities are recommended accordingly. These matters will be revisited at the reserved matters
stage where detailed proposals are available.

It is also recommended that conditions be attached to any consent requiring:

   i.    The submission, written approval and implementation of a fume extraction system to
         protect residential amenity; and
  ii.    The submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed Considerate
         Contractors Scheme, which includes a Construction Environmental Management Plan, to
         minimise disruption and adverse environmental effects during the construction and
         demolition phase.

I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with these conditions, the application accords with Policy
EN17.

Birch Road Site

As discussed above, the provision of additional sports facilities on the Birch Road Site is necessary
to offset the loss of land on the Playing Fields Site given over to the school building, ancillary


                                                 165
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




parking etc. The Birch Road Site is surrounded by housing on three sides and is therefore
considered vulnerable to nuisance, particularly given proposed community use outside school
hours.

The applicant submitted a detailed Environmental Protection Report and Noise Assessment to
address amenity issues arising. These reports have been reviewed by the Strategic Director of
Environmental Services who subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, is satisfied that
residential amenity will not be unduly affected. It is recommended that conditions limiting hours of
use to 09:00 to 21:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 – 20:00 hours on Saturdays and Sundays
and requiring the submission, written approval and full implementation of a Considerate
Contractors Scheme, including a Construction Environmental Management Plan, are attached to
any consent.

I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with these conditions, the application accords with Policy
EN17.


Air Quality

UDP Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute
towards a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution) will not be permitted
unless they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the
development.

An air quality assessment was submitted as part of the application based on impacts arising from
demolition and construction activities, as well as from road traffic and service plant arising from
the completed development. The demolition and construction effects of the development would be
related to dust emissions and exhaust emissions from demolition and construction plant and
vehicles. The effects of the completed development would result from traffic associated with the
development and operational plant and ventilation systems.

The assessment found that the southern area of the Playing Fields Site adjacent to the busy A580
East Lancs Road is within a designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Nitrogen
Dioxide and given the existing high levels of traffic, it is unlikely that there would be a significant
impact on air quality from the users of the school, however a further assessment is of impact is
requested at a later date when detailed traffic impact data is made available. The need for adequate
ventilation is stressed to adequately mitigate the impact of air pollution on end users given the
proximity of the A580 East Lancs Road.

Based on the findings of the submitted assessment, the Strategic Director of Environmental
Services has recommended that conditions be attached to any consent requiring:

         A further detailed air quality assessment is undertaken based on a detailed traffic impact
         assessment to assess the existing and future air quality for years 2010, 2020 and the
         opening year with and without the development for the nitrogen dioxide. The assessment
         should identify the worst-case exposure and any changes in pollution levels as a result of
         the development and detail appropriate mitigation measures. This should be submitted,


                                                 166
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




         approved in writing and implemented prior to school building being first occupied and
         include a diffusion tube survey for nitrogen dioxide to determine the need for additional
         ventilation to mitigate pollution from Trafford Road and Broadway.
         A detailed School Travel Plan be produced, implemented and advertised before the school
         building is first occupied to reduce the number of vehicles entering the site.

In order to ensure a satisfactory outcome, I recommend that conditions be attached accordingly.
The matter will be revisited in detail at the reserved stage. In light of the above comments, and
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined above, I am satisfied at this stage that any
adverse impacts on air quality as a result of the proposed development would be properly mitigated,
in accordance with Policy EN17.


Contamination

Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will
require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying the
nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future users/occupiers of the
site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the contamination.

The applicant has carried out a preliminary risk assessment (PRA). The PRA revealed that a site
investigation, including gas monitoring should be undertaken before development commences, as
records indicate the site may be contaminated and highlighted the possible presence of ground gas
that may cause an unacceptable risk to the health of future occupiers and users of the site.

The Greater Manchester Geological Unit, on behalf of the Strategic Director of Environmental
Services agrees with these findings and has advised that an appropriate condition be attached to any
consent, requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed site
investigation. I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with the condition, there would be no
unacceptable detrimental impact as a result of the existing ground conditions and I consider that the
application accords with the above policy.


Other Issues

The Ramblers Association and The Peak and Northern Footpaths Association have requested that a
condition be attached to any consent preventing the obstruction or diversion the footpath/public
right of way that crosses the playing fields site. The footpath has become an integral part of the
urban fabric and provides a direct route from Ash Grove to the Worsley/Walkden Loopline, a
designated Strategic Recreation Route (UDP Policy R5). The indicative layout plan and the Design
and Access Statement indicate that the footpath would remain unaffected and separate legislative
controls exist controlling diversions and closures of public rights of way. This will ensure the
footpath is taken into account during design development in accordance with UDP Policy DES2 –
Circulation and Movement.

I have received three letters of objection from local residents on the grounds that the proposed
school building would be located in close proximity to the large telecommunications mast, adjacent


                                                167
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




to the East Lancs Road to the south of the application site, that would unduly affect the health of
pupils. Although capable of being a material consideration, central government planning guidance
in the form of PPG8 - Telecommunications states that:

        it is the Governments firm view that the planning system is not the place for
     “




     determining health safeguards. It remains central Governments responsibility to
     decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments
     view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public
     exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an
     application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health
     aspects and concerns about them.   ”

This approach is mirrored in UDP Policy DEV1 – Telecommunications that requires operators to
demonstrate compliance with all relevant ICNIRP standards, taking into account cumulative
emissions from other equipment nearby. In the case of the mast in question, an analysis of the last
permission granted, shows that the entire mast structure operates well within ICNIRP standards.
Although I have treated the concerns as a material consideration, I consider that, in light of the
masts very low emissions, there are no clear or convincing reasons to outweigh the national and
local planning policy in this case and therefore consider the objections unsustainable.

I received five letters of objection in relation to the reduction of property values generated by the
proposals. This is not a material planning consideration and therefore should not be taken into
account when determining the application.

I have received letters of objection in relation to length of the planning application consultation
period. The twenty-one day consultation period referred to in the letters of consultation sent to
residents is set out in law. Nonetheless, all objections received up until the date the Panel meets are
reported to Members before a decision is made.

I have received four letters of objection in relation to the potential for an increased amount of litter
to be dropped in the vicinity of the site. Such matters are a material planning consideration and
therefore consider it appropriate to attach a condition to any consent requiring the submission,
written approval and implementation of a refuse strategy, to include both the management of refuse
and recyclable materials on site and the provision of litter bins in appropriate locations around the
site.

Issues relating to the behaviour of school children cannot be addressed by the planning system,
beyond ensuring adequate crime prevention measures have been incorporated into the design of
new development (see above).

I have received one letter of objection in relation to potential for the school to be vandalised due to
its relative isolation. Issues relating to crime prevention will be considered in detail at the reserved
matters stage and the views of the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer will be
sought.




                                                 168
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




I have received one letter of objection in relation to the danger Whittle Brook poses to children.
This issue has been addressed above in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity interests
where it was recommended that a condition be attach requiring the Brook to be fenced.

I have received one letter of objection made on the grounds that mud carried in from the
waterlogged playing fields will result in high cleaning costs. This issue has been indirectly
addressed above where it was recommended that conditions be attached to any consent relating to
both improved site drainage and associated improvements to the quality of playing pitch provision.
It is considered that these conditions will adequately address the issue raised and significantly
improve the existing situation.

I have received one letter of objection relating to the visual impact of acoustic barriers. This would
be considered in detail at the reserved matters stage when detailed designs are available.

I have received one letter of objection made on the grounds that the Worsley/Walkden Loopline is
currently unsafe for children. A condition has been attached requiring the submission of a detailed
School Travel Plan that incorporates Safer Routes to School measures. The matter would therefore
be considered in detail at a later date.

Finally, I have received two letters of objection made on the grounds that the strategic approach to
Salford’s Building Schools for the Future Programme in respect of Walkden High is fundamentally
flawed insofar as:

         Walkden is not the area of greatest need for a new school and a new school would be better
         located elsewhere;
         a new school building is not needed given the relative success of the Walkden High and
         money would be better spent on schools that are not achieving these standards; and
         a 1,500 pupil school is too large and would create an impersonal atmosphere and adversely
         affect the quality of education provided.

The applicant is not required to justify the need for a new school, unlike other land uses such as new
retail development, and these issues are not considered to be a material consideration in the
determination of this application.


VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

The application has remained fundamentally unchanged since submission, although procedurally
access and layout have been made reserved matters during the application process.

In response to the number of objections made to the proposed access arrangements, the applicants
commissioned and submitted an independent review of access arrangements that is referred to in
the main body of the report.

CONCLUSION




                                                 169
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Although the proposals have not yet been fully developed, the regeneration benefits offered by the
proposal represent a unique opportunity to address many of strategic imperatives set out in ‘Making
the vision real: Salford's community plan for 2006-2016’ relating to deprivation, educational
attainment, social inclusion, training and skills, environmental sustainability and improving the
overall environment.

I am satisfied that the principle of developing a new school on greenfield land is in full accordance
with the provisions of the UDP, on the basis that no suitable, sequentially preferable sites exist.
The resultant loss of recreation land would be adequately offset through the provision of playing
fields and outdoor sports facilities on the Birch Road Site in a way that safeguards residential
amenity and ensures that the overall level of playing fields and recreational open space in the
locality is improved in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

The proposed access arrangements, though contentious and not yet fully developed, are considered
to satisfy the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan for the purposes of this outline
application, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. Similarly, I am confident that
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions a high quality and sustainable design solution
will be developed for consideration in detail at the reserved matters stage. The likely predicted
impacts on the proposal on amenity and the environment have been assessed and I am satisfied that,
subject to a number of conditions, there would be no adverse effects arising.

I therefore recommend that the application be approved accordingly.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions



1. Application for approval of reserved matters must 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.

2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
   submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

    a) access
    b) appearance
    c) landscaping
      d) layout
      e) scale

3. Before development commences, a community use scheme, relating to the school building
   itself and its playing fields and sporting facilities, shall be submitted to and approved in writing
   by the local planning authority. The Scheme shall include details of pricing policy, hours of


                                                 170
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




    use, access by non-school users/non-members, management responsibilities and include a
    mechanism for review. The approved scheme shall be implemented from upon commencement
    of the use hereby permitted and shall remain in place whilst the use is in operation unless
    otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

4. Prior to the school building hereby approved, first being brought into use, a management and
   maintenance scheme for the playing fields and sports facilities, covering a period of at least ten
   years, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
   scheme shall include measures to ensure the quality of the playing fields and sports facilities is
   sustained, management responsibilities, a maintenance schedule and a mechanism for review.
   The measures set out in the approved scheme shall be complied with in full, with effect from
   commencement of the use and thereafter maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
   local planning authority.

5. Before development commences, details of the phasing of development, including the
   continued availability of playing pitches, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
   local planning authority. The development shall be carried in accordance with approved
   details.

6. Before development commences, a scheme for the improvement of playing field drainage,
   based upon an assessment of the existing playing field quality and including an implementation
   programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
   playing fields shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the requirements of Condition
   4.

7. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a detailed Traffic
   Assessment. Development shall not commence until details of any off-site highway works
   have been approved by the local planning authority. The development shall not be first used
   until the works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

8. Vehicular access to the site shall be from Mereclough Avenue only.

9. Any application for the approval access as a reserved matter shall be accompanied by a School
   Travel Plan. The School Travel Plan shall include details on 'Safer Routes to Schools'
   measures for pupils, parents and staff, and measures ensuring opportunities for sustainable
   travel are maximised. Once approved, the Plan shall be implemented prior to first occupation
   and thereafter be maintained whilst the development is in use, unless otherwise agreed in
   writing by the local planning authority.

10. The use of the outdoor playing fields and sports facilities shall be restricted to 09:00 hrs to
    21:00hrs Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 hrs to 20:00hrs Saturdays and Sundays unless
    otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

11. No demolition or construction activities shall be commence until a Considerate Contractors
    Scheme, including a Construction Environmental Management Plan, has been submitted to and
    approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Considerate Contractors Scheme shall
    be adhered to in full for the duration of any demolition or construction work.


                                                171
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




12. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking and or food preparation areas shall
    be designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to the detriment to the amenity of
    residential premises and shall be approved by the local planning authority prior to the
    development taking place. The approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times
    when the premises are used for cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and
    serviced in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.

13. Before development commences, a detailed noise assessment shall be submitted to and
    approved by the local planning authority. The noise assessment shall include:

    - an assessment of the noise levels affecting the site from the A580 East Lancashire Road to
    determine the external noise levels that the proposed school and external play areas will be
    exposed to;
    - details of measures necessary to mitigate disturbance from the A580 East Lancashire Road
    having due regard to PPG24 - Planning and Noise and Building Bulletin 93 - Acoustic Design
    of Schools; and
    - details of measures necessary to mitigate disturbance to surrounding residential properties,
    including in respect of any fixed plant and machinery.

    The approved mitigation measures identified in the assessment shall be implemented in full
    before the site is first brought into use and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the local
    planning authority.

14. The rating level of noise from any building or from any fixed plant or machinery shall not
    exceed the existing background noise level by more than -5dB(A) at any time when measured
    at the nearest noise sensitive premises.

15. The gross internal floospace of the building hereby approved shall not exceed 12,100 square
    metres.

16. The siting of the school building(s) hereby approved shall be restricted to land to the east of
    Whittle Brook.

17. The school building(s) hereby approved shall not exceed three storeys in height.

18. No development approved by this permission shall commence until a method statement for the
    eradication and disposal of Japanese Knotweed, an invasive plant, has been agreed in writing
    by the local planning authority. Once approved, the measures identified in the method
    statement shall be implemented in full.

19. No site clearance works shall take place during the bird nesting season (March to July
    inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

20. Development shall not commence until the existing school buildings have been surveyed for
    evidence of use by bats and the results of this survey have been submitted to and approved in
    writing by the local planning authority. If bats are found to inhabit the buildings, no


                                                 172
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




    development shall commence until a scheme for the conservation of this species has been
    agreed with the local planning authority.

21. Development shall not commence until a scheme for the provision and implementation, of a
    surface water regulation system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
    planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed in full and maintained thereafter.

22. No development shall take place until a marginal strip of land at least 8 metres wide is
    established between all elements of the development and the bank top of Whittle Brook.
    Details of how this will be achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
    planning authority before development commences and shall be implemented in full and
    retained thereafter.

23. Development shall not commence until a scheme for the provision of boundary treatments
    adjacent to Whittle Brook has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
    authority. One approved the scheme be completed in full prior to first occupation of the school
    building(s) hereby approved.

24. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a further detailed
    Air Quality Assessment. The assessment shall:

    - be undertaken using the Traffic Assessment data to assess the existing and future air quality
    for years 2010, 2020 and opening year with and without the development for Nitrogen Dioxide
    pollutants;
    - identify the worst case exposure and identify any changes in pollution levels where public
    exposure occurs as a result of the development;
    - the predicted levels shall be compared with the relevant Air Quality Objectives set out in the
    Air Quality Regulations 2000 and amendments thereof;
    - include a detailed methodology and results of a diffusion tube survey for Nitrogen Dioxide
    undertaken at the location of the southern faēade of the building to determine the need for
    additional ventilation; and
    - identify any mitigation measures necessary.

25. Before development commences, 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 ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
    identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
    Protection Act 1990, PartIIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
    waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health
    and safety of workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping
    schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.

    The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the local planning
    authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial
    works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to first
    occupation of the site.



                                                173
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




    Prior to this condition being discharged, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to and
    approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Site Completion Report shall validate
    that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those previously agreed in
    writing by the local planning authority.

26. Before development commences, a scheme for the storage and disposal of refuse and
    recyclable materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
    authority. The scheme shall include the provision of litter bins around site and provide details
    of their design and siting. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full before the
    building is first brought into use and retained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
    the local planning authority.

27. The development hereby approved shall acheive a post-construction Building Research
    Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) Schools rating of 'very good' or
    'excellent', 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.

(Reasons)

1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
   1990 (as amended).

2. Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
   applicant for subsequent approval.

3. Reason: To secure well-managed and safe community access to the school building and its
   sports facilities. This is in accordance with Policies EHC1 and R1 of The City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

4. Reason : To ensure that new facilities hereby approved are managed and maintained to an
   adequate standard. This is in accordance with Policies EHC1 and R1 of the City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

5. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory quantity, quality and accessibility of compensatory outdoor
   sports and recreation provision that secures continuity of use. This is in accordance with
   Policies EHC1 and R1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

6. Reason: To ensure the quality of playing pitches are satisfactory. This is in accordance with
   Policies EHC1 and R1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

7. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access to the site is provided from the public highway. This
   is in accordance with Policies A1, A2, A5, A8, A10 and DES2 of the City of Salford Unitary
   Development Plan 2004-2016.

8. Reason: To ensure the submission of reserved matters is consistent with the outline permission


                                                174
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




    in the interests of certainty and community involvement. This is in accordance with DCLG
    Circular 01/2006 - Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System.

9. Reason: To ensure an acceptable level of accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking
   is provided. This is in accordance with Policies EHC1, A1, A2, A5, A8, A10 and DES2 of the
   City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

10. Reason: To protect residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies DES7, EN17,
    EHC1, R1 and R2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

11. Reason: To protect residential amenity and to ensure environmental impacts associated with
    the demolition and construction phase are minimised. This is in accordance with Policy EN17
    of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

12. Reason: In the interests of pollution control and to protect residential amenity. This is in
    accordance with Policies EN17 and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
    2004-2016.

13. Reason: To protect residential amenity and to ensure the future users of the site are not
    subjected to unacceptable levels of noise pollution. This is in accordance with Policies EN17
    and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

14. Reason: To protect residential amenity and to ensure the future users of the site are not
    subjected to unacceptable levels of noise pollution. This is in accordance with Policies EN17
    and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

15. Reason: To ensure the submission of reserved matters is consistent with the outline permission
    in the interests of certainty and community involvement. This is in accordance with DCLG
    Circular 01/2006 - Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System.

16. Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity and to reduce the risk of flooding.
    This is in accordance with Policies DES1, DES7 and EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary
    Development Plan 2004-2016.

17. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies
    DES1 and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

18. Reason: To prevent the spread of Japanese Knotweed, which is prohibited under the Wildlife
    and Countryside Act 1981, and enhance biodiversity. This is in accordance with Policy EN9 of
    the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy NCB1 of the City of
    Salford Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document.

19. Reason: To protect nesting birds and their nesting sites that are protected under the Wildlife
    and Countryside Act 1981. This is in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford
    Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

20. Reason: To protect bats and their roost sites that are protected species under the Wildlife and


                                                175
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




    Countryside Act 1981. This is in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford Unitary
    Development Plan 2004-2016.

21. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding. This is in accordance with Policy EN19 of the City of
    Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

22. Reason: To protect and enhance the ecological and landscape value of the Whittle Brook
    corridor. This is in accordance with Policies EN12 and EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary
    Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy NCB1 of the City of Salford Nature Conservation
    and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document.

23. Reason: To protect and enhance the ecological and landscape value of Whittle Brook. This is
    in accordance with Policies EN12 and EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
    2004-2016 and Policy NCB1 of the City of Salford Nature Conservation and Biodiversity
    Supplementary Planning Document.

24. Reason: To assess and control risks associated with air quality and to ensure the proposed
    building(s) are adequately ventilated. This is in accordance with Policies EN17 and DES7 of
    the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

25. Reason: To ensure that the presence of or the potential for contamination is detected and
    appropriate remedial action is taken. This is in accordance with Policy EN16 of the City of
    Salford Unitray Development Plan 2004-2016.

26. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity, resource conservation and to
    maintain the quality of the street environment in the vicinity of the site. This is in accordance
    with Policies DES1, DES7 and EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
    2004-2016.

27. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability. This is in
    accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.


Note(s) for Applicant

1. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior
   written consent of The Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures,
   in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of Whittle Brook.

    Details of any proposed new surface water outfalls, which should be constructed entirely
    within the bank profile, must be submitted to the Development Control Section for approval in
    accordance with the Water Resources Act 1991.

2. There is an ideal opportunity from the outset to protect watercourses, canals and groundwater
   from the effects of pollutants, and reduce flood risk in urban areas by altering the design of
   drainage systems. We are promoting, with the help of The Environment Agency, Sustainable
   Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). These include a range of structures with a flexible series of


                                                 176
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




    options (i.e. retention ponds, swales, porous pavements etc.) to reduce the damage upon our
    freshwater resources. This development should assess the feasibility of incorporating SUDS as
    well as other sustainable development options such as green roof structures etc.

3. In accordance with UDP Policy EN9 (Wildlife Corridors), works should be carried out to
   enhance Whittle Brook on site for wildlife. Works should be carried out to remove artificial
   bank revetment, weirs and restore the watercourse to a more natural state. This would
   encourage flora and fauna (e.g. water voles) enhancing biodiversity in this urban area.

4. We recommend the applicant incorporate a landscaping scheme composed solely of native
   species. If there are distinct local varieties where the local gene pool should be maintained, then
   stocks of local provenance should be used. British forms tend to be more resistant to frost and
   damp than their European counterparts, and flower and fruit at times more appropriate to the
   British animals that depend on them. I refer you to the requirements of the City Council's Trees
   and Development Supplementary Planning Document.

5. The site contains the alien plant species Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), the spread of
   which is prohibited under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). Care should be taken to
   prevent the spread of this invasive species during any operations relating to the proposal. Any
   soils brought onto the site should be free of the seeds/root/stem of any invasive plant covered
   under the Environmental Protection Act (1990). Approval for herbicide applications to
   eradicate invasive species must be obtained from The Environment Agency prior to use near a
   watercourse/waterbody.

    Japanese Knotweed has an adverse impact upon biodiversity as it excludes almost all of our
    native plant species, which cannot compete with the vigorous summer growth, or the decaying
    canes it leaves in winter. Many of the insects dependent upon our native plants are also lost,
    which in turn reduces the food source for other native animals. Japanese Knotweed can also
    cause severe structural damage to hard surfaces, including foundations.

6. All breeding birds in the wild are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). It is
   therefore an offence to disturb or kill any wild bird while it is nest building, or at a nest
   containing eggs or young, or to disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

7. All bat species are legally protected from any harm, damage or disturbance under the Wildlife
   and Countryside Act (1981), as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). It
   is a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly harm, damage, or disturb bats or their roosts.
   Bats are also protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations (1994).
   Approval must be sought from Natural England for any works affecting bats or their roost sites.

8. I refer you Sport England's guidance notes relating to the construction and layout of various
   sports facilities available at www.sportengland.org/index/get resources/resource
   downloads/facilities guidance/ facilities guidance documents.htm.

    In addition, it is recommended that the playing field drainage assessment and


                                                 177
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




    improvement/management scheme is undertaken by a specialist turf grass consultant.

9. For further information on dealing with the requirement(s) of the Contamination and Air
   Quality conditions please contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Environment
   Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).

10. As a minimum, the Transport Assessment should include:

    - be based on a survey of actual demands generated by staff and pupils at Walkden High School
    as existing;
    - be used to inform the level of demand for on-site parking provision;
    - include detailed proposals for the means of access and egress for pedestrians, cyclists and
    vehicles including buses;
    - include detailed proposals for the internal road network demonstrating how conflicts between
    pedestrians and other vehicles have been minimised;
    - provide detailed proposals of on-site bus and parent pick up/drop off points;
    - include a detailed analysis of the operational capacity of local junctions and access points
    affected by the proposals and identify any subsequent mitigation highway improvement
    measures that may be required; and
    - include detailed proposals for on-site servicing and ground maintenance access arrangements.

11. Wherever possible, outdoor playing pitches and sports facilities should be laid out in
    accordance with the separation distances between the boundaries of residential properties and
    outdoor sports pitches and facilities specified in the National Playing Fields Association's
    Guidance Document entitled 'The Six Acre Standard'.

12. All external lighting shall be erected and directed so as to avoid detriment to the amenity of
    residential accommodation and should be designed to provide a standard maintained
    illumination (LUX) of not more than 20 LUX at the nearest residential window.

13. The fume extraction systems for fume cupboards in any laboratory within the school building
    should comply with the guidance document 'Building Bulletin 88 - Fume Cupboards in
    Schools'.




APPLICATION No:                06/53772/DEEM3

APPLICANT:                     Housing And Planning Directorate

LOCATION:                      Alleys To Rear Of 2-28 Monton Avenue, 20-30 And 35-39
                               Hopwood Avenue, 17-23 Richmond Grove And 5-11 Cavendish
                               Grove Eccles M30 9HS

PROPOSAL:                      Erection of 2.2m gates to alleyways


                                                178
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




WARD:                          Eccles


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the erection of 2.2 metre high gates to the alley way to the rear of 2-28
Monton Avenue, 20-30 and 35-39 Hopwood Avenue, 17-23 Richmond Grove and 5-11 Cavendish
Road in Eccles.

The proposal consists of four alley gates to secure the area to the rear of the properties named
above. The alleyways are within a predominantly residential area within Eccles.

It is proposed that the alley gates are black in colour and will have no central horizontal bars.
Access to the alleys will be for residents of Monton Avenue, Hopwood Avenue, Richmond Grove
and Cavendish Road by way of a key.


CONSULTATIONS


Ramblers Association (Manchester Area) – No Objections

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No Objections

The Open Spaces Society – No Objections

The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Assoc. – No Objections

Public Rights Of Way Officer – No Objections



PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 5th December 2006
A Press notice was advertised on the 9th December 2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:
23 Monton Avenue
Flat 6 Monton Avenue
17-23 (odds) Richmond Grove
115 Monton Road
4-28 (Evens) Monton Avenue
20-30 Hopwood Avenue
28A + 28B Hopwood Avenue
37+ 39 Hopwood Avenue


                                                179
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




5-11 Cavendish Grove
111-113 Monton Road (Ground and First Floors)
2 Monton Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection to the development. The grounds for objections are as
follows:

         The gates would provide a foothold for those wishing to scale the garden wall of number 2
         Monton Avenue and commit criminal activities.


UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES10
Policy DC18 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The development would comprise of four gates to provide defensible boundariesto the rear of the
residential properties on Hopwood Avenue, Monton Avenue, Cavendish Grove and Richmond
Grove to reduce the occurrence and fear of crime.

The gates would be of a railing design with finials to the top, and would be locked with those
residents requiring access to be issued with a key.

Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all development should be
designed to discourage crime but should not be done at the expense of good design. The proposed
gates would be of a design which is considered to be acceptable and would not be visually intrusive
on the streetscene.

In accordance with Policy DC18 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and
Crime’ which requires that alley gates are visually permeable to allow observation across the site.
The railing design of the gates would allow this and would not create concealed spaces where
criminal activity could occur.

It is considered that the proposed scheme would not look out of place and would help to protect the
area from crime and the residents from the fear of crime.

Whilst the points raised by the objector are acknowledged I do not consider that the proposed gates
would have any additional impact nor make scaling the wall which belongs to the resident of 2
Monton Avenue any easier. The proposed gates do not have any horizontal bars and therefore it is
considered that the development would not cause any additional potential to scale this neighbour’s
property. I consider that the gates would protect the local residents from crime and the fear of crime
and would enhance and secure the area.



                                                 180
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




I recommend that the application is approved subject to conditions.

CONCLUSION
I consider that the proposed development would not have any significant impact upon the character
of the area and would help to deter crime and reduce the fear of crime in the area. It is considered
that the design of the gates is acceptable and does not look out of place within the locality in
accordance with the provisions of Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and
Policy DC18 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’.




RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions



1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. The Gates hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour Black prior to
   installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for
   closure or diversion of the public right of way affected has been made.


(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area



APPLICATION No:                06/53958/DEEM3

APPLICANT:                     Children Services Directorate

LOCATION:                      Cadishead Community Primary School Allotment Road
                               Cadishead M44 5JD




                                                181
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




PROPOSAL:                      Conversion of part of school into self contained childrens centre
                               to include access ramp, covered buggy area, play area, erection
                               of fencing and alterations to elevations

WARD:                          Cadishead


BACKGROUND

The proposed development is funded by Sure Start. Sure Start is a Government programme which
aims to achieve better outcomes for children, parents and communities by: increasing the
availability of childcare for all children; improving health and emotional development for young
children; supporting parents as parents and in their aspirations towards employment.

Children’s Centres are a significant delivery arm in achieving the five outcomes for children and
young people as set out in the Government’s paper `Every Child Matters'. The Government would
like to see a Children’s Centre in every community and nationally, under the Sure Start
Programme, are hoping to have 2500 Children’s Centres by 2008.

Sure Start national guidance states that the ideal Centre should be on or close to a Primary School.
The selection of a school site also promotes and supports 'extended school' provision and allows
further development of the Government’s ideas for accessible community school sites.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Cadishead Community Primary School on Allotment Road. The site is
bounded by residential development on all sides apart from the north west which is bounded by a
Printing Services company.

The applicant seeks consent for the conversion of part of the school into a self contained children’s
centre to include access ramp, covered buggy area, erection of fencing and alterations to elevations.
2.4 metre high weld mesh fencing would separate the building from the car park and would
separate the stepped entrance to the Children’s Centre from the main school site with a secure
pedestrian gate. 1.0 metre timber fence would form the northern boundary to the car park. The
covered buggy area would be covered but remain open and would measure 4.6 metres wide, 1.8
metres deep and 3.8 metres at its highest point. The Children’s Centre would incorporate a crčche,
training, community room, health room, interview room, office and toilets and will also have its
own play area with a 2.4 metre high weld mesh fence surrounding it.

Three additional car parking spaces would be created within the existing school car park formed by
the removal of existing shrubbed areas, one of which will be designated for disabled persons. It is
proposed that nine members of staff be employed at the children’s centre.

SITE HISTORY

97/36758/DEEM3 – Siting of a storage container – Permitted.



                                                182
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




96/36012/DEEM3 – Erection of extensions and alterations to existing school – Permitted.

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

         Little Haven, Allotment Road
         1 – 17 (odds) Allotment Road
         32 – 66 (evens) Allotment Road
         46A, 48A, 50A Allotment Road
         38 – 44 (evens) Prospect Road
         42 –68 (evens) Nelson Drive
         24 – 28 (evens) Moss Side Road
         30 – 54 Moss Side Road
         37A Moss Side Road
         2 – 8 (evens) Lynthorpe Avenue
         1 & 3 Jellicoe Avenue
         Caxton House, Allotment Road
         Printing Services Shorts, Caxton House, Allotment Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

             Traffic congestion and inadequate parking facilities. Residents are restricted by what
             times they can come out or come in with cars, residents have to wait to get cars out. On
             occasions emergency vehicles cannot get through. Cars are double parked and
             children are at great risk.
             A drop-in centre for disadvantaged people including those in drug rehab programmes
             which would be totally unsuitable for a primary school.

In addition, 1 letter of support has been received. This states that it’s a great idea and hopefully the
whole community will be behind it.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1:     Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DES1: Respecting Context


                                                  183
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




                         DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                         DES10: Design and Crime
                         EHC1: Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges.
                         A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
                         Developments

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1:     Regional Development Principles.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are; whether the principle of
development is acceptable, whether the design and appearance is acceptable, whether the proposal
would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers; whether the proposal
satisfactorily addresses issues of parking and access and any other issues. I shall deal with each of
these in turn.

Principle of development

Policy EHC1 considers that planning permission will be granted for the improvement or
replacement of schools on existing sites provided that the development would not have an
unacceptable impact on amenity, be accessible to the community it serves, incorporate adequate
provision for disabled access, not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or have an
adverse impact on highway safety and make provision, where possible for community use.

The proposed development represents the part conversion of the existing school building providing
a children’s centre and improving the school facilities in accordance with Policy EHC1 of the
adopted UDP. The principle of development is therefore acceptable.

Design and appearance

Policy DES1 considers 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 identify
and distinctiveness.

Policy DES10 considers that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.
Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ is also of relevance. Policy DC9 of this
guidance considers that each building should have a private entrance from the street where
practicable, Policy DC16 considers that boundary treatments should maximise natural surveillance
where appropriate and should be designed to a high standard.

Existing fencing within the site consists of 1.0 metre high black metal railings. The proposed 2.4
metre weld mesh fencing would similarly be visually permeable allowing for natural surveillance
and would be powder coated. The proposed fencing is an appropriate form of fencing in this



                                                 184
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




location. A condition would be attached to any planning consent ensuring that the colour be agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Children’s Centre would be accessed via the access ramp from within the car park, the stepped
entrance to the Children’s Centre and the car park would be separated from the remainder of the
school site by a 2.4 metre weld mesh fence and secure gates. This would help maintain security to
the school when the school is closed. The proposal therefore accords with Policy DES10.

The proposed covered buggy area would be sympathetic to the appearance of the main school
building and would not be widely visible from the public realm being situated some 25 metres from
the south western boundary of the site.

The proposed development would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of
the area and consequently the proposal is in accordance with Policy DES1 of the UDP.

Amenity

Policy DES7 of the UDP considers that all new development will be required to provide potential
users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and
layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

The proposed covered buggy area would be situated some 35 metres from the nearest residential
properties and I am therefore satisfied that the application would not result in an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The
application therefore accords with Policy DES7.

Parking and access

Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards. It is proposed that an
additional 3 car parking spaces be created within the existing school car park, 1 of which would be
for disabled access.

The children’s centre would provide family support and outreach, integrated care and education
and children and family services to the local community. The proposed children’s centre would
therefore function in a similar way to the existing school just with extended opening hours (08:00
am until 18:00 pm).

In light of the nature of the proposed use, the Council’s maximum car parking standards to
encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, and the sites proximity within reasonable
walking distance of Liverpool Road which is a major public transport route, I consider the level of
proposed car parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy A10. I therefore have no
objections to the application on highway grounds.

CONCLUSION



                                                 185
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




The design of the proposal would be acceptable and it would not have an adverse impact on
highway safety. The scheme would have significant benefits for the wider community and would
not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The
application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and there are no material planning
considerations to outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.



RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


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

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the colour of the
   weld mesh fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority. The weld mesh fencing shall be painted with the approved colour within 3 months
   of its erection and maintained thereafter.

3. Prior to the first use of the children's centre hereby approved, the 3 car parking spaces shown on
   the approved plan (E11261-007) shall be constructed and laid out to the satisfaction of the
   Local Planning Authority and shall be made available at all times the children's centre is in use.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
   materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
   writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
   materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


(Reasons)

1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
   1992.

2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan.

4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan.




                                                186
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




APPLICATION No:          06/54004/DEEM3

APPLICANT:                     Childrens Services Directorate

LOCATION:                      St Pauls C Of E School Heathside Grove Worsley M28 3NZ

PROPOSAL:                      Siting of a portable building for use as a childrens centre to
                               include construction of car park and erection of fencing.

WARD:                          Walkden North


BACKGROUND

The proposed development is funded by Sure Start. Sure Start is a Government programme which
aims to achieve better outcomes for children, parents and communities by: increasing the
availability of childcare for all children; improving health and emotional development for young
children; supporting parents as parents and in their aspirations towards employment.

Children’s Centres are a significant delivery arm in achieving the five outcomes for children and
young people as set out in the Government’s paper `Every Child Matters'. The Government would
like to see a Children’s Centre in every community and nationally, under the Sure Start
Programme, are hoping to have 2500 Children’s Centres by 2008.

Sure Start national guidance states that the ideal Centre should be on or close to a Primary School.
The selection of a school site also promotes and supports 'extended school' provision and allows
further development of the Government’s ideas for accessible community school sites.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to land currently within the grounds of St Pauls Church of England school.
The site is bounded by residential properties.

The applicant seeks consent for the siting of a portable building for use as a children’s centre. The
building would be rectangular in shape and measure 9.2 metres wide, 27.2 metres deep and 2.8
metres high with a flat roof. The Children’s Centre would incorporate a crčche, training/meeting
room, health room, interview room, plant room, offices, toilets and store rooms.


                                                187
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                   1st February 2007




It is proposed that the site be bounded by a 2.4 metre weld mesh fence to the south and west and
2.55 metre railings and vehicular and pedestrian gates to the eastern boundary.

The proposal would include five car parking spaces and one disabled space. The centre would be
open between the hours of 08:00 am and 18:00 Monday to Friday and five members of staff would
be employed on the site.

SITE HISTORY

04/48649/DEEM3 – Erection of 2.4 metre high fencing and gates – Permitted.

03/45812/DEEM3 – Replace existing flat roof with new pitched roof – Permitted.

00/41132/DEEM3 – Installation of roller shutters – Permitted.

97/36878/DEEM3 – Installation of roller shutters to various windows – Permitted.

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

         Brindley Arms, Whittle Street
         27 – 59 (odds) Wilbraham Road
         53A, 57A Wilbraham Road
         99 – 133 (odds) Whittle Street
         107A, 109A, 111A, 113A, 123A, 125A, 127A, 129A, 131A, 133A Whittle Street
         10, 10A, 12, 12A, 25, 25A, 27, 27A Leaside Grove
         1 – 8 Heathside Grove
         29 – 59 (odds) Egerton Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, 2 of which
are from the same property. The following issues have been raised:-

            Vandalism and possible criminal intent.
            Too close to private and Council property, elderly people live in these properties.
            Noise from increased traffic and new play area.
            Loss of light.
            Removal of another piece of Greenland.
            Property devaluation (not a material planning consideration).



                                                188
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




             Overlooking.
             Increased traffic flow on Whittle Street.
             Hours of work too long to allow privacy, open to use weekends.
             Loss of view, no trees to rear of 111 Whittle Street.
             The field is used for school sports day.
             Running track only used about once a year.
             The area is not deprived.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1:     Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:   None.
Other policies:           DES1: Respecting Context
                          DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                          DES10: Design and Crime
                          EHC1: Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges.
                          A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
                          Developments
                          EN12: Important Landscape Features
                          ST11: Location of New Development.

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1:     Regional Development Principles.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are; whether the principle of
development is acceptable, whether the design and appearance is acceptable, whether the impact on
trees is acceptable, whether the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring
occupiers; whether the proposal satisfactorily addresses issues of parking and access and any other
issues. I shall deal with each of these in turn.

Principle of development

Policy EHC1 considers that planning permission will be granted for the improvement or
replacement of schools on existing sites provided that the development would not have an
unacceptable impact on amenity, be accessible to the community it serves, incorporate adequate
provision for disabled access, not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or have an
adverse impact on highway safety and make provision, where possible for community use.

Policy DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy seeks to ensure that existing buildings and brownfield
land is developed before Greenfield land. Policy ST11 of the adopted UDP re-iterates this policy.



                                                 189
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                     1st February 2007




Previously developed land is defined within Annex B of PPS3 as ‘that which is or was occupied by
a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed
surface infrastructure.’ The proposal would be situated within the curtilage of an existing school.
The application site would therefore be considered to be brownfield land, thus complying with
criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within PPS3, which seeks to prioritise the
development of such land over land that has not been previously developed (Greenfield land).

The proposed development represents the improvement of the existing school facilities in
accordance with Policy EHC1 of the adopted UDP. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the
principle of development is acceptable.

Design and appearance

Policy DES1 considers 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 identify
and distinctiveness.

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

The site would be surrounded by a 2.4 metre high weld mesh fence to the south and west
boundaries and 2.55 metre railings to the eastern boundary. The site would have both a vehicular
and pedestrian access independent to the main school site, this would help maintain security to the
school when the school is closed. The proposal therefore accords with Policy DES10.

The proposed weld mesh fencing is an appropriate form of fencing in this location and the proposed
railings would match the school’s existing perimeter fencing. A condition would be attached to any
planning consent ensuring that the colour be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The building would be roughly rectangular in shape measuring 9.2 metres wide, 27.2 metres deep
and 2.8 metres high with a flat roof. Amended plans have been received showing amended
materials. The building would be constructed of white aluminium cladding, grey marble chip panel
and blue fascia. The building represents a community use and is low rise, the proposed
development would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area and
consequently the proposal is in accordance with Policy DES1 of the UDP.

A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring sample materials to be submitted
and approved prior to the commencement of development. I am satisfied that this will ensure that
the materials are of a sufficiently high quality.

Impact on trees

Policy EN12 relates to important landscape features and considers that where development would
have a detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not be
permitted. Supplementary Planning Document Trees and Development states that in the case
                                                  “




                                                                             ”




                                                 190
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                      1st February 2007




of replacement tree planting the Council will require, wherever practicable, the replacement on the
basis of at least two new trees for each tree lost.

The proposed development would result in the felling of two Prunus (Cherry) trees on the eastern
boundary of the site to allow for the creation of a new vehicular access. These trees are situated on
Council owned land and subsequently are not subject to Tree Preservation Orders. A tree survey
has been submitted by the applicant, the trees are in good and fair condition and offer good amenity
value being situated on the eastern boundary of the site and visible from the public realm. I am
satisfied that ample space remains within the school site for replacement planting which can afford
an equivalent amenity value to those trees to be felled. Furthermore, trees of a similar amenity
value will remain on either side of the access, (three to the north of the proposed access and a group
of seven to the south) and I do not consider that the loss of these trees will have an adverse effect on
visual amenity. Replacement planting would be best situated to the south west of the proposed
Children’s Centre. Here trees would be both visible from Heathside Grove and would partially
screen the building from the main school site.

The felling of these trees offers the least intrusive option for constructing a Children’s Centre at St
Pauls Church of England School. Should the Children’s Centre be proposed at any other location
accessed from Heathside Grove it would also result in the felling of trees and would additionally be
impractical because the school track occupies the eastern side of the school site. It is important that
the Children’s Centre incorporates its own access separate to that of the school in order to maintain
security to the school after hours.

No objection is raised to the felling of these trees and it is recommended that a condition be
attached to any planning consent requiring the provision of four standard replacement trees, the
exact species and location of the trees to be submitted prior to commencement of development.

Amenity

Policy DES7 of the UDP considers that all new development will be required to provide potential
users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and
layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

The proposal includes windows in the north elevation facing properties within Whittle Street. At
its closest point the proposal would sit 5.6 metres from the rear boundaries of properties within
Whittle Street and at its furthest 12 metres. The length of rear gardens of properties within Whittle
Street is approximately 15 metres. This coupled with the limited 2.8 metre height of the proposal
ensures that the application would not result in an unacceptably detrimental impact on the amenity
of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy.

The proposed Children’s Centre and new vehicular access would be situated adjacent to No.8
Heathside Grove. This property does not have any windows in the west side elevation and the
proposal would not therefore result in an unacceptably detrimental impact on the amenity of
residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The Children’s Centre would function in a similar
way to the existing school just with extended opening hours (08:00 am until 18:00 pm) and the
proposed access would be situated adjacent to the existing vehicular access for the main school site.


                                                 191
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                    1st February 2007




Therefore, vehicular traffic along Heathside Grove would not intensify as a result of the new access
to such an extent as to have a detrimental impact on the residents of Heathside Grove in terms of
noise and disturbance. The application therefore accords with Policy DES7.

Parking and access

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

The children’s centre would provide family support and outreach, integrated care and education
and children and family services to the local community. The proposed children’s centre would
therefore function in a similar way to the existing school just with extended opening hours (08:00
am until 18:00 pm).

In light of the nature of the proposed use, the Council’s maximum car parking standards to
encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, and the sites proximity within reasonable
walking distance of both Manchester Road and Bolton Road which is a major public transport
route, I consider the level of proposed car parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy
A10. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway grounds.

CONCLUSION

The scheme would have significant benefits for the wider community and would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Adequate replacement
trees would be provided to compensate for the felling of trees on site. The application accords with
the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.



RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the colour of the
   weld mesh fencing and railings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
   Planning Authority. The weld mesh fencing shall be painted with the approved colour within 3
   months of its erection and maintained thereafter.

3. Prior to the first use of the children's centre hereby approved, the 6 car parking spaces shown on
   the approved plan (E11262 02 A) shall be constructed and laid out to the satisfaction of the
   Local Planning Authority and shall be made available at all times the children's centre is in use.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
   materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in


                                                192
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                  1st February 2007




    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.

5. During the first available planting season following the felling of the 2 trees hereby granted
   consent, they shall be replaced by 4 standard trees in accordance with British Standard
   3936:Part 1:1992 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall
   have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of
   2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The species and
   location of the two replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority prior to the felling of the trees.

6. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
   approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
   implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.
7. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
   approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
   implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.

(Reasons)

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

2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan.

4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan.

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




                                               193
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION   1st February 2007




                                   194

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:34
posted:10/15/2011
language:English
pages:194
ktixcqlmc ktixcqlmc
About