APPLICATION No:	09/57457/FUL	
APPLICANT:	West One Retail Park Unit & Tesco Stores Ltd	
LOCATION:	West One Retail Park, Gilda Brook Road, West One Way, 
Salford,  M50 1ZD, , 	
PROPOSAL:	Partial demolition of existing retail units (4,484sqm gross) and replacement with retail food store (8,213sqm gross) with associated parking, servicing, landscaping and access improvements, creation of a new footbridge over Gilda Brook Road, and refurbishment of retained retail units.	
WARD:	Weaste And Seedley	

Description of Site and Surroundings 

The application site is 5.36ha and forms the West One Retail Park, which is situated approximately 315m (following Regent Street) to the east of Eccles Town Centre, with access to the site via Gilda Brook Road.

Immediately surrounding the site are a mix of residential, office and industrial uses.  Two storey residential properties are located to the west on the opposite side of Gilda Brook Road.  These properties are at a lower level than the footway of Gilda Brook Road.  The northern most of these residential properties are approximately 3m lower than the adjacent roundabout.  To the north are three storey residential properties on the opposite side of Eccles New Road.  To the east is a partly completed residential apartment scheme on the site formerly known as Weaste Quarry.  On this site the southern most six storey apartment block has now been completed whereas the northern most (adjacent to Eccles New Road) has commenced albeit stopped at first floor level as a shell.  To the south-east is a newly completed office development.  To the south, within the site is a grassed raised mound and landscaping beyond which is Cententary Way and the new head quarters of Morson International (now completed and open) the Manchester Ship Canal and Trafford Park.  To the south west is Akcros Chemicals and Bentcliffe Way which provides a bypass to Eccles Town Centre.

Further a field to the west of the retail park is Eccles Town Centre, which comprises the shopping areas around Church Street and Regent Street, along with the Market, the Mall Shopping Centre and Morrisons Superstore with associated car parking.  Within the town centre are the adjoining bus interchange and Metrolink terminus with Eccles Train Station to the north of Church Street.  Further to the north is the M602 motorway.

The site currently contains retail units which are configured in an ‘L’ shape and comprise of 15 retail warehouse units in two terraces parallel to the northern and eastern boundaries, with an additional 3 retail units on the Gilda Brook Road frontage.  The 15 retail warehouse units have a total floorspace of 14,631sqm (gross) and are restricted to non-food retail; as such they are occupied by HMV, Clarks, Dreams Beds, Next, Au Naturale and WH Smith.  Whilst the 3 units on the Gilda Brook Road frontage have a total floorspace of 1148sqm (gross) they do not have a non-food restriction and are occupied by McDonalds, Subway and Carphone Warehouse.  At present there are a number of vacancies within the retail park with only 43% of the units occupied.

At present there are 603 car parking spaces, which are accessed via a ramped signalised vehicular access from Gilda Brook Road.  Pedestrian access to the site is via steps at the north west corner of the site (adjacent to HMV) and to the west adjacent to Carphone Warehouse together with a level access from the northeast corner adjacent to the Ladywell Metrolink Station.  This route dissects the rear service arrangements and accesses the retail park via the gap between each of the two terrace of units.

There is a significant change in levels between the northern and southern boundaries (i.e. between Eccles New Road and Centenary Way).  Moreover, the apartments scheme to the east is approximately 2m higher than the application site whereas the office developments on Centenary Way are approximately 7m lower than the application site.

Description of Proposal

The scheme comprises of four components; the provision of a new foodstore following the demolition of the northern terrace containing 5 non-food retail units; the provision of a new footbridge; alterations to the front facades of the remaining retail units and other associated elements of the development including car parking and landscaping.

New Foodstore

It is proposed that the foodstore would be developed on a similar footprint to the existing northern terrace which would be demolished.  The proposed store would have a gross floorspace of 8,213sqm and a net sales area of 5,415sqm.  The sales area would be at first floor level supported on a structure of stilts.  This arrangement enables the area below the store to provide additional undercroft car parking spaces.

The proposal would measure 15m in height, 129m in length and 70m in width.  The proposed roof line would be 4m taller that the ridge height of the remaining units.  It will comprise a mixture of glazed and timber panels intersected by columns.  The frontage of the store would comprise a glazed atrium overlooking the existing surface level car park.  There would be an external platform outside the store providing access to the footbridge.  The ground level car park and retail units will be accessed from the platform via a lift and travellator.

Alterations to existing elevations

The proposal includes alterations to the facades of the units contained within the terrace of units which are located to the east of the site which would be retained.  The proposal seeks to provide continuity of appearance between the proposed Tesco and remaining units.

The overall retail floor area of these units (8,610sqm gross) will not change.

Footbridge

The proposals include the provision of a new pedestrian bridge across Gilda Brook Road.  The bridge would ‘take off’ from land adjacent to the roundabout which is currently hard landscaped with some trees.  The bridge would provide the option of stairs and lift access to pedestrians on both the western side of Gilda Brook Road (town centre side) and the development side prior to entry into the new Tesco.  It would link to an external platform created outside of the new store at first floor level.  Further internal lifts and stair access would be provided directly to the shopping centre’s ground floor level in addition to a travellator.

The bridge would be 5.7m above ground at its highest point and would be constructed of steel.  The lifts would be clad in timber panelling to match the feature elements on the proposed store.  Hoop and rib detailing would articulate the appearance of the bridge.  The bridge has been amended from that first submitted.  The amendments have removed the ramped access from the Town Centre side and replaced it with a lift on both sides of the highway.

The bridge would be private and would not be adopted by the Local Highway Authority.  As such, the long-term maintenance arrangements for the bridge would remain with the applicant.

The application is supported by the following technical reports:

•	Planning Statement 
•	Retail Study (including addendum)
•	Regeneration and Economic Statement (including addendum)
•	Transport Statement and Travel Plan
•	Design and Access Statement
•	Linkage Improvements Document
•	Statement of Community Involvement
•	Sustainability Checklist
•	Air Quality Assessment
•	Foul Sewerage and Utilities Statement

Other associated elements

Overall the car parking at the site would be increased to 1005 spaces.  This would represent an increase of 402 spaces on the existing provision of 603 spaces.  The additional car parking would be provided beneath the new store and land to the south of the site which is currently a grassed mound.  The car parking provision would include 43 spaces for disabled users and 24 for young families.  An additional 32 cycle parking spaces would be provided together with spaces for motorcycles.  The parking areas would be intersected by landscaping and trolley bays.

Vehicular access would remain from Gilda Brook Road for visitors and servicing.  Servicing to the new Tesco store would be via the same route to the rear of the remaining terrace.  However, the proposed service area for the new Tesco store would be elevated to first floor level to the north eastern corner.  A ramp would provide access from the servicing area between the rear of the remaining terrace of units and the western common boundary shared with the partially completed residential apartment scheme.

Existing pedestrian access points would be retained and enhanced together with a new pedestrian access from Centenary Way and new footpaths adjacent to the existing vehicular access.  The elevation fronting Centenary Way would include gabions as a retaining wall incorporating landscaping.

The store would have 24 hour opening.

Relevant Site History

In 1995 outline planning permission was granted for the erection of non food retail development (13,000 sq. m), restaurant and drive thru'/ fast food outlet, associated car parking and highway works (95/33584/OUT).  Attached to the permission was a restrictive condition in relation to the sales of food.  Condition 5 of that permission states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, this permission does not relate to the use of the site and buildings for the purposes of food retailing.       

In 1997, planning permission was granted for the construction of new car parking area and internal roadway (97/36189/FUL)

In 2000, details of the siting, design and external appearance of a 13,000 sq.m non-food retail park together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new, and alteration to existing, vehicular accesses was approved (00/40845/REM)

In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of 7500 sq.ft single storey retail unit together with associated car parking (01/42482/FUL)

In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of 12,500 sq.ft single storey food court (Class A3) with associated facilities (01/42483/FUL)

Works to improve accessibility and permeability

In 1998, planning permission was granted for the construction of new access ramp and canopy to front elevation, together with roller shutter door to existing front entrance (98/38246/FUL)

There have also been a number of advertisement consents relating to individual units within West One.

Other Relevant Planning History

Members will be aware that planning permission has been granted for 262 apartments on the neighbouring site to the east.  Part of the scheme has been implemented with the block fronting Eccles New Road recently started (04/48052/OUT, 07/55686/REM, & 08/57174/FUL)

Members will also be aware that planning permission for a five storey office building (Morson International) has been granted to the south of the site which has recently been completed and occupied (07/55829/FUL).

Members will also note that another application for food retailing (albeit in outline) appears on this agenda.  Application 09/58041/OUT seeks outline consent for means of access for the partial redevelopment of the Eccles Shopping Centre to provide a foodstore (use class A1), multi-storey car park, servicing and vehicular access and landscaping.

Publicity

Site Notice: Article 8 site notice	Date Displayed: 17 June 2009

Site Notice: Article 8 site notice	Date Displayed: 17 March 2009

Press Advert: IN Salford	Date Published: 13 April 2009
Reason: Article 8 Standard Press Notice

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

1- 22 (cons) Baric Close
35 – 37, 47 – 65, 52, 54A, Housing Office Regent Street
640, 665-669 Eccles New Road
1 Centenary Way
11 Exeter Avenue
1 – 22 (cons) Northavon Close
1 – 28 (cons) Kerrier Close
1 – 11 (odd) Kearton Drive
1 – 15 (con), 15 –23 (odd) Hunterston Avenue
21 – 31 (odd) Lane End
Craunton House (all units), Ewood House (all units), Cremer House St Marys Road
Squires Court (all units), Friars Court (all units), Knights Court (all units), Reeves Court (all units) Canterbury Gardens

Following a request from the Weaste and Seedley Community Committee details of the scheme were presented to the committee together with questions and answers.  A presentation was also given by Tesco regarding job creation based on similar size of food store in Manchester.

The committee resolved:
(1) THAT the presentations be noted.

(2) THAT members of the local community provide Kurt Partington [case officer for the application] with details of any further questions or comments in respect of the application.

It was also noted at the meeting that a number of the apartments on the site of the former Weaste Quarry had become occupied since the submission of the application and may not be aware of the proposals.  Following the committee additional site notices were displayed around the entrances to the apartment blocks.

Representations

15 letters of objection, 41 letters of support and 4 letters raising general points have been received in response to the planning application publicity.  The count identifies the number of responses from householders or businesses although multiple letters have been received from some interested parties.  The representations represent a mixture of residents and traders from the local area including an objection on behalf of Salford Shopping City, one on behalf of Threadneedle (owners of the Mall in Eccles Town Centre) and one on behalf of Morrison’s.  The following issues have been raised:-

Objections

Objection to the footbridge
Gilda Brook Road heavily used and there have been incidents of yobs throwing items from bridges already
Unlikely to be used by pedestrians
There is an existing alternative to footbridge – that being to hop onto the Metrolink
Footbridge will be left to abuse
Youth nuisance
Litter
Cost of the footbridge
Future maintenance will be left to the taxpayer
There is no need for another supermarket with Morrison’s nearby
Canterbury Gardens should not be used for overnight parking of lorries or for additional ‘pick up’
Noise pollution
Insufficient free parking
The collection of the stores waste should not be a burden on the local authority
Impact upon W H Smith (existing store on West One)
Not necessary for another foodstore
Large scale store out of character with Eccles
A waste to demolish existing units
Extra traffic
Result in loss of jobs within town centre
Salford precinct needs the superstore not Eccles
Would effect Co-operative travel business which is located in Eccles Town Centre 
Lack of information in the submission (This point is not understood as supporting information has been made available on-line and at the reception of Urban Vision)
The elevation fronting ‘Langworthy New Road’ is uninspiring (presume author means Eccles New Road)
Would fragment Eccles Town Centre
New Tesco store should be located within the old Wilkinsons store
Illumination of any adverts

Support

‘Best thing to happen to Eccles’
Will give competition to Morrisons
Welcome the application as a whole but have concerns regarding footbridge

General Points

Existing vehicular access is narrow and should be improved
The footbridge should be covered
There are already a number of supermarkets within 10/15 minutes of Eccles

Councillor Ainsworth has suggested that any S106 monies should be used to upgrade the access by way of a lift at Eccles train station.  He has also provided comments on the possible route of the shuttle bus service which is offered by the applicant and raises whether S106 contributions could be used to widen the pavement adjacent to an existing bus stop on Gilda Brook Road (to the north of the M602).

Summary of Objection from Salford Shopping City (including comments in relation to additional information and amended plans)

The objection provides a detailed overview of the appropriate development plan policies relevant to retail provision.  They conclude that the site is ‘out-of-centre’.   The objection then details each of the tests within PPS6 and highlights why the scheme is contrary to each of those tests and therefore contrary to PPS6.

A second letter has been received which acknowledges the additional information provided by the applicant but reiterates the objection to the proposals on the basis that the scheme would not accord with the provisions of PPS6.

Summary of Objection from Threadneedle (including comments in relation to additional information and amended plans)

Threadneedle is the owner of The Mall element of Eccles Town Centre.  The objection submitted on their behalf raises issues relating to the submitted technical retail impact assessment and the interpretation provided similar to points raised from Salford Shopping City.  However, in this case, the main objection indicates that the proposal fails the sequential test as they (Threadneedle’s agents) are in dialogue with officers of the Council and Urban Vision regarding a town centre foodstore which would be sequentially preferable and therefore the current proposal cannot pass the tests set out in PPS6.

Whilst it is not necessary to submit a formal application to demonstrate that there is a sequentially preferable site, consideration of the suitability, viability and availability is an appropriate consideration the owner of The Mall have now submitted an outline application for a foodstore (Ref: 09/58041/OUT).

A third letter has also been received which disputes the role that the bridge would have to provide linked trips.  They assert that the proposal would merely clawback trade from one out-of-centre location to another and not benefit the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre.

They also reiterate the comments of the Police ALO (detailed fully below) regarding the footbridge and highlight the DDA provisions should the lifts be out of order.

They also highlight that the landing of the bridge is on land owned by the Council.

Further to previous letters which highlight what they believe to be a sequentially ‘in centre’ preferable site they assert the provisions of PPS6 which highlights that it is the applicants responsibility to demonstrate the relevant three tests; those being suitability, viability and availability.

Summary of Objection from Morrisons

The detailed objection on behalf of Morrions also includes a summary.  Their summary is set out below:

“In summary, we consider that this application fails the key tests set out in PPS6, as follows:

•	The applicant’s assessment of quantitive need is flawed and therefore is unable to demonstrate that need exists for this proposal;
•	We do not considered that there is a clear qualitative need for the additional food retail provision in Eccles;
•	The sequential test has not been robustly applied and we consider that the omission of the allocated food retail site in Pendleton is a serious flaw; and
•	The store, if approved, will detract trade from the existing in-centre Morrisons store.  This will impact on the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre, which is already recognised as vulnerable.”

Consultations

Trafford M B C - No comments received to date.

City of Manchester - No comments received to date.

The Highways Agency - Having given the application due consideration we can inform you that the Highways Agency has no objections to the application being granted as there will be no impact on the highways network.

Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company - Highlight the key priorities of the URC and state that the proposal would have negligible impact upon those key projects

The Chief Executive - Economic Development - No comments received to date.

G M Passenger Transport Executive -.The site is well served by the Metrolink and the number 33 bus service along Eccles New Road to the north of the site.  With this in mind it should be ensured that the pedestrian environment between the site and the nearby public transport facilities is designed to be as safe and convenient as possible.  The proposed new footbridge will be beneficial in this respect.

The also advise that the construction on the site including demolition should be co-ordinated with their Metrolink team to ensure any disruption is kept to a minimum.

Environment Agency -.No objection standard advice provided regarding the use of conditions

United Utilities -.No objections in principle.  Advice provided regarding separate drainage system and surface water.

Health and Safety Executive -A PADHI consultation exercise has been undertaken given that the site lies within the consultation distance set from a hazardous installations within Trafford Park 'Cerestar' the HSE do not advise against granting planning permission

Head of Engineering and Highways -{ Drainage Engineer } There is a culverted watercourse ( Gilda Brook)  and also a public sewer passing under/ close to the East Bridge support, that will need designing around and a formal building over agreement with United Utilities for the sewer and Technical approval from Salford City Council

Urban Vision Environment -No objection subject to the provision of a condition to safeguard against the potential of ground gases.  

They advise that this development will have effects on local air quality.  However, they advise that in order to minimise the impact on air quality the site should be controlled as far as possible and suggest conditions.

In relation to noise UVE recommend that the deliveries to the new store are restricted to between the hours of 07.00 and 23.00

Design For Security -I have no objection to the proposed food store as such but there are aspects of the design of the store that I do not support. In particular, I question the requirement for the bridge over Gilda Brook Road

Spatial Planning 1st Floor Salford Civic Centre - No comments received to date.

Miller Goodall Environmental Services Limited - No comments received to date.

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP1 - Spatial Principles
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP2 - Promote Sustainable Communities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP3 - Promote Sustainable Communities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP4 - Best Use of Existing Resources
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP5 - Manage Travel Demand
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP6 - Marry Opportunity and Need
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP7 - Promote Environmental Quality
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP8 - Mainstreaming Rural Issues
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP9 - Reduce Emmissions, Adapt to Climate Cha
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy W1 - Waste Management
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy W5 - Retail Development
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy MCR1 - Manchester City Region Priorities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy MCR2 - Regional Centre, Inner Manchester City
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy EM18 - Decentralised Energy Supply
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST9  -  Retail, Leisure, Social Community Prov
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES3  -  Design of Public Space
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES7  -  Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES9  -  Landscaping
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES10  -  Design and Crime
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A2  -  Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A8  -  Impact of Development on Highway Network
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A10  -  Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Park
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN17  -  Pollution Control
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN19  -  Flood Risk and Surface Water
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST14  -  Global Environmental
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN22  -  Resource Conservation

Other Material Considerations

Planning Policy Guidance - PPG13 Transport
Planning Policy Statement - PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement - PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
Planning Policy Statement - PPS12 Local Development Frameworks
Supplementary Planning Document - Trees and Development SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Design SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime SPD

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS1 states that sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by: making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people's quality of life; contributing to sustainable economic development; protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality of the countryside and existing communities; ensuring high quality development; and supporting existing communities and contributing to the creation of safe, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all. On sustainable economic development, local authorities should recognise that economic development can deliver environmental and social benefits; that they should also recognise the wider sub regional and regional economic benefits and that these should be considered alongside any adverse local impacts.

Paragraph 13 advises that “The Government is committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and to …promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion and creating equal opportunity for all citizens.”

Paragraph 14 advises “Regeneration of the built environment alone cannot deal with poverty, inequality and social exclusion. These issues can only be addressed through the better integration of all strategies and programmes, partnership working and effective community involvement.”

Paragraph 28 of PPS1 advises that planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Paragraph 29 of PPS1 acknowledges that in some circumstances, a planning authority may decide in reaching a decision to give different weight to social, environmental, resource or economic considerations. Where this is the case the reasons for doing so should be explicit and the consequences considered. Adverse environmental, social and economic impacts should be avoided, mitigated or compensated for.  

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

On 29 December 2009, central government published PPS4 – ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’.  The statement provides new national guidance in respect of all economic activity by amalgamating policies concerning employment and town centre uses in one document.  PPS6 has therefore been superseded

The principal aims of PPS4 are to encourage sustainable economic development based upon:

•	Building prosperous communities by improving economic performance;
•	Reducing the disparities in regional economic growth rates, promoting regeneration and tackling deprivation; 
•	Delivering sustainable patterns of development, reducing the need to travel and responding to climate change; and
•	Protecting the vitality and viability of town centres. (paras. 9/10)

Local planning authorities are required to adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and are advised that planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably (Policy EC10.1).

PPS4 provides a number of “Development Management Policies” to be considered in respect of planning applications involving economic development including retail.  The following policies are relevant to consider in respect of the proposals at West One:

•	Policy EC10 “Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development” 
•	Policy EC14 “Supporting Evidence for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses”
•	Policy EC15 “The Consideration of Sequential Assessments for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan;
•	Policy EC16 “The Impact Assessment for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan”;
•	Policy EC17 “The Consideration of Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan”;
•	Policy EC18 “Application of Car Parking Standards for Non-Residential Development”; and
•	Policy EC19 “The Effective Use of Conditions for Main Town Centre Uses”

PPG13: Transport

The main objective of PPG13 is to promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and moving freight. It aims to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and reduce the need to travel, particularly by car. For retail and leisure developments policies should seek to promote the vitality and viability of town centres, which should be the preferred locations for new retail and leisure development. Preference should be given first to town centres then edge of centre and then on out of centre sites in locations which are (or will be) well served by public transport.

Appraisal

It is considered that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed food retail element of the development is acceptable in retail planning policy terms; whether the design scale and massing is appropriate, whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposal would have any impact upon highway safety; whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposed loss of trees is acceptable.  Each of the issues shall be considered in turn below. 

Principle of Food Retail Provision

Policy ST9 states: that the provision of a comprehensive and accessible range of retail, leisure, social and community facilities will be secured by: 
1.	protecting and enhancing the vitality and viability of existing town centres and neighbourhood centres, as defined on the proposals map; 
2.	adopting a sequential approach to the location of new retail and leisure development; and 
3.	facilitating enhanced education, health and community provision that meets local needs.
RSS Policy W5 sets out the regional hierarchy in terms of the regional centres and main towns. This allows for investment of an appropriate scale in centres not specifically identified within the policy in order to maintain and enhance their vitality and viability, including investment to underpin wider regeneration initiatives, to ensure that centres meet the needs of local communities.

This application was validated in March 2009 and therefore the information submitted was, in the first instance, drafted to demonstrate the position of PPS6.  However, following the issue of PPS4 on the 29th December 2009 the applicant has provided a PPS4 Supplementary Statement which draws together the key elements of the information submitted and highlights where it would be consistent with PPS4 (this is a requirement of PPS4 – Policy EC14).

The most recent citywide retail assessment for Salford was completed in 2003 and is acknowledged to be somewhat out of date.  An updated citywide retail study for Salford has been commissioned although has not been finalised.  Therefore, in order to consider the implications of the principle of the retail development without an up to date retail capacity study, the Council has appointed Alyn Nicholls and Associates as an independent retail consultant to advise upon the technical aspects of the retail case.  The application was accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) dated February 2009 and additional information dated July 2009 following dialogue with officers and Alyn Nicholls.  The assessment from Alyn Nicholls provides advice on the submitted information in relation to matters arising from PPS6.  

Specific commercial advice has also been sought from DPP (Commercial Advisors) regarding the commercial suitability of the promoted sequentially preferable alternative site within the town centre (the Mall application).  This advice is highlighted later in this report.

The main retail changes in PPS4 relate to the treatment of retail need and capacity.  At a strategic level it is no longer considered appropriate to assess convenience retail need.  This should be done at the local development framework level only.  Comparison retail need, leisure need and office needs are the main elements of economic development to be considered at a strategic or regional level.

The need test for the determination of applications for retail development has been dropped but greater emphasis is placed on retail impact and the sequential test is strongly re-affirmed.  However, as this proposal (and that which also appears on the agenda within the centre, ‘The Mall’) was submitted prior to the issue of PPS4, the submitted RIA demonstrates that there is need arising within the Eccles area for a new foodstore this is a view shared with the Council’s retail consultant.  However, in the future this element of planning for retail provision will be set out within the local development framework.

The RIA and supplementary notes are considered to be a full appraisal of the retail issues that surround this proposal and in particular the potential the development has to impact upon established retail centres including Eccles Town Centre.  The supplementary note was prepared following discussions involving the Councils retail adviser and the applicant’s team and the final documents relating to PPS4 was provided following its issue.  However, a number of concerns have been raised in response to the application publicity relating to matters arising from the five tests set out in PPS6 and more recently PPS4.

It is worthy to note that in this particular case, there is no ‘fall-back position’ which would enable any of the individual warehouse units at West One to be used for food retail, as a restrictive condition was attached to the original planning approval. It was considered that a restrictive condition preventing the sale of food was necessary to safeguard the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre.  It is also appropriate to note that it was PPG6 that was the main retail policy guidance note at the time of that approval.  PPG6 was replaced by PPS6 which has now been superseded by PPS4.  The restrictive condition on the original consent states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, this permission does not relate to the use of the site and buildings for the purposes of food retailing

The Council’s retail consultant has provided an assessment based on all of the available information submitted with the application.  The following is the ‘Overall Conclusions’ of the Council’s retail consultant having assessed all of the submitted retail impact assessment in relation to PPS6 (it is considered appropriate to retain these overall conclusions and annotate elements which may no longer be relevant in terms of PPS4 before considering the proposal against the relevant development management policies of PPS4 which will include elements of the retail advisors advice:

“The response by G L Hearn [G L Hearn are the applicants retail advisor] to the issues raised in our initial appraisal of the Retail Assessment submitted in support of the planning application has dealt with the majority of points.  In particular, they have commented on the matters raised with regard to the estimates of available expenditure and the turnover of existing shops and floorspace.  There remain areas of disagreement with regard to these two aspects of the Retail Assessment.  First, with regard to per capita expenditure, we consider that the estimates produced by G L Hearn are probably too high because they have adopted an optimistic growth rate and made insufficient allowance for non-store retail activity (internet shopping).  With regard to the turnover of centres, we consider that they have under-estimated the average or bench mark turnover derived from the defined study area.  Consequently, the capacity to accommodate the proposed development is less clear cut than indicated by G L Hearn.  It is acknowledged there is a qualitative need for development at Eccles which arises from high levels of trade at Morrisons and outflows of expenditure from Eccles to ASDA at Trafford Park.  

With regard to the issue of scale, in our Report of April 2009 we commented that the evidence of qualitative need to support a development of the scale proposed was not convincing.  G L Hearn have not produced any additional work or analysis that relates specifically to the issue of scale.  However, the analysis of capacity within the Eccles zone indicates that the scale of the proposed convenience floorspace within the proposed development can be justified.

Whilst the advise highlights that there is a need for food retail development within the Eccles area (although ‘less clear cut’) and that there is capacity for such provision, PPS4 no longer requires that individual planning proposals demonstrate these points.  However, without an up to date Retail Capacity Study for the City (which would influence the preparation of strategic plan preparation) it is necessary to understand whether or not there is a need for food retailer and that there is capacity within the area to draw conclusions as to whether or not the proposal is of an appropriate scale.  Therefore, notwithstanding the timing of issue of PPS4, the points are considered relevant in the decision making process in this instance and that the Council’s retail advisor is of the opinion that the scale of the proposal is justified.

His advise goes on:

“In terms of the sequential approach to site selection, G L Hearn have now provided additional information addressing whether there are sites available within Swinton, Stretford, Urmston and Salford Precinct.  Their analysis indicates that there are no sites on which to accommodate a large foodstore within or adjoining an existing centre.  With regard to Salford Precinct, G L Hearn assert that as this is included as a commitment, it is not examined further as a sequentially preferable option.  In our view this is clearly a sequentially preferable site.  However, the implementation of the Unitary Development Plan allocation at Salford Precinct would not meet the qualitative need arising at Eccles.  Consequently, Salford as a location is not appropriate to meet the need which has been identified.

PPS4 has placed greater emphasis the sequential approach and, given that the owners of the Mall have raised their site as a suitable alternative within the town centre than the west one site, it is clearly and important consideration.  Since the retail advisor provided his comments the Mall scheme has been submitted as a formal planning application.  Both PPS6 and PPS4 require consideration of possible sequentially preferable sites in terms of suitability, availability and viability.  The assessment later in this report fully appraises the Mall proposal in the context of these tests together with the relevant policies of PPS4.

His advise goes on:

“Turning to trade diversion from existing centres, in our Report of April 2009 we noted that the G L Hearn assessment accompanying the planning application focussed on Eccles Town Centre when estimating trade diversion.  We noted that G L Hearn did not consider the cumulative effects of the proposed development together with commitments for shopping developments which were identified elsewhere within the Retail Assessment.  G L Hearn have provided additional work assessing the cumulative impact on Eccles Town Centre for some of the commitments identified for the purposes of the retail analysis.  The additional cumulative impact arising from those developments which G L Hearn have considered would add an additional £1.5 million to the trade diverted from Eccles Town Centre (based on G L Hearn's assessment).  This would add about 2% to the total trade diversion resulting in it being in the order of 30% (based on our assessment).  We noted in our Report of April 2009 that even with such high levels of trade diversion, the Morrisons store within the town centre is still likely to trade at a healthy level notwithstanding trade diversion to the proposed Tesco.

In our Report of April 2009 we noted that the proposed development would result in the relocation of significant shopping activity from the town centre to West One Retail Park.  We concluded that there were unlikely to be substantive benefits to the town centre arising from new or linked trips generally by the proposal and that it was unlikely to support the vitality and viability of the town centre.  G L Hearn have not produced any evidence or further information to show that there would be spin-off benefits arising from the proposed development that would compensate for the high levels of trade diversion likely to arise.

In summary, the proposed development would have a significant impact on Morrisons at Eccles and lead to a relocation of shopping activity from the town centre to West One Retail Park.  However, Morrisons is unlikely to close as, on the basis of our analysis it will continue to trade at a level marginally above company average.  Clearly, the issue of the effect of the proposed development on Eccles Town Centre is highly material.

The relevant policy tests are as follows [members will note that many of these tests are still relevant in terms of PPS4]:

•	 Paragraph 1.3 of PPS6 indicates that a key objective of Government for town centres is to promote their vitality and viability.  In particular it refers to the promotion and enhancement of existing centres.

•	Paragraph 3.4 of PPS6 indicates that there should be no unacceptable impacts on existing centres.

•	Paragraph 3.22 of PPS6 sets out those matters local authorities should take into account when considering the impact of development.  These include:

(a)	the risk to the Spatial Planning Strategy for the Area and the Strategy for the particular centre;

(b)	impact on future public or private sector investment;

(c)	impact on trade/turnover;

(d)	changes to the range of services provided by the centre;

(e)	likely impact on the number of vacant properties; and

(f)	potential changes to the quality, attractiveness and physical condition and character of the centre.

•	Policy W5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy promotes investment where it will support regeneration and economic growth of existing centres and that it should not undermine the vitality and viability of any other centre.  It also notes that developments in centres which are not specifically identified as the main centres for comparison shopping, will be encouraged in order to maintain and enhance their vitality and viability.

•	Policy S2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan indicates that permission will be granted for development where it can be clearly demonstrated there will be no unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of any centre.

The policy test is therefore a question of whether there is harm to the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre.  It should be noted that RSS policy encourages development within existing centres where it would enhance the vitality and viability of that centre.  There is however no grounds to object to development if the scheme diverts substantial trade from the existing centre but does not materially harm the vitality and viability of the centre. This point is still evident in terms of PPS4 but PPS4 places greater emphasis on impact of development upon existing centres.

In terms of the considerations set out in paragraph 3.22 of PPS6, first there is no clear statement within Unitary Development Plan policy that an objective is to enhance centres generally or more specifically enhance Eccles Town Centre.  The proposal would not have any significant impact on the role of Eccles in the hierarchy of centres.  The proposal is likely to compromise the potential for private sector investment within the town centre in respect of food retail provision.  However, we have noted that our understanding is there is no evidence that a viable scheme within Eccles incorporating a foodstore will emerge.  The proposed development may also comprise the potential for non-food development within the town centre.  However, the decision of the Council to grant planning permission for West One Retail Park for non-food retailing would undermine any argument that these proposals could have the effect of inhibiting investment in non-food shopping within Eccles Town Centre.  With regard to the impact on trade and turnover within the centre, we have noted that they would lead to a significant reduction in retail activity within the centre.  Notwithstanding this, Morrisons would bear the brunt of trading impact and this would continue to trade at a level at or above company average.

There is no evidence that the proposed development would lead to a reduction in the range of services provided by Eccles Town Centre nor that it would lead directly to an increase in the number of vacant properties within the primary shopping area.  The proposals are unlikely to have a damaging impact on the quality, attractiveness, physical condition and character of the centre or to its role in the economic and social life of the community.

In respect of impact, the proposal would result in a significant relocation of shopping activity from Eccles Town Centre to West One Retail Park.  However, evidence suggests that Morrisons, who would experience the brunt of the trading impact, are trading at a level significantly above company average and they would continue to trade at a healthy level if the proposed Tesco at West One Retail Park was developed.  We conclude that the proposal would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre although it must be recognised that the application is likely to render it difficult to secure enhancement of the centre in the future.

Overall, having regard to the policy tests arising within PPS6 and the Development Plan we consider that there are no grounds on the basis of retail policy to refuse the proposed development.”

Discussions on Council’s retail advice

Elements of retail impact assessments are often based upon data sets which are held in different formats.  Moreover, experts who write and assess such documents often utilise different methods in their preparation and assessment.  The assessments also require an amount of interpretation and estimation.  Therefore, it is normal for different retail experts to reach the same conclusions whilst differing in the respective approach.  Members will note that the Council’s retail consultant does not always agree with elements of the assessment but does agree that the assessment as a whole complies with the provisions of PPS6 elements of which are still relevant in terms of PPS4.  An assessment of the relevant development management policies are set out below:

•	Policy EC10 “Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development” 
•	Policy EC14 “Supporting Evidence for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses”
•	Policy EC15 “The Consideration of Sequential Assessments for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan;
•	Policy EC16 “The Impact Assessment for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan”;
•	Policy EC17 “The Consideration of Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan”;
•	Policy EC18 “Application of Car Parking Standards for Non-Residential Development”; and
•	Policy EC19 “The Effective Use of Conditions for Main Town Centre Uses”
 
Policy EC10 Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development

Policy EC10.1 encourages local planning authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. It states that planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.

Policy EC10.2 states that all planning applications for economic development should be assessed against five impact considerations.  These are considered below cross referenced to other sections of this report where detailed consideration is set out:

a.	whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change 

The Design and Access statement identifies a combination of measures to tackle climate change and to meet Tesco’s objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions within their new developments by approximately 50%.  The development has been designed to be one of Tesco’s “Environmental Stores” and to provide a BREEAM rating of good.  Further details of the sustainable merits of the scheme are set out in the ‘Sustainable Development’ section of this report which highlights specific sustainable measures.

Therefore, it is considered that the scheme includes a number of measures that will have a positive impact in relation to climate change and reduced carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with policy EC10.2 a of PPS4.

b.	the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured 

The application proposals are supported by a full Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.  The details of which are discussed later in this report ‘Car Parking, Access and General Accessibility’.  In summary, that section sets out that the scheme is:

•	Acceptable in terms of highway capacity and highway safety considerations;
•	Well placed to facilitate multi-purpose trips both within the site and to/from the adjoining town centre (including bus hopper service secured by S106 agreement ‘Developer Contributions’ section of this report);
•	Accessible to those travelling by modes of transport other than the car;
•	Have suitable servicing arrangements and circulation space to allow deliveries to be carried out with minimal conflict to customer and staff traffic; and
•	Served by appropriate levels of parking.

Additionally, the Linkage Improvements document demonstrates that the proposals incorporate the following measures to maximise opportunities for sustainable access:

•	Footbridge - Providing a safe and convenient pedestrian route over Gilda Brook Road to maximise the potential for linked trips with the town centre;
•	Environmental - Improvements to the pedestrian environment at street level including signage, paving, landscaping and public art to reinforce linkages with the town centre;
•	Pedestrian Crossing - Options to improve the existing pedestrian crossing over Gilda Brook Road including upgraded surface material and traffic islands and re-phasing crossing signals.
•	Hopper Bus - Operation of a bus service between West One, central Eccles and Hope Hospital to increase potential for linked trips throughout the area.
•	Centenary Way - Introduction of a new pedestrian linkage to serve existing and future commercial development to the west of the site;
•	Metro - Enhancement of the link between West One and the Ladywell tram stop to encourage greater use of public transport;
•	Footpaths - Provision of additional footpaths to prevent conflict with vehicles and improve general permeability.

Accordingly, it is considered that the planning application proposals will have positive impacts in relation to sustainable accessibility and will not have an adverse impact on traffic levels and congestion in accordance with policy EC10.2 b of PPS4

c.	whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions 

The Design and Access Statement considers the physical aspects of the proposed development relative to the site and its local context.  The details of which are discussed later in this report ‘Design, Scale and Massing’ and ‘Design and Crime’.  The report demonstrates that:

•	The proposed foodstore and footbridge will establish high quality distinctive architecture at a prominent gateway location that will significantly improve the identity, image and awareness of Eccles town centre.
•	The buildings are designed to allow the best possible access by all available modes of transport, and giving high priority to pedestrian access;
•	The development will facilitate a socially inclusive environment that creates an attractive and convenient buildings for all sectors of the community including the disabled and those with other mobility problems;
•	Pedestrian links and car parks will include attractive lighting, landscaping, surface materials and signage to encourage use and enhance the pedestrian environment.
•	The scale of the development is appropriate to the application site having regard to the existing retail function and other buildings at the site;

Accordingly, it is considered that the scheme will have a positive impact by securing high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions in accordance with policy EC10.2 c of PPS4

d.	the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives 

The Regeneration and Economic Statement identifies that the area surrounding the site suffers from high levels of deprivation and is one such community where regeneration is a priority to prevent further problems of decay and address issues of poor health, crime, low attainment and unemployment.

The proposal offers the ability to deliver the physical regeneration of the West One by:

•	Creating a sense of place and orientation which the current development fails to achieve;
•	Replacing the most prominent building with attractive contemporary structures of high quality design and materials;
•	Providing a landmark building at the gateway to Eccles town centre to enhance the identity and image of the area;
•	Provision of a footbridge over Gilda Book Road improving connectivity with the town centre;
•	Other improvements to and within the site to enhance legibility and general accessibility.

West One is only 43% occupied and has failed to attract large floorplate retailers due to the proximity of competing schemes outside of the Eccles area (Trafford Park and Trafford Centre).  In terms of economic regeneration, the Tesco proposal will:

•	comprise a £30m investment at a prominent location within Eccles that will enhance the identify and image of the centre and attract other investment;
•	allow existing retailers to be rationalised within a single terrace thereby preventing the continued decline of the retail park;
•	allow Eccles to claw back significant expenditure and economic activity current attracted elsewhere;
•	stimulate economic activity in terms of jobs and shopper activity that will have positive spin off benefits for the adjoining town centre and wider community;

The proposal will also promote social inclusivity by providing:

•	Access for all including provision including those with disabilities and other mobility problems;
•	Attractive buildings and linkages that provide legibility and orientation and are welcoming and convenient for people to use;
•	Training and employment opportunities for all sectors of the community regardless of age, gender, race, education or social status;
•	Operations focused on the user in terms of convenience, security and service;
•	Improved competition resulting in better choice and value for money for the consumer.

Accordingly the planning application proposals will result in a positive impact on economic and physical regeneration in a deprived area and contribute positively towards social inclusion objectives in accordance with policy EC10.2 d of PPS4.

e.	the impact on local employment

The Regeneration and Economic Statement (as updated) identifies that the proposal will contribute positively to addressing priority issues of high unemployment and poor attainment in and around Eccles through implementation of Tesco’s Regeneration Partnership scheme.

The proposal represents a significant investment in the area with a particular focus on training and reaching disadvantaged groups and the long term unemployed.  Direct provision of 400-450 permanent jobs will be provided within the Tesco store across a range of skills of which at least 50% will be ring fenced for the local community. Approximately 185 existing jobs will be safeguarded by preventing the further decline of West One.

Tesco’s established recruitment and training programme is designed to help revitalise disadvantaged communities such as Eccles where lack of economic opportunity has led to a range of social problems and low investment.  Specific initiatives include:

•	Recruiting local people who have been unemployed for six months or more;
•	Working with Jobcentre Plus to provide job opportunities for the longer-term unemployed;
•	Help and advice on making the application and interview skills;
•	Assessment of aptitude rather than experience or existing qualifications; and
•	Guaranteed jobs following completion of a six-week training course;
•	Flexible working conditions to suit all sectors of the population.

Significant employment will be generated during the 18 month construction stage.  Up to 150 jobs will be accommodated on site at the height of the development process of which a significant proportion will come from the local labour market.  Once the store is up and running it will also place demands on local providers of goods and services (such as agricultural businesses, maintenance contractors, taxi firms etc) thereby generating indirect forms of employment.

Therefore, the planning application proposals will have a positive impact in relation to job creation and local employment considerations in accordance with policy EC10.2 e of PPS4.

Policy EC14 Supporting Evidence for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses

Policy EC14 considers the supporting evidence required for applications for main town centre uses and states in Policy EC14.3 that a sequential assessment (under Policy EC15) is required for main town centres uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date development plan. In this instance, the submitted Retail Assessment (February 2009) establishes within Paragraph 6.11 that with the introduction of the proposed footbridge the distance from the store to the primary shopping area would be some 315m, and this taken together with enhancements to the local environment which would offer a much more attractive route to the centre, means that the site would function as an edge of centre location. 

Therefore, a sequential assessment of town centre sites within the catchment area was prepared to support the planning application within the submitted Retail Assessment.

In addition, Policy EC14.4 states that an assessment addressing the impacts in Policy EC16.1 (retail impact) is required for planning applications for retail and leisure developments over 2,500m² gross floorspace which are not in a centre or in accordance with an up to date development plan. The issue of retail impact is considered later in this report.  Moreover, cumulative impact assessment has been considered by the Council’s retail consultant.

It is considered that appropriate levels of information has been submitted in order to fully appraise the merits of the scheme as required by policy EC14 of PPS4.

Policy EC15 The Consideration of Sequential Assessments for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan

The submitted retail impact assessment together with its addendum considered a number of alternative sites within the study area that were located in sequentially preferable locations than the out of centre location at West One.  It concluded that the applicant had appropriately considered all possible sequentially preferable sites and that only Pendleton represented a sequentially preferable alternative but one which would not meet the needs arising from Eccles.  However, it did acknowledge that the position may change.

The owners of the Mall in Eccles (Threadneedle) have highlighted through their objection to the scheme that their site, which comprises of part of the Mall, Multi storey car park and Eccles market represents a sequentially preferable alternative to the scheme at West One.  In fact, since the advice of the Council’s retail consultant a formal outline application has been submitted for a food retail scheme within the centre of Eccles Town Centre.  That application (09/58041/OUT) also appears on this agenda with a recommendation for approval.  The panel may have already determined the Mall application prior to the determination of the West One proposal.

Therefore, this section of the appraisal only considers the issues around the Mall scheme in terms of an alternative site as all others have been appraised and do not have submitted planning applications for food retailing.

Both PPS6 and PPS4 require sites promoted as sequentially preferable to be appraised in terms of suitability, availability and viability before granting edge of centre proposals or out of centre.  This consideration is not required when assessing in centre schemes.  Therefore, members will note that the Mall scheme does not include such a consideration.  However, as it is promoted as an alternative to the proposals of the scheme at West One it is necessary to consider whether or not the Mall proposal (which may have planning consent by the time this proposal is considered) is a scheme which is likely to be built i.e. whether it is suitable, available or viable.

It is not considered a sequentially preferable alternative if it fails any of these three tests.

Availability

A significant proportion of the site (multi storey car park and market) is leased to the City Council.  It is understood that discussions have been held with Threadneedle and the Council regarding the use of Council interests in bringing forward the Mall proposals.

However, no firm proposals have been submitted to the Council (as land owner) which would enable the Council to reach a formal decision on the use of Council assets.  The Lead Member for Property has therefore determined that at this stage, without firm proposals, the Council is not is a position to be able to dispose of its assets.

Therefore, in planning terms, the site is not considered as an available sequentially preferable site although it is acknowledged that this position could change through appropriate negotiation. 

Viability

The proposal is in outline at this stage without an operator identified.  No information has been provided regarding the viability of the proposal.  Moreover, it is acknowledged that the site is constrained and that the indicative layout plan provides car parking provision above the store which will be more costly to construct than surface car parking provision.  However, it is also acknowledged that as a scheme evolves the viability position would be clearer particularly if the position of availability is known.

Suitability

In suitability terms DPP (commercial consultants) have been commissioned to provide advice to the City Council as to whether the proposal represents a scheme which any food retailer would choose to operate from.  DDP have been chosen for their commercial experience and as they are not retained by any of the main food retailers.  However, they are experienced in the requirements of each of the main food operators.

There are a number of factors which will influence a main foodstore operator to locate on a site.

Whilst the large foodstore operators are reported to make large total profit sums, their operational profit margins are comparably low with Tesco at 5.9%, Morrisons at 4.6% and Sainsbury's at 3.6%. Investment decisions therefore need to be robust and will carefully examine the surrounding demographic profile, the neighbouring existing competitors in the area (considering their scale, quality, and form), build costs, and the ability for a site to deliver their own operational requirements.

The operational requirements of main foodstore operators has advanced significantly over the last 40 years. The efficient turnover of customers and stock is essential and this has influenced the layout and development of large foodstores over time where customer parking and service yard arrangements are typically located at grade and directly adjacent to the shop floor. This offers optimal operational layouts, construction costs, and customer satisfaction.

Tesco have built a number of 'store on stilt' models, where car parking is placed underneath a raised main shop floor, but in all instances the service yard and bulk store area is placed at the same level as the main shop floor. This is essential due to the high turnover of goods at a large foodstore, and the need to service areas such as in store operational bakeries, freezer units, etc.  Any impediments to the transfer of stock onto the shop floor are typically deemed unviable.  Variations from this model are rare and will only tend to exist in areas of significant footfall or i.e. Tesco Metro, Market Street, Manchester City Centre for example.

The assessment by DDP in respect of the Threadneedle site (the sequential in centre alternative) is set out below:

“Although the layout of the proposals is a reserved matter application, with only detailed permission sought for access at this stage, we have assessed the indicative layout of the proposals as illustrated on the submitted Proposed Floor Plans (dwg. no. P2771-201) and Site Masterplan (P2771-200).

The foodstore is split over two trading floors with a mezzanine level with internal links to the ground floor retail area and car parking above. The proposed mezzanine floor will occupy the substantial majority of the available floorplate (typically referred to as a full cover mezzanine) and this approach is untypical given the implications for the internal display of goods and the reduced intervisibility between the two levels.

A full cover trading mezzanine is untypical to foodstores, given that it requires occupiers to separate their display of goods in a way that fails to meet their preferred business model. As such this scheme offers a split level foodstore which due to the size of the store would require any operator to split sales of food goods over two floors or, alternatively, to restrict the mezzanine floor to non-food goods only. A general business model of a major food retailer would seek to mix non-food and food goods on the same trading floor.

This split level configuration of the store and numerous access points on different levels would result in poor customer circulation throughout the store and is likely to lead to poor levels of customer satisfaction which, given the proximity of the competing Morrisons Store to the south, will be a key consideration for any major food retailer. In addition, such an arrangement is likely to make store security extremely challenging and therefore prejudices occupier interest yet further.

As an optimal layout, a major food retailer would have an area of car parking in front of the store between the main access route and the store itself. This arrangement allows customers to view the availability of spaces before they commit to entering the site. The Threadneedle proposals do offer customer parking however these are not directly visible to motorists from any of the store frontages, most notably the only frontage which faces a vehicular route on Albert Road. A high proportion of customers visiting the store will do so using a private vehicle and due to the proximity of the Morrisons Store with its highly visible and accessible car park it is likely that many customers will choose visit the more accessible Morrisons store with its single level car park and easy access into the store.

The multi-storey car park will provide 449 spaces and achieves a parking ratio of 1:16 in line with Salford City Council's parking standards. These spaces will be used by customers visiting the town centre as well as the foodstore. As no spaces will be reserved solely for the foodstore customers, during peak times it is likely that parking on the site will be difficult. The Morrisons store, which achieves a parking ratio of approximately 1:14 and is used solely for the foodstore customers, is therefore more likely to be attractive to customers travelling by private car with parking available throughout the peak hours.

The proposed back of house area is to be located adjacent to the existing service access to the retail units (Nos. 20a, 20, 22, 24, 26), but there is no clarity as to how these would be serviced thereafter. Failure to do so would compromise their ongoing operation. Given this, we would suggest that it is important that the applicant provide information to clarify new service arrangements for these units.

The submitted Design & Access Statement gives an indicative breakdown of the proposed areas for the back of house (1,311m²) and trading floorspace (5,125m²) which forms the gross floor area for the retail unit excluding the circulation areas which are generally not included within the total of gross floorspace of a foodstore. Typically, the proportion of “back of house” would be larger (say 30-35%) for a food superstore and therefore suggests that the unit will be compromised from an operational point of view.

The distance between the main back of house area and main shop floor is inefficient. It should also be noted that the proposed shape of the back of house area is constricted, and in practice is likely to result in a reduction of usable floorspace for storage and servicing. The nature of the layout suggests that there will be a narrow corridor link between the main back of house area and the foodstore itself. In practice, occupiers will be concerned with store layout that prejudices the ability to move goods around the store, particularly to this extent. The current proposals will only create one main access point from the back of house area to the retail floor and will therefore result in a bottleneck at this access point which will make servicing the store difficult particularly during opening hours.

As such the current location of the service yard and back of house area separated from the foodstore will be undesirable and potentially unworkable for major food retailers whilst reducing the capacity for counters to be created such as in-store bakeries and butchers.

The new service access road and service yard arrangements are compromised. Given the lack of clarity in regard to the servicing of the existing precinct, we suggest that much more clarity is provided by the applicant as to how this will work in practice. The access road itself also seems to be restrictive in terms of the number of vehicles using this at any one time due to the proximity of the high wall which forms the boundary of the neighbouring Charles House and the proposed foodstore and back of house area. With the information provided to DPP, it is our view that the current service arrangements are unlikely to be desirable for any major food retailer.

We comment only upon the suitability of the scheme in relation to the business models of the potential occupiers, as opposed to broader considerations of the planning case. It is our view that the layout of the proposed development is sufficiently divergent from the traditional and emerging business models of the major food operators to be deemed to be an unsuitable proposition.”

Therefore, whilst the Mall application has been recommended for approval, the advice of the Council’s commercial advisors is that the scheme as illustrated in their planning submission would not represent a suitable proposition for any of the major food operations.  It is not considered that the quantum of development sought in the outline application for the Mall could be set out in different way to overcome the advice of DPP.

In conclusion, it is considered that there are no sequentially preferable sites to that proposed at West One and therefore accords with the requirements of policy EC15 of PPS4.

Policy EC16 The Impact Assessment for Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan

Policy EC16.1 states that planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be assessed against the following impact criteria:

a)	The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal;
b)	The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer;
c)	The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan;
d)	In the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made, and where applicable on the rural economy;
e)	If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres;
f)	Any locally important impacts on centres under Policy EC3.1e (EC3.1e refers to regional planning bodies and local planning authorities defining any locally important impacts on centres which should be assessed as part of an application proposal).
As the proposal is situated in a location which will function as edge-of-centre, Policy EC16.1 (e) indicates that an assessment is required of whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of centre and hierarchy of centres.  The submitted retail impact assessment has considered that appropriateness of scale.  Moreover, the Council’s retail consultant considers that the scale of the proposal is justified and that the extent of the offer would not attract additional shoppers from beyond the catchment or has an adverse impact on the Morrison’s store.  As such, the proposal complies with Policy EC16.1(e).

The impact of the proposed Tesco on in-centre trade and turnover was assessed in the retail assessment and by the Council’s retail consultant. A cumulative impact assessment was also undertaken which considered the approved extension to the Sainsbury’s on Regent Road and the opening of the Sainsbury’s in Urmston. 

A considerable element of the trade diversion to the proposed Tesco store is anticipated to be drawn from out of centre stores, namely the ASDA at Trafford Park and the Sainsbury’s at Regent Road. However, neither of these stores has any policy protection given their respective locations, and any trade diversions would therefore result in sustainability gains.

Paragraph 7.12 of the Retail Assessment establishes that the main diversion would be from the Morrisons store in Eccles where the introduction of the Tesco store would lead to a reduction in the considerable level of overtrading which is currently experienced at the store. In addition there would also be some diversion from the Aldi and other smaller stores in Eccles Town Centre, however these levels of diversion are not likely to threaten the future of these outlets, and the increase in shoppers in the town as a result of the Tesco store has the propensity to generate significant spin-off trade for these town centre shops.

Other town centre diversions will include £2.41m from the Morrisons in Swinton and £2.4m from the Tesco Metro at Salford, and these comparatively low levels of diversion would help to reduce overtrading at these stores (i.e. still operating above company average). Any other diversions from the remainder of the town centres are relatively limited and are spread across a number of outlets, such that the diversion will not threaten the future existence of any stores. As a result, Paragraph 7.2 of the Retail Assessment concludes that the trading impact of the store is likely to be a benign one and the Tesco can co-exist with other stores in the catchment area.

Policy EC16.1 (d) advises that impacts should be assessed up to five years from the application being made i.e.  2014 with the result that some of the trade diversions identified will be offset by growth between 2012 and 2014.

The proposed development would not therefore have a significant adverse impact on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area and would therefore satisfy Policy 16.1(d).

In terms of consumer choice and the range and quality of the retail offer the proposal will significantly improve the range and choice for residents who wish to undertake a bulk food shopping trip locally, as it will provide a second main foodstore in Eccles to meet the needs of local residents.

In regard to the impact upon vitality and viability of town centres, the main diversion will be on the Morrisons store in Eccles, which will serve to reduce overtrading, and there will only be a minimal impact on the other centres within the catchment area. 

Eccles is currently an underperforming centre; however any transfer of linked trip trade from the town centre as a result of the development will be balanced by the provision of an improved link, including a pedestrian footbridge across Gilda Brook Road to the town centre. This, in conjunction with the additional shoppers that will be attracted to the Tesco, has the propensity to create significant new linked trips and spin off trade for the town centre shops. Therefore, at worst there will be a neutral effect on the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre, and there is potential for a limited beneficial effect on vitality and viability.

Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with Policy EC16.1 (b).

As explained earlier in this report there are serious doubts over the deliverability of the Threadneedle proposal for the food superstore scheme.  The Threadneedle scheme may have planning consent at the time this report is considered by the panel, however, whilst it may (at the time of determination of this application) constitute a commitment in the sense of a planning consent, it could only represent a planning consent which would not be implemented having regard to the advice of DPP.

PPS4 Practice Guidance also states at Paragraph 7.21 that if adverse impacts are identified, these should be balanced against positive effects of the proposal in terms of investment, employment generation, social inclusion and physical and economic regeneration. The clear and positive regenerative benefits that flow from the development, which are not offered within the town centre scheme which has been advised would not be a suitable proposition for retailers, are of considerable significance for the local area.

Accordingly, the proposal accords with Policy EC16.1 (a).

There are no sites allocated within an up to date development plan which are outside the defined town centres and would be adversely impacted by this superstore proposal. Consequently, the proposed development complies with Policy EC16.1(c).

Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that the proposal accords with the various provisions contained with PPS4 Policy EC16.1

Policy EC17 The Consideration of Planning Applications for Main Town Centre Uses that are not in a Centre and Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan

Policy EC17.1 states that planning applications for retail development outside of existing centres and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where:

a) 	the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach set (policy EC15); or
b) 	there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of impacts set out in policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (the impact tests) taking account the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.

The report has confirmed that there are no sequentially preferable sites available and, as such, it is considered that this proposal complies with the requirements of the sequential approach set out within Policy EC15.  Earlier elements of this report have also demonstrated that the proposal will not give rise to any significant adverse impacts having regard to the tests contained within Policy EC10.2 and Policy 16.1.  Accordingly, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the planning application proposals comply with the requirements of Policy EC17.1.

Policy EC17.2 states that where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under policies EC10.2 and 16.1, planning applications should be determined by taking account of:

a) 	the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of policies EC10.2 and 16.1 and any other material considerations; and
b)  	the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.

EC17.3 states that judgements about the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan (where this is up to date) and recent local assessments of the health of town centres which take account of the vitality and viability indicators and any other published local information.

The applicant has demonstrated that there are a number of positive impacts associated with the planning application proposals including reduced carbon emissions; high quality inclusive design; accessibility improvements; physical and economic regeneration; and substantial local employment opportunities.  It has also been demonstrated that, having regard to relevant cumulative effects, the proposals will deliver improved choice and competition to meet local need and claw back significant expenditure to Eccles.  The impact on Eccles town centre is considered to be neutral in that Morrison’s would bear the brunt of relocating shoppers (although it would continue to trade above its own company average) and there is no evidence that the proposal would lead to a reduction in the range of services provided by the Town Centre.  Therefore, in the absence of any significant adverse impacts, these matters can be afforded material weight when determining the application proposals.

In conclusion, having regard to the appraisals in relation to each of the relevant PPS4 policies, it is considered that the scheme accords with the provisions of PPS4.

Policy EC18 Application of Car Parking Standards for Non-Residential Development

Policy EC18 states that Local Planning Authorities local parking standards should apply unless it is demonstrated otherwise.  The ‘Car Parking, Access and General Accessibility’ section of this report concludes that the scheme accords with the car parking standards contained within the development for Salford.  Therefore, it is considered that the scheme accords with policy EC18 of PPS4.

Policy EC19 The Effective Use of Conditions for Main Town Centre Uses

This policy highlights the appropriateness of the use of conditions including conditions in relation to gross floor areas, limit the range of goods sold and sub-division of units.  Conditions have been recommended which limit the total amount of convenience retailing to that proposed.  This would reiterate the condition restricting any further food retailing for the remainder of the units similar to the condition attached to the original grant of planning permission at West One. 

OVERALL CONCLUSION OF PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

The proposal, together with that at the Mall within the centre, is significant within the context of Eccles.  Recently issued retail planning advice reiterates a ‘town centre first’ stance to retail provision.  The scheme proposed at West One is located outside of the defined town centre.  However, independent advice commissioned to appraise the commercial suitability of the Mall proposal, demonstrates that the scheme would not come forward and therefore does not represent an alternative to the site at West One.  Therefore, there are no other sequentially preferable options within Eccles Town Centre (or any other centre to meet the need of the area) to deliver convenience retail provision.  Having reached this view, it is appropriate, to consider sites outside of the town centre.  PPS4 includes a number of policies and tests relevant to proposed out of centre development.  All relevant retail issues have been considered, and in the context of the Council’s own retail consultant’s advice, “We conclude that the proposal would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre although it must be recognised that the application is likely to render it difficult to secure enhancement of the centre in the future” it has been demonstrated that the scheme would have no significant adverse impact upon the town centre. 

Therefore, having regard to the submitted retail information, the advice of the Council’s own retail consultant, the advice of independent commercial advisors, the provisions of the development plan relating to retail provision and the objections received in response to the application publicity, it is considered that there are no grounds on the basis of retail policy to refuse planning permission in this instance.  

The remainder of this appraisal details the specifics of the proposal and the relevant development plan policies.

Design, Scale and Massing

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

Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. 

Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space, that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs, reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate scale, connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.

Policy DES9 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.

The New Store

The store is orientated to front the existing car park which is south facing.  Therefore, the elevation includes the use of solar louvres and bris soleil to reduce the impact of the sun.  The elevation is predominately glazed with the ends of the elevation articulated by the use of larch timber cladding.  The pedestrian access point to the store are also denoted by the same use of timber cladding and glazed canopies.  The roof line would be 14m in height and would be 4m higher than the ridge of the retained units.

The glazed panelling system, together with the bris soleil helps provide horizontal emphasis to the appearance of the building whilst the coloured roof supports break up a large single elevation.  The use of colours on the roof supports are replicated on the proposed alterations to the existing units.

There would be 10 roof ventilators which would provide rhythm and further interest to the roof line.  A further design theme that is incorporated into each elevation is the use of large vertical windows within the timber clad ‘bookends’.  These features provide interest and identification to the proposal but also provide a visual link to the ground so that the store does not appear to be floating above the car park.

The service yard to the north west corner would be set back from the main elevation although the service ramp would effectively wrap around to marry into the Eccles New Road elevation.  The service yard itself would be screened by timber panelling to match other design elements at a height of 5m (above the service yard level).  The screening would be 10m in height above the height of the existing service yard level, 7m above the height of the ground level of the neighbouring apartment scheme.  It is considered that whilst the service yard would be in an elevated position the height of the panelling would screen the activities from within the street scene.

The existing pedestrian access from the Ladywell tram stop would be retained in the same location which would be routed  beneath this service ramp.  The entrance to the pedestrian access would be clearly marked.  The relationship of the service ramp to existing and future occupiers is considered later in this report.  The ‘back of house’ elements of the store would be located to the rear of the building closest to Eccles New Road.  The elevation is treated in the same materials as those on the frontage and where services and undercroft car parking are visible ‘kinetic mesh’ is proposed to screen the areas and give the appearance of movement.  It should also be noted the pedestrian element of the highway along Eccles New Road is adjacent to the main highway.  Between the pedestrian area and the proposed building is the line of the Metrolink as it starts to go below ground.

The elevation fronting Gilda Brook Road would continue the same design ethos with glazing and timber panelling.  Two emergency exits would be incorporated into this elevation.  The first would be exit onto a small balcony within the glazed section with the stair case contained behind the timber cladding.  The second emergency exit would be contained within the right hand timber element and would link into the platform outside of the building and the footbridge.  The footbridge would tie into this element.

It is considered that design of the scheme and the use of timber, glazing and colours would represent a high quality design which would accord with the relevant policies of the development plan as highlighted above.

The Footbridge

The footbridge has been amended since the application was submitted.  Initially the bridge included a ramp on the town centre side of Gilda Brook Road.  However, the scheme has been amended and the ramp removed.  The amended scheme includes a lift on each side of Gilda Brook Road.  The design of the bridge is simple in that it would be a steel structure spanning the width of Gilda Brook Road with a single support within the central carriage.

The bridge would tie into the first floor level access to the Tesco store on the eastern side of Gilda Brook Road.  Each of the lifts would be encapsulated in timber panelling to match that of the main store.  Stainless steel and glass hand rails would be provided along the entire length of the bridge and a series of hoops and ribs would articulate the structure.  The bridge would provide cover from the elements and would be illuminated.  A further assessment regarding elements of functionality is discussed later in this report including the draft management arrangements.

It is considered that the design of the footbridge is an improvement from that submitted and will provide a functional bridge to aid connectivity between the site and the town centre albeit not an adopted bridge.

Alterations to existing elevations

The design language will be continued through from the proposed Tesco to the existing units in a re-cladding exercise using the same palette of materials.  The retained façade would include a glazed pedestrian covered walkway and would introduce the coloured roof supports for continuity.  Individual units across the entire façade would be emphasised using a copper effect vertical cladding.  This would be the same as that which would articulate the pedestrian access from the tram stop.

Conclusion of Design, Scale and Massing

It is considered that this application accords with the policies highlighted above regarding design, scale and massing and would provide an appropriate continuity between the new facilities and retained units.

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.  

“I have no objection to the proposed food store as such but there are aspects of the design of the store that I do not support. In particular, I question the requirement for the bridge over Gilda Brook Road. Such bridges channel pedestrians into areas remote from natural surveillance and areas of activity, i.e. the street. They can be intimidating places for some people, which can result in their use being avoided if alternative routes are available, such as the crossing at street level. The more people who avoid using them the more isolated/vulnerable become those people that do use it. I am aware of the traffic implications of placing such a store in this locality, and the desire to link the development to the town centre but I do not think that a bridge link of the design proposed is the ideal solution. I would much rather the access to the pedestrian crossing be improved, i.e. a more direct route, better lighting, better sightlines (very low shrubs and no blind corners), perhaps a wider crossing point. 
In terms of the car park, it is not very clear how open the undercroft car park will be; I assume that the mesh used to screen plant will continue across the rear elevation to enclose the car park and, hopefully, reduce the number of ways of entering/leaving the car park on foot. There should be a greater degree of separation of pedestrians from cars alongside the curved footpath linking the development to Eccles New Road. Also, there should be a barrier between the footpath and parking bays so that trolleys or pedestrians do not damage cars. Similarly, the footpath through the car park linking the store to the pedestrian crossing at Gilda Brook Road needs to be much wider than a single parking bay width. The potential for accidental or willful damage is greatest at such pinch-points, particularly on the periphery of sites such as this.

Finally, my colleagues in the National Counter Terrorism Security Office have agreed the following specification with Tesco Architects for ‘store on stilts’ sites:
•	Enhanced structure to withstand a 100kg explosive device (VBIED) 
•	Additional Bollards (to PAS 68 and 69 spec) & adjustable height restrictors within the site to limit access under store to large vehicles. 
•	Enhanced atrium glazing specification to laminated glass up to 3.6m high (adjacent to car park / potential blast area) there after with 3M film to the remainder of the standard glazing. 
•	Barrier control to service yard access ramp.”
The first issue relates to the provision of a footbridge across Gilda Brook Road which the ALO does not support.  Following receipt of this response a meeting was held with the ALO, the applicant’s team and officers of the Council.  It was agreed that information would be provided which considers alternatives to a footbridge in particular alterations to signalisation priority on Gilda Brook Road for pedestrians.  Whilst it is discussed later in this report the report prepared by the applicant demonstrated that alterations to the priority across Gilda Brook Road would result in significant queuing on the highway and would not significantly alter what is already a safe (DDA compliant) at grade crossing facility.

Therefore, whilst the concerns of the ALO are relevant material planning considerations in this case, it is considered that the need to improve connectivity to the Town Centre is a significant material planning consideration.  However, having regard to the issues raised and possible activities as a result of the bridge the applicant has provided a draft management plan for the footbridge (together with alterations to the design and the removal of the ramp to the western side of Gilda Brook Road to which some of the comments relate).  The draft management plan highlights the provision of CCTV and manned security throughout the day.  With the inclusion of a condition requiring a detailed bridge management plan, it is considered that the concerns of the ALO regarding the footbridge can be appropriately mitigated.

Other issues can be resolved through the inclusion of conditions relating to similar management of the area, appropriate lighting and landscaping.  Conditions have been recommended with regard to such issues.

Sustainable Development

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

Policy EN22 states that development proposals for more than 5000sqm of floorspace 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 wherever practicable.

The applicants have submitted both their own sustainability checklist, BREEAM statement as well as completing the North West Sustainability Checklist. 

The North West Sustainability Checklist is comprised of 8 sections with a score out of 100 given for each section. The results of the sustainability checklist for the proposed scheme is as follows:

•	Climate Change	(Predicted Score 67% Good)
•	Place Making		(Predicted Score 73% Good)
•	Transport		(Predicted Score 72% Good)
•	Ecology		(Predicted Score 33% Minimum)
•	Resources		(Predicted Score 71% Good)
•	Business		(Predicted Score 85% Best)
•	Buildings		(Predicted Score 33% Minimum)

The checklist is based upon residential provision and where houses are not proposed an equivalent number are used.  In relation to ‘buildings’ the applicant as highlighted that the proposal would provide a ‘Good’ Breeam rating.

The City Council own sustainability checklist has been completed and relevant areas detailed below.

•	Combined Heating Power (CHP) is the use of an engine on site (in this case it is proposed to place it just to the north of the store) which generates both electricity and useful heat.  It is used to supplement the main source of electricity taken from the national grid which can lose 2% in transmission across the grid. 

•	Mixed mode Ventilation is when warm air is allowed to exist and colder air entre via wind catchers located on the roof.  This reduces the load on the standard heating and ventilation equipment, and therefore energy consumption associated with it.  When westher conditions are abnormal, the wind catchers can be closed.

•	Rooflights with intelligent Lighting System.  Natural daylight is used to supplement the internal artificial lighting, again reducing energy consumption taken from the national grid for the store.  The rooflights are typically 6m X 6m and are filled with ‘nanogel’, allowing 50% of the light through but minimising solar gain.

•	CO2 Cooling.  Tesco are now using C02 gases in their refrigeration units which is a natural alternative to HCFCs which is also expected to make energy savings.

Effects of the Development on Existing and Future Neighbours 

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

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

Footbridge

The footbridge would land on part of the adopted highway and existing area of landscaping to the north of Kearton Drive.  Kearton Drive is approximately 3m lower than the level of the land where the footbridge would land.  The staircase would be approximately 23m from the closest element of those properties on Kearton Drive, although due to their design this element of the bridge would be approximately 26m to the main facades.  It is not considered that the provision of the footbridge or stairs in this location would result in a detrimental loss of privacy having regard to the distance to those properties.  Moreover, none of these properties have a private garden areas fronting the proposed footbridge.

Service Arrangements

The screening would be 10m in height above the height of the existing service yard level, 7m above the height of the ground level of the neighbouring apartment scheme.  The neighbouring residential scheme includes car parking at ground floor level with residential provision starting at first floor.  Therefore, whilst the proposal includes an elevated service area and acoustic screening the change in levels is such together with the location of the residential provision that the service yard details as a whole would not result in an over bearing impact upon the existing and future neighbouring residents.

Urban Vision Environment have reviewed the scheme with regard to issues of noise.  They have no objection to the scheme subject to the inclusions of conditions requiring the acoustic properties of the wall to the service ramp and service area to be agreed by the LPA, a restriction in the deliveries to the service ramp to between the hours of 07.00 and 23.00 hours and a condition limiting the level of any fixed plant.

A further condition has also been attached requiring details of the managements arrangement should deliveries arrive prior to 7.00am.  Having discussed the matter with the applicant it is likely that any such vehicles would be held in the area of new car parking to the south of the site.  Appropriate CCTV for management and barrier controls would also be included.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the illumination of the building and illumination from adverts.  This permission does not include any advert consent and therefore a further advertisement consent would be required and levels of illumination could be control at that stage.  As discussed earlier the internal arrangements of the building are such that the service area would front Eccles New Road and as such internal illumination from the trading area is unlikely to impact upon residents living to the north.  Moreover, the materials used on this elevation are controlled by appropriate condition would further restrict this.  A condition is also proposed to control external lighting levels.

In conclusion, and having regard to the submitted technical information and existing use on site, it is not considered that the proposals would detrimentally impact upon the living conditions of nearby residential amenity.  A such, it is considered that the scheme accords with the provisions of the development as highlighted above regarding amenity. 

Car Parking, Access and General Accessibility

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 A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would compromise highway safety by virtue of traffic generation and access.

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.

DP5 states that “development should be located so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and to enable people as far as possible to meet their needs locally. Safe and sustainable access for all, particularly by public transport, between homes and employment and a range of services and facilities (such as retail, health, education and leisure) should be promoted, and should influence locational choices and investment decisions”

The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of the adopted UDP.  The TA considers a number of factors, which are considered below together with other relevant highway and access issues.

The Footbridge

The Police architectural liaison officer has raised questions regarding the need for a footbridge as they consider that it would be appropriate to retain the existing crossing facilities.  The footbridge is proposed as additional provision to the existing ‘at grade crossing’ facilities.  However, the applicant has provided an additional technical report which considers the implications of improving the crossing facility so that additional priority is given to pedestrians.

The technical report demonstrates that alterations to the priority of signalisation across Gilda Brook Road would result in over capacity of the junction and significant queuing at peak times.  Moreover, it is the view of the Council’s highway advisors that the existing facilities to provide crossing facilities for pedestrians are safe and acceptable.  Having regard to this they are of the opinion that alterations to the prioritisation of the junctions would not improve safety.  However, they have expressed concerns regarding additional queuing and also that an ‘all stop’ crossing facility (as modelled in the technical information) would require pedestrians to cross as the ‘green man’ is indicated otherwise they believe insufficient time would be provided to enable safe crossing.  Whilst additional timing could be provided it would further impact upon queuing on the surrounding highway network.

Therefore, whilst the existing crossing facility provides a safe route in highway safety terms, a footbridge would provide an alternative to additional queuing on the highway network as a mechanism to improve accessibility to the town centre.

The footbridge would be a private structure and would not be adopted by the Highway Authority. However, a permit would be required for the structure to be sited on and over sail the adopted highway.  Moreover, as discussed earlier a condition is proposed which requires the management regime to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Access and Servicing

Vehicular access to the site will remain the same as those that currently exist for the whole of the site.  The present servicing arrangements are also accessed from the junction shared with the vehicular access via Gilda Brook Road.   Deliveries and servicing is then provided to the rear of each of the terrace of units from the south along the eastern boundary and then across the pedestrian link to Ladywell to service the northern most units.

The proposed scheme would retain the same servicing arrangements in terms of access and rear servicing for the remaining units.  However, the service yard for the proposed Tesco would be elevated to first floor level (although approximately 1.5m lower then the trading floor level of the Tesco store) to the north eastern corner.  To access this new service yard a ramp would be provided parallel to the eastern boundary.  The appearance of the service yard and implications for residential amenity are considered elsewhere in this report.

There are no highway objections in relation to the revised servicing arrangements.  However, as discussed earlier, a condition is proposed which requires the management arrangements for the service yard to be agreed particularly regarding deliveries outside of the hours.

Pedestrian Access

There are three existing pedestrian access points to the site; two from Gilda Brook Road (one adjacent to HMV and one adjacent to The Carphone Warehouse) and one from the Ladywell Tram Stop on Eccles New Road, which dissects the servicing area and arrives between the two terrace of units adjacent to Mothercare.

The proposal would retain each of these pedestrian access points.  The access adjacent to Carphone Warehouse would remain unchanged.  The existing pedestrian access adjacent to HMV is currently stepped.  The proposal would move this entrance approximately 10m to the south.  A ramp would be provided within the site from adjacent to the landing of the Gilda Brook Road crossing to the car park adjacent to the frontage of the new store.  The proposal would also include a bridge with lifts.  The head of the ramp and lift provision would be located together.

The pedestrian access from the Ladywell tram stop would also be retained.  However, the proposal would effectively build over this route.  The route therefore would be beneath the service yard and through new car parking provision.

A new pedestrian access would be incorporated into the gabion wall retaining structure fronting Centenary Way.  Whilst the new route from Centenary Way would not include a ramped access it is considered that the scheme would improve access for wheelchairs to the site.

Public Transport

As discussed earlier in this report the existing footpath link to the Ladywell tram stop would be retained as part of the proposal.  The tram stop is located adjacent to the northern boundary and a main bus corridor.  Moreover, the implications of the proposed bridge and possible linkages to the Town Centre have also been discussed.  Within the town centre there is also a bus and train station.

Car Parking

The proposal would include additional car parking provision beneath the proposed store and the area that is currently grassed to the south of the site.  In total across the site there would be a total of 1005 spaces, 962 standard spaces and 43 disabled spaces. A total of 32 cycle stores would also be provided across the site.

Having regard to the existing floorspace which would be retained on site together with the amount of floor space proposed it is considered that the total provision would not exceed the maximum provision highlighted in RSS.

Travel Plan

A draft travel plan has been submitted together with the application.  The applicant has liaised with the Council’s travel plan coordinator and minor amendments have been secured.  A condition has been attached which requires a further travel plan following occupation based on the agreed draft plan.

Conclusions Car Parking, Access and General Accessibility

In conclusion, there are no highway objections to the proposal and it is considered that the scheme would accord with, subject to condition, the provisions of the development as highlighted above regarding car parking, access and general accessibility.

Pollution

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

Policy DP7 advises that  environmental quality (including air, coastal and inland waters), should be protected and enhanced.  A number of criteria are offered to help achieve this aim

An Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken in support of the application which has been assessed by Urban Vision Environment.  UVE consider that “This development will have effects on local air quality.  Modelling has been carried out which compares baseline conditions both with and without development scenario for future years… In order to minimise the impact on local air quality the site should be controlled as far as practicable.”  Therefore, they raise no objections with regard to air quality subject to the provisions of conditions.  It is recommended that conditions be attached regarding dust management during construction and a condition regarding air quality during and post construction.

UVE have also considered the site investigation information and raise no objection to the principle subject to appropriate a remediation condition.  A condition is suggested to this effect.

Therefore, it is considered that the scheme accords with the provision of the development as highlighted above regarding control of pollution.

Community Involvement

The Council has adopted its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in March 2008.  The SCI states that the Council will encourage applicants to undertake pre-application discussions with officers prior to the submission of application where the proposal would meet a number of criteria.  The document also highlights the importance of engagement with the local community which may be affected by a development.

This process is supported by PPS1 ‘Promoting Sustainable Communities’ and PPS12 ‘Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities Through Local Spatial Planning’

In accordance with the above the applicant has undertaken pre-application discussion with officers of the Council, Urban Vision and members of the public.  A detailed overview of the community involvement has been provided.  In summary the following has been undertaken with the community:

Press Releases
Manchester Evening News	23 January 2009
Salford Advertiser	29 August 2009

A Website 
This provided further details in respect of forthcoming development proposals including drawings and images.  It also included the opportunity for people to submit comments and job enquiries on line.

Public Exhibition at the Gateway Centre in Eccles
28th January 2009 (1.30pm – 6pm)
29th January 2009 (12pm – 7pm)
30th January 2009 (display on view all day without members of project team available)
31st January 2009 (9.30am – 1.30pm)

The report estimates that over 1,000 people visited the centre over the three days that the exhibition was manned.

The supporting information includes a section ‘Response to matters received’.  It states “As part of overall pre-application consultation process with political bodies and Planning Officers a number of changes have been made to the scheme.  Most significantly, the proposal includes a footbridge to improve connectivity with the town centre.  A number of detailed design changes have also been made to the proposed building.

Whilst the feedback from the public consultation exercise was overwhelmingly supportive of the proposed development, a minority expressed concern and a number of suggestions were made both verbally and in writing.

The proposed pedestrian footbridge received general approval and was considered to be a good idea.  However, it was suggested that there may be security issues with objects being thrown onto the highway below.  Accordingly, the scheme has been revised to include a mesh tunnel arrangement that will create an attractive design feature whilst protecting the road and footways below.  This arrangement also improves the ability to provide attractive lighting and informative signage on the footbridge.

Improved connectivity with the town centre was one of the key items discussed.  A number of people considered that any improved transport links between West One and the transport interchange at Eccles would encourage use of the town centre and public transport facilities.  This was considered to be particularly helpful for the elderly and those with mobility problems.  It was suggested that vouchers on the Metrolink would be useful although on further consideration the applicant feels that this would be difficult to implement with the transport provider.  However, the feasibility of providing a “hopper” bus service between West One and central Eccles is under consideration and will be explored further as part of the Planning Obligations negotiation process.

Developer Contributions

Policy OB2 of the planning obligations SPD requires a contribution of £20 per square metre towards improvements to the public realm, infrastructure or heritage features within the vicinity of the application site for none residential.

Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to construction training. It states that major developments should contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst Salford residents. The contribution that should be sought from a new development to feed into schemes that provide construction training is £1.50 per square metre for none residential.  

Policy OB4 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to climate change. It states that unless schemes achieve a very good BREAM rating major developments should make a contribution of £2 per square metre towards projects aimed at reducing and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions for none residential development.  The applicant has confirmed in the planning statement that the scheme would achieve a very good rating.  An appropriate condition has been attached.
 
Policy OB5 of the Planning Obligations SPD states that developers should pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the City Council in drawing up and administrating legal agreements. In order to ensure this happens an additional charge of 2.5% will be added to cover the administrative costs of ensuring that the commuted sums are directed towards appropriate schemes.

The above policies highlight the normal applicable financial contributions.  However, the SPD is clear that in certain circumstances the figure could be less or in fact more than that derived from the floorspace of the proposal.  In this particular case the applicant has submitted a draft set of heads of terms as set out below

Footbridge 
£1.85m cost with any saving made available for other environmental, infrastructure and heritage improvements;

SPD Contribution and Environmental Improvements
£800,000 towards environmental improvements within the town centre boundary.

Transport
Provision of a hopper service between Eccles, West One and Hope Hospital in accordance with an agreed management and monitoring plan

Public Art
Space to be made available in perpetuity for the display of public art.

Firstly, given that the footbridge is an integral and necessary element of the scheme it is not something which should be provided for by way of a S106 agreement.  However, how the bridge will operate once the store has opened will require consideration of a management regime which is secured by way of an appropriate condition.  Notwithstanding this, the bridge would have benefits in terms of linkage between the Town Centre and the existing and proposed provision at West One as discussed above.

The reference to ‘SPD Contribution’ relates to the normal provisions that would be sought by the adopted Planning Obligations SPD based on the increase in floor area.  However, the SPD does advocate that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to secure additional monies.  In fact the applicant has also recognised this point and the need that the proposal connects well to the town centre.  Further to the provision of the footbridge the applicant has offered a £800,000 towards environmental improvements between the site and the Town Centre and also within the town centre.  Given the direct link between the proposals and the town centre it is considered that the draft heads of terms as set out above accord with the provision of Circular 05/05 regarding the use of planning obligations.

The applicant has also provided a linkage documents which highlights the possible physical improvements that the proposed S106 monies could deliver to help strengthen the linkages between the site and the town centre.  It is accepted that the S106 heads of terms would help provide significant environmental regenerative improvements.

Therefore, whilst the scheme accords with the provisions of PPS4 it is considered appropriate and directly linked to the proposal that S106 monies are used to implement public realm and infrastructure works to aid the future regeneration of the town centre having regard to the concern raised (by the Council’s retail consultant) that the approval of this scheme, whilst not undermining the vitality and viability of the town centre, is likely to render it difficult to secure enhancement of the centre in the future.

Conclusion

It is considered that the scale and massing of the proposal would not have any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents.  The amount of car parking proposed is acceptable for the amount of proposed floorspace and the units which would remain.  In addition the design, scale and massing are thought to be acceptable within the context of this area.

The proposal is also considered to accord with the provisions of PPS4 and the policies contained within the development plan in relation to retail provision.  The Council’s own retail consultant has fully appraised the submitted retail impact assessment and advises that there are no grounds on the basis of retail policy to refuse the proposed development.  

As such, the amount of retail development is considered to be acceptable, however, as the proposal exceeds the thresholds for cumulative retail development as set out in Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development)(England and Wales)(No 2) Direction 1993, if Members are minded to approve the application, it will have to referred to the Secretary of State for his decision as to whether he wishes to intervene in the determination of this application.  It is appropriate to refer the application under this direction as this planning application was submitted prior to it being superseded by Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 which came into effect in April 2009 and is applicable to planning applications received on or after 20th April 2009.  This proposal was validated in March of 2009.

The Shopping Direction relates to gross shopping floorspace of more than 2,500 square metres, which will exceed 20,000 square metres when aggregated with gross shopping floorspace over a similar threshold within a 10 mile radius over the past 5 years.  In this case, and notwithstanding any retail permissions in neighbouring authorities, the gross shopping floorspace would be 8,610 (gross) square metres and when combined with the approvals for retail approvals at Red City and Radclyffe School site, it would exceed the relevant threshold.  

Recommendation

(a) That the Secretary of State be advised that the Council is minded to grant planning permission for the development proposals subject to the following heads of terms in a planning obligation and the recommended planning conditions.

(b) That if the Secretary of State does not intervene in the application, that planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions and that:

I.	The Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of £800,000 (including administration fee) to the Council in accordance with the heads of terms set out in this report.

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

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

IV.	That authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106 agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and objectives of PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.

Recommendation

Approve

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

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

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the materials for all external elevations of the food retail unit together with the facing materials for units 6-14 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.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3.	No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of external lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such scheme shall include full details of the locations, design, luminance levels, light spillage and hours of use of, and columns for, all external lighting within the site together with lighting for the footbridge over Gilda Brook Road and the approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of development.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4.	Prior to first occupation of any unit hereby approved a scheme detailing security measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details submitted shall include illumination of undercroft car parking areas, enclosure of service yards and the installation of a system of CCTV.  The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

	In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

5.	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.

	To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the initiatives and timescales contained within the submitted Travel Plan prepared by Mouchel April 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with PPG13

7.	The parking spaces shown on the approved plan(s) shall be made available at all times in connection with the use of the premises.

	To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and servicing areas and to ensure that the use of the land shall not give rise to hazards at the entrance/exit points in the interests of public safety and in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	Prior to commencement of development a scheme for the provision of secure cycle stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall detail not less than 32 cycle stores across the site. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme

	In accordance with policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

9.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.  Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment including trees to be planted within the car parking area and shall be carried out within the first available planting season following of the commencement of development together with space for public art provision.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced with the same species within twelve months.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

10.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the materials for the footbridge over Gilda Brook Road 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.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

11.	Prior to first use of the food retailing store hereby approved the footbridge over Gilda Brook Road shall be constructed and available for use to the general public.  The bridge shall be made available in accordance with the requirements of condition 10 at all times in conjunction with the approved food retailing store.

	To ensure appropriate access and linkage to the Town Centre in accordance with policy A2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the adopted Design SPD

12.	Prior to first use of the food retailing store hereby approved a scheme detailing the management and maintenance regime for the footbridge over Gilda Brook Road shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The footbridge shall be operated at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To ensure appropriate access and linkage to the Town Centre in accordance with policy A2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the adopted Design SPD

13.	The gross floorspace of the foodstore hereby approved shall not exceed 8,213 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning.

	To accord with the stated intentions of the submitted Retail Impact Assessment in accordance with PPS4 and policy W5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West

14.	Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, this permission does not relate to the use of units 6-14 as shown on the submitted drawing 5872/1002/Rev C for the purposes of food retailing.

	For the avoidance of doubt and to accord with the stated intentions of the submitted Retail Impact Assessment and to safeguard the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre in accordance with the provisions of PPS4 and policy W5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West

15.	Prior to commencement of development a scheme which details in full how the development will reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall achieve the minimum standards of the North West Sustainability Checklist and shall incorporate the measures identified in the NW Sustainability Checklist submitted as part of the application on 24th August 2008;.  
	
	The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved scheme and the mitigation measures identified shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
	
	Prior to discharge of this condition a verification report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The verification report shall validate that all mitigation measures have been completed in accordance with those agreed by the local planning authority.

	Reason: To reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change in accordance with Policy DP9 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West and Policy ST14 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

16.	Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Dust Management Plan for the construction period, for the written approval of the LPA. The Dust Management Plan shall identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be generated and further identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the site boundary. Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented and maintained at all times. Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all material handling operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or replaced.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

17.	Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall identify fully all control measures which are required to control the impact of the development on local air quality. All control measures identified must be approved in writing by the Local Authority and installed prior to occupation of the development. All approved measures shall be retained and maintained thereafter. A verification report shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority confirming that all the agreed measures have been implemented in full prior to the final occupation of the site.

	In order to protect the quality of the air and the amenity of residents, in accordance with policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan.

18.	The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) at any time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.  Noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS 4142:1997 "Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas".  ‘T’ refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs and any 5 minute period between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs.

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

19.	No deliveries, loading, unloading or other servicing activities shall take place at the site outside the hours of hours 07.00 and 23.00 hours to the service yard

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

20.	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of acoustic barriers to be erected to service yard and delivery vehicle access and egress road.  The approved boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

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

21.	Further to the requirements of condition 19 a service management scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to first use of the food retail unit.  The scheme shall detail the management arrangements of any service provision which may arrive on site outside of the hours set out in condition 19.  The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved service management scheme at all times.

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

22.	i.		Prior to the commencement of development a Preliminary Risk Assessment shall be carried out to assess any possible risks associated with landfill gas or ground gas at, or within influencing distance of the development site.  Where appropriate, site investigation(s) (including gas monitoring) and risk assessment(s) shall be carried out to identify the actual risks to the development proposals.   These works must be undertaken by competent persons and written reporting of the findings must be produced and subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority
	
	ii.	The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the development; and
	
	iii.	A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
	
	If during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination is caused, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing immediately.  Where required, a suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition ii, which is subject to approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.  Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared which is subject to approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with part III.  

	Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

23.	The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
	
	Existing Site Location Plan	5872/1001/RevD
	Existing Site Plan	5872/1002/RevC
	Existing Elevation Sheet 1 of 3	5872/1003/RevA
	Existing Elevation Sheet 2 of 3	5872/1004/RevA
	Existing Elevation Sheet 3 of 3	5872/1005/RevA
	Proposed Demolition Plan	5872/1051/RevA
	Proposed Site Ground Floor	5872/1101/RevM
	Proposed Site First Floor	5872/1102RevK
	Proposed Site Roof Plan	5872/1103/RevG
	Proposed Car Park	5872/1315/RevB
	Proposed Pedestrian Footbridge
	Proposed Pedestrian Footbridge	5872/1320/RevC
	5872/1321
	Bridge Views & Precedent	1326
	Proposed Tesco Elevations Sheet 1 of 2	5872/1502/RevG
	Proposed Tesco Elevations Sheet 2 of 2	5872/1503/RevH
	Proposed Elevations of ‘Remodelled Units’ Sheet 1 of 2	5872/1504/RevD
	Proposed Elevations of ‘Remodelled Units’ Sheet 2 of 2	5872/1505/RevA
	Proposed Tesco Sections	5872/1601/RevB
	Overflow Car Park – External Steps	5872Sk47/RevA
		
	CGI View of Proposed New Foodstore	
	CGI View of Proposed New Foodstore & Reconfigured Retail	
	CGI View of Proposed Retaining Wall ~ Canal Circle Roundabout	
	CGI View of Proposed Retaining Wall ~ Centenary Way	
	CGI View of Proposed Retaining Wall ~ Precedent Imagery	
	CGI View of Proposed Pedestrian Footbridge ~ Daytime External View from Ladywell Roundabout	
	CGI View of Proposed Pedestrian Footbridge ~ Night-time  External View from Ladywell Roundabout	
	CGI View of Proposed Pedestrian Footbridge ~ Night-time Internal View Facing West One	
		
	Materials Sample Imagery ~ Bridge	
	Materials Sample Imagery ~ External Surface Treatments & Store Materials	

	For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning

24.	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to regulate surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

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

25.	Prior to the commencement of development details of the finish floor levels shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

	For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard residential amenity in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Notes to Applicant

1.	The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.   Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2.	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.	The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice of United Utilities dated 1st April 2009.
4.	The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice of GMPTE dated 9th April 2009 in relation to construction and demolition in proximity to the link of the Metrolink.
5.	Further to the requirements of condition 2, 4 and 21 the applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice of The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit (now Design for Security) dated 6th April 2009 in relation to counter terrorism specifications.

APPLICATION No:	09/58041/OUT	
APPLICANT:	Zurich Assurance Ltd C/o Threadneedle Property Investments	
LOCATION:	The Mall, Eccles Town Centre, Eccles, M30 0EA, 	
PROPOSAL:	Outline application including means of access for the partial redevelopment of the Eccles Shopping Centre to provide a foodstore (use class A1), multi-storey car park, servicing and vehicular access and landscaping	
WARD:	Eccles	

Description of Site and Surroundings

This proposal relates to a site within the centre of Eccles Town Centre.  Eccles Town Centre is one of four town centres defined within the Unitary Development Plan.

The application site, 0.85 hectares in size, comprises of Eccles Market (contained within a single structure), a multi storey car park, servicing areas, public car parking area (including disabled parking provision) together with retail units within the Mall.  The multi storey car park is located above and to the rear of the units to the north of The Mall, proving 334 spaces, with vehicular access from John William Street.  The car park is leased to the City Council who operate a permit system for long stay car parking provision.  

To the north of the site is Charles House which is a six storey office building with car parking located around and beneath.  Further north are the taller office buildings of Orbit House (nine storey) and Emerson House (eleven storey).  John William Street forms part of the northern boundary.  Opposite the site to the north is the John William Street car park which offers short stay car parking provision.  Immediately to the east of the site is Castle Street which runs to the rear of a number of shop units on Church Street (including the former Wilkinson’s store) and provide service access to shop units located on the Mall within the application site boundary.  These existing arrangements are provided by way of a ramp.  The south east and southern boundaries comprise of other units within the Mall area of the town centre.  Southway and Albert Street comprise the western boundary.  South Tower, located on Southway, is an eleven storey residential tower block.  A car sales and high rise office block (Sentinal House formerly Peel House) are located to the west of Albert Street.

Albert Street forms part of the one way gyratory which operates around the car sales and Peel House.  John William Street provides two way vehicular traffic.

The site slopes north to south.  This is most evident in the vicinity of John William Street where the service access and access to the car park slopes down to the rear of the existing stores.  The car park which includes a number of disabled spaces is approximately 2m lower than the level of John William Street.

The town centre as a whole is well served by public transport including bus, Metrolink and trains.  The main vehicular route into the town centre is Church Street from the west which is then pedestrianised as it leads to north to the train station.

The Eccles Shopping Centre was constructed in the 1960’s around the pedestrianised Mall and represents the retail core of the town centre.  The Mall runs east west with the two main entrances from the pedestrianised Church Street to Southway.  An additional further access is also provided from the south of the centre from Church Street along Boothway, which contains further small units.  There is also a further pedestrian route from John William Street through to the Mall via the car park which provides short stay and disabled provision.

Retail provision is also provided elsewhere in the town along Church Street within and outside the centre and to the north of Church Street as it leads west.   To the south of the centre, adjacent to the bus terminus, is Morrison’s supermarket.  Further to the east is West One which provides a number of units selling comparison goods.  An Aldi foodstore lies north of Church Street to the west of the centre.

Description of Proposal

This proposal is outline in nature with means of access being the only matter sought at this stage.

The proposal seeks to redevelop the area of the shopping centre through the redevelopment of two retail units (Peacocks and Superdrug), two vacant units on each side of Northway which are vacant, the market and replacing them with a new foodstore (Use Class A1) of approximately 7,350 sq m (gross).  The scheme would also remove the existing multi storey car park and replace it with a new decked car park comprising of 439 spaces.  The existing car park is in a poor state of repair and of need of refurbishment.  The new car park would be a town centre shoppers car park as well as servicing the foodstore with car parking provision.  The scheme would retain the existing retail stores located on the northern side of the Mall beneath the multi-storey car park which over sails them.  It would also retain ten of the existing disabled car parking provision adjacent to Castle Street in a similar position to the existing spaces albeit accessed via a new access ramp directly from Castle Street. 

The applicant has provided an indicative site masterplan which demonstrates how the quantum of development may be provided on this site.  It indicates that the store would be located to the west of the site adjacent to Southway / Albert Street.  It would have pedestrian store entrances off Southway and from within the exiting main square on the Mall. The store would be provided over two floors one of which would be a mezzanine.  Above the store would be a proportion of the new decked car park (two floors).  Access to the decked car park would be taken from the existing service ramp which provides service provision to units within the centre of the Mall that do not have a boundary with or near to a highway including Wilkinson’s.  The proposed decked car park would share this existing access with the existing units that are serviced from it.

The new foodstore would be serviced via a new vehicular access from John William Street located directly to the rear of the proposed store and Charles House.  This service access would lead to a new service yard to the east of Charles House and ‘back of house’ area for the proposed store.  The existing units retained by the proposal would continued to be serviced from Castle Street. 

The applicant has stated that the displaced tenants will be relocated within the Shopping Centre, where there are currently vacant units. The market hall will be removed, though new space for traders will be provided through a reconfiguration of the small units on Boothway, many of which are currently empty or adjacent to Wilkinson’s.  The scheme also incorporates further improvements to modernise and refurbish the rest of the Shopping Centre and improve the links to and within the centre.  However, due to the outline nature of the application no firm details have been provided in relation to these possible elements.

Relevant Planning History

There are numerous planning decisions relating to the Mall and units within the Mall.  However, there are no relevant planning decisions similar to the current proposal for this quantum of food retailing provision.

However, members will be aware that another convenience retail scheme appears on this agenda for land at West One (09/57457/FUL).  That scheme is located outside of the defined town centre of Eccles and seeks full consent for an 8,213 sq m store.  The operator in this instance would be Tesco.

Members will also be aware that outline planning consent has recently been granted for the erection of a combined court building, multi storey car park and ancillary works (including means of access) (09/57923/OUT) which was a renewal for a previous outline proposal to the north of this current application on the John Williamson Street car park.  This approval is located outside of the current proposal application boundary.  Members may also be aware that the funding for the Courts scheme has been withdrawn and therefore there is doubt that the scheme will be delivered.

Publicity

Site Notice: Affecting highway	Date Displayed: 11 September 2009

Press Advert: Salford Advertiser	Date Published: 10 September 2009
Reason: Article 8 Affect Public right of Way

Neighbour Consultations 

2, 4, 18 - 134 Church Street
2 – 37 (con) The Mall
1 – 15 (con) Boothway
2 – 10 (e), 13 - 126 Southway
Orbit House (all users) Albert Street
Charles House (all users) Albert Street
Peel House (all users) Albert Street

Representations 

Two letters of objection have been received from residents of South Tower.  The followings issues have been raised:

•	Impact on homes
•	Would take away peace and comfort
•	Reduce privacy
•	There are already a number of supermarkets – no more are needed
•	Impact from fumes
•	Pollution generally
•	Noise
•	Litter
•	Lack of shops in Eccles – shops are needed not supermarkets
•	Impact on value and saleability

Members will be aware that commercial value is not a material planning consideration.

One letter of support has been received from Councillor Ann Davies.  In her letter of support she agrees with the proposals by Threadneedle and highlights that a supermarket at West One would take away footfall from the town centre.  She states that she does not want to see Eccles as a ghost town.

Councillor Murphy has also requested that the application be determined by the Panel.

Summary of the objection received from the market traders

A further letter of objection has been received from the market traders and is signed by ten traders.  They raise the following issues:

•	They highlight that previous schemes have resulted in their relocation (Morrison’s redevelopment) and that the relocation took many years to resolve
•	They have not been consulted
•	The proposal makes no firm commitments regarding the markets
•	The applicant has not consulted with the traders so their needs have not been accounted for – they are concerned that the indicative suggestion for their relocation is not suitable
•	The supporting information makes no reference to the fact that the indoor market includes a café

The application publicity has been carried out correctly and members will note five site notices together with press advertisements regarding the scheme.  However, the market is located within the red edge boundary and therefore is the responsibility of the applicant to undertake the appropriate legal notices. This process has been undertaken correctly.

Summary of the objection received from PBN Holdings (applicant of the West One scheme)

The main issues received from PBN relate to the three tests set out in PPS4 (and previously in PPS6) which need to be considered when considering sequentially preferable sites.  Those tests relate to suitability, availability and viability.  PBN consider that the scheme as proposed does not represent a suitable or viable proposition to any food retailer and that the majority of the site is not available to deliver the project.

They have also state that the scheme would lead to congestion of the surrounding highway network and that the proposed junction alterations proposed to Wellington Road / Albert Street would not mitigate the congestion.  

They are also of the opinion that the proposed service yard arrangements are insufficient (to an operator) to accommodate the number of HGV’s that are required to service a store of the size proposed. 

In relation to the first point it is only necessary to consider whether a proposal within a town centre is suitable (in retail terms), viable and available when appraising all in centre options before determining an out of centre proposal.  It is therefore not necessary to consider these issues in relation to the merits of this scheme.  However, members will need to consider them in the consideration of the proposals for West One as this site is highlighted as a sequentially preferable site.

Issues of traffic and transportation are considered later in this report.

Consultations

Main Drainage -Drainage: Advise that surface water should be restricted to 20 L/S to existing combined sewer and that any existing oil interceptors should be replaced.  They also advise that shop floor levels should be slightly elevated to prevent flooding.

Any sewer connections / diversions will need United Utilities approval.

Design For Security - No comments received to date.

Highways - No comments received to date.

Urban Vision Environment - They advise that the submitted site investigation report fulfils the requirements of a preliminary risk assessment and agree with the reports conclusion for intrusive investigation to assess the level of made ground and degree of contamination potentially within the soils. Therefore, they raise no objection subject to conditions.

They also advise that conditions be attached relating to the control of noise, noise from fixed plant, air quality and dust management.

Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions relating to surface water

G M Passenger Transport Executive - No comments to make on this occasion.

United Utilities - No objections and provide advice regarding sewer positions and that build over agreements will not be permitted

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society - No comments received to date.

Countryside Agency - No comments received to date.

Ramblers Association Manchester Area - No comments to make on this application.

The Open Spaces Society - No comments received to date.

Trafford M B C - No comments received to date.

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy W5 - Retail Development
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP1 - Spatial Principles
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP2 - Promote Sustainable Communities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP3 - Promote Sustainable Communities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP4 - Best Use of Existing Resources
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP5 - Manage Travel Demand
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP6 - Marry Opportunity and Need
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP7 - Promote Environmental Quality
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP8 - Mainstreaming Rural Issues
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP9 - Reduce Emmissions, Adapt to Climate Cha
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy W1 - Waste Management
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy MCR1 - Manchester City Region Priorities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy MCR2 - Regional Centre, Inner Manchester City
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy EM18 - Decentralised Energy Supply
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A2  -  Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A8  -  Impact of Development on Highway Network
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A10  -  Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Park
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES2  -  Circulation and Movement
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES9  -  Landscaping
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES10  -  Design and Crime
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN17  -  Pollution Control
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST14  -  Global Environmental
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN22  -  Resource Conservation
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN19  -  Flood Risk and Surface Water
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DEV5  -  Planning Conditions and Obligations
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy S1  -  Retail  Leisure Dev. in Town Neighbourh.

Other Material Considerations

Planning Policy Guidance - PPG13 Transport
Planning Policy Statement - PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement - PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
Planning Policy Statement - PPS12 Local Development Frameworks
Supplementary Planning Document - Design SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations SPD

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS1 states that sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by: making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people's quality of life; contributing to sustainable economic development; protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality of the countryside and existing communities; ensuring high quality development; and supporting existing communities and contributing to the creation of safe, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all. On sustainable economic development, local authorities should recognise that economic development can deliver environmental and social benefits; that they should also recognise the wider sub regional and regional economic benefits and that these should be considered alongside any adverse local impacts.

Paragraph 13 advises that “The Government is committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and to …promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion and creating equal opportunity for all citizens.”

Paragraph 14 advises “Regeneration of the built environment alone cannot deal with poverty, inequality and social exclusion. These issues can only be addressed through the better integration of all strategies and programmes, partnership working and effective community involvement.”

Paragraph 28 of PPS1 advises that planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Paragraph 29 of PPS1 acknowledges that in some circumstances, a planning authority may decide in reaching a decision to give different weight to social, environmental, resource or economic considerations. Where this is the case the reasons for doing so should be explicit and the consequences considered. Adverse environmental, social and economic impacts should be avoided, mitigated or compensated for.

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

On 29 December 2009, central government published PPS4 – ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’.  The statement provides new national guidance in respect of all economic activity by amalgamating policies concerning employment and town centre uses in one document.  PPS6 has therefore been superseded

The principal aims of PPS4 are to encourage sustainable economic development based upon:

•	Building prosperous communities by improving economic performance;
•	Reducing the disparities in regional economic growth rates, promoting regeneration and tackling deprivation; 
•	Delivering sustainable patterns of development, reducing the need to travel and responding to climate change; and
•	Protecting the vitality and viability of town centres. (paras. 9/10)

PPS4 provides a number of “Development Management Policies” to be considered in respect of planning applications involving economic development including retail.  

PPS4 requires local planning authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and are advised that planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably (Policy EC10.1).

However, the most significant changes in relation to retail provision relate to the tests for considering proposals outside of the defined town centre rather than schemes within town centres such as this current proposal.  It does, however, reiterate the town centre first ethos contained within the superseded PPS6 but requires all schemes to be considered against impact tests.

PPG13: Transport

The main objective of PPG13 is to promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and moving freight. It aims to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and reduce the need to travel, particularly by car. For retail and leisure developments policies should seek to promote the vitality and viability of town centres, which should be the preferred locations for new retail and leisure development. Preference should be given first to town centres then edge of centre and then on out of centre sites in locations which are (or will be) well served by public transport.

Appraisal

It is considered that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed food retail element of the development is acceptable in retail planning policy terms; whether the indicative design, scale and massing is appropriate, 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.  Each of the issues shall be considered in turn below. 

Principle of Food Retail Provision

RSS Policy W5 sets out the regional hierarchy in terms of the regional centres and main towns. This allows for investment of an appropriate scale in centres not specifically identified within the policy in order to maintain and enhance their vitality and viability, including investment to underpin wider regeneration initiatives, to ensure that centres meet the needs of local communities.

PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ superseded PPS6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ during the consideration period of this application.

The main retail changes in PPS4 relate to the treatment of retail need and capacity.  At a strategic level it is no longer considered appropriate to assess convenience retail need.  This should be done at the local development framework level only.  Comparison retail need, leisure need and office needs are the main elements of economic development to be considered at a strategic or regional level.

The need test for the determination of applications for retail development has been dropped but greater emphasis is placed on retail impact and the sequential test is strongly re-affirmed.

Notwithstanding this, PPS4 reiterates the support afforded to ‘in centre’ schemes from the advice set out in PPS6.  The main changes, in terms of PPS4, relate to schemes which are not within main town centres.  

Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that there is no up to date retail capacity study for Salford, neither superseded PPS6 or PPS4 requires in centre stores to be appraised in the context of whether there is a need but simply that they are of an appropriate scale together with consideration of impact tests

Policy EC10 of PPS4 is relevant in this case.  It emphasis that LPA’s should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and that applications which secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.

Paragraph EC10.2 highlights that ALL planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:

a.	whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change 
b.	the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured 
c.	whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions 
d.	the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives 
e.	the impact on local employment

It should be noted that the application is an outline and therefore the majority of the detail of the scheme is unknown at this stage.  It is however, an ‘in centre’ site. Whilst the impact of the proposal upon the highway network is considered later in this report, it is considered that subsequent reserved matters should be able to provide appropriate information to fully address these impact tests together with consideration of the location of the site within an established town centre that is in need of investment and regeneration.

However, at this stage, it is considered that in terms of the impact tests set out in EC10.2: 

a)	Future consideration of reserved matters applications could ensure that the physical construction of the building would address the sustainability points raised in point a.  Moreover, the applicant has indicated that at this stage the development is targeting a BREEAM very good rating.  Furthermore, consideration of the sustainability credentials are considered later in this report.
b)	The site is well served by a range of public transport. And is in easy walking distance of bus stops, the bus interchange, Eccles train station and the Metrolink terminus.
c)	Future consideration of reserved matters applications could ensure that the physical appearance of the building would of a high quality and would improve the character of the area.  Moreover, further consideration of the indicative proposal together with parameters is considered later in this report.
d)	It is acknowledged that the town centre is in need of investment and that there are a number of vacant shops.  The delivery of this scheme would result in the physical redevelopment and regeneration of part of the centre together with providing opportunities within an accessible location.
e)	The applicant has highlighted that the proposal would result in direct employment of 350 and a further 52 indirectly.

Therefore, at this stage, it is considered that the principle of the proposal would not be at odds with the relevant impact test contained within PPS4.

It is relevant that neither PPS4 nor the Development Plan place any limitation on the size of retail unit that may be allowed within existing centres.  Notwithstanding the fact that elements of the existing centre would be demolished, it is considered, that the proposal would result in a size of store appropriate to the role and function of a defined town centre within Salford.

The objection received from PBN in relation to the proposal highlights that the scheme does not satisfy the tests of suitability, availability or viability when considering sequentially preferable sites.  However, consideration of these particular tests are only required when appraising possible sequentially alternatives sites in the context of an out of centre proposal.  Therefore, in considering this current proposal it is not necessary to have regard to these tests in the determination of this scheme.  However, given that the West One proposal also appears on this agenda, members will have to have proper regard to these tests in relation to the ‘in centre’ locations when considering whether or not to grant planning permission at West One.

In conclusion, the principle of a new foodstore of the size proposed within the town centre is appropriate in the context of Eccles.  However, the proposed development is considered to be entirely in accordance with the objectives of PPS4 and the Development Plan policy to direct and encourage new investment in existing town centres in order to secure growth and underpin their vitality and viability.

Means of Access 

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

Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would compromise highway safety by virtue of traffic generation and access.

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.

DP5 states that “development should be located so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and to enable people as far as possible to meet their needs locally... . Safe and sustainable access for all, particularly by public transport, between homes and employment and a range of services and facilities (such as retail, health, education and leisure) should be promoted, and should influence locational choices and investment decisions”

A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted with the application and amended in conjunction with advice from the Council’s highway engineer and consideration has been given to likely S278 works to the junction of Albert Road / Albert Street and Wellington Street.

In relation to the impact of the development upon the existing highway network the Council’s highway engineer has considered the existing number of cars within the multi storey car park together with the number proposed for the new decked car park.  The proposed car parking arrangements would be available during the week for 167 permit holders and town centre shoppers (including the new foodstore).  A weekends it would be solely a town centre short stay car park.  

The TA has modelled a number of scenerios in relation to works to the Albert Street / Albert Road / Wellington Road junction and highlights that without any improvements to this junction the scheme would result in additional queuing, particularly along Albert Street.  The current junction has no pedestrian crossing facilities although is signalised.  There is an area of landscaping between the footway adjacent to the M602 and the carriage way.  The Council’s highway engineer has highlighted that the junction can be widened to create left and right turn lanes into Albert Street and that this would effectively neutralise the impact of the proposed development upon this junction.  However, given that there are no pedestrian crossing facilities the highway engineer has suggested an improved junction which would be secured by S278 that would include pedestrian crossing facilities.

The Council’s highway engineer has considered the scenerios in relation to this junction which include do nothing, provide additional turning lanes and a full all stop signalised junction.  They consider: 

“The main impact of the development will be on the Albert St/Albert Rd/Wellington Rd junction. If no improvements took place queues would increase on three of the four arms with queues on Albert Street increasing from 52 to 71 in the pm peak.

An improved junction as shown on drawing N91637-01 would give improvements or no change to queue lengths on three of the four arms the exception being the Wellington Road eastern arm with the queue length increasing from 17 to 34.

An improved junction as shown on drawing N91637 with an all red pedestrian phase would significantly increase queues on all arms of the junction with queues on Albert Street increasing from 52 to 137.

A revised drawing N91637-01 REV A shows the original junction improvement but with the provision of pedestrian refuges on Wellington Road, whilst not providing an all red phase for pedestrians this would allow pedestrians to cross Wellington Road in two halves.”

They consider that the option contained on drawing N91637-01 REV A would enable the junction to carry the additional capacity which would result from this proposal with little noticeable change in relation to queuing times.  The junction layout would also provide pedestrian refuges to assist in the crossing of this junction albeit without a full all stop of vehicles as this would result in additional queuing at the peak times.

This option is considered the most appropriate in terms of ensuring the free flow of traffic and improving safe crossing facilities at this junction.

In terms of detail, the proposal seeks consent for means of access which includes access around and through the site.  The proposal highlights that two pedestrian entrance point would be provided, one located off Southway and the other from within the public square element of the Mall.  The proposal also highlights the need to retain and enhance the existing pedestrian movements through the site to the north to safeguard permeability through the centre.  It is considered that these principles would improve movement for pedestrians within the centre.
 
The creation of the service access also forms part of the proposed scheme.  Access to the service yard would be from Albert Street.  Whilst there are changes in the levels within and adjacent to the site the proposal access point is generally at grade with the adjoining adopted highway.  Whilst space within the service yard on the illustrative plan appears restricted it would allow for HGV’s to navigate through the service yard and leave the site in a forward gear.  Moreover, whilst the exact details of the scheme including how it would be laid out on site are unknown at this stage there are  parking restrictions in place along Albert Street to restrict the waiting of HGV’s on the public highway.  Notwithstanding this point, how the service yard would be managed in the future would be a matter for the operator although a condition has been recommended requiring the management of the service yard to be agreed in order to safeguard residential amenity.

The proposed access for the service yard would require the existing bus stop on John William Street to be relocated.  GMPTE have updated their advice, and whilst they offer no objection to the proposals, they request that the bus stop be relocated (as close to the existing stop) at the developer’s expense.

In terms of access for cars to the scheme the proposal promotes the existing service ramp as a way to provide combined access to the decked car park.  Whilst this ramp is presently used solely for the serving of units within the Mall the service area allows for appropriate manouvering of HGV’s.  Therefore, all service provision would be able to leave this service yard in a forward gear and subject to conditions requiring appropriate management of this route, it is not considered that the arrangements would result in an unacceptable shared route in terms of highway safety.

The existing retail units located beneath the existing multi storey car park would be retained by this proposal (including Boots and Hampsons).  The service arrangements for these units would remain unchanged and would be taken from Castle Street.

The applicant has also indicated that the current permit spaces in use in the multi storey car park would be accommodated within the new scheme.  The TA has been compiled on the basis that these spaces would be accommodated within the scheme and would not be dispersed elsewhere within the immediate area.  Members will be aware that in determining the application for a new court to the north of the scheme that a condition was attached in relation to providing alternative parking provision during construction and that some of those spaces identified to be provided would be within the multi storey car park.

The applicant is willing to work with the Court Services and the City Council to deliver the scheme having regard to the condition attached to the courts approval.  Moreover, the information submitted in conjunction with the Courts scheme included an audit of car parking usage within the town centre as a whole.  That report highlighted that 169 spaces were in use within the multi storey car park.  The applicant, therefore, has agreed to provide long stay provision for the permit holders identified within the information submitted with the Court scheme.  Whilst, it is acknowledged that the replacement car parking spaces would not be a like for like replacement for the total number of car parking spaces contained within the whole of the car park, it is a reasonable position to re-provide for those which are in use as they provide parking provision for other town centres uses.  A condition has been recommended which requires a car parking management strategy to be agreed prior to the commencement of development which demonstrates how 169 contract spaces will be provided.

The existing disabled surface car parking spaces, whilst being reduced in number, will be retained with a new vehicular access provided off Castle Street.  This area will provide a total of 10 spaces whereas at present there are 17 spaces.  The total number of disabled spaces and cycles spaces will be a matter for subsequent reserved matters consideration.  The applicant has indicated that some of the cycling spaces could be provided within the public realm.  The design and access statement states; “During the detail design stage dedicated spaces adjacent the store will be created for cycle parking within the public realm”

There is no highway objection to the scheme subject to condition and the inclusion of S278 works in relation to the junction of Albert Street / Albert Road / Wellington Street (based on drawing N91637 – 01 RevA) and the relocation of the bus stop adjacent to the proposed access.

Therefore, subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan as highlighted above.

Design, Scale and Massing

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

Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. 

Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space, that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs, reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate scale, connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.

Policy DES9 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.

In order to facilitate the total amount of floorspace proposed the scheme would include a mezzanine floor level and 2 levels of decked car park above (3 levels of car parking above the ‘back of house’ arrangements).    Based on the indicative information the height of the upper car park level would be between 11m and 13m in height.  The indicative plans demonstrate that the scheme would be 11m from the eastern elevation of South Tower.  The indicative elevation highlight an enclosed car park with panelling and glazing as the main materials.

Members will be aware that the context of the area within the immediate vicinity is of taller buildings.  In fact the residential tower to the west is eleven storeys.  

Given that the scheme seeks to provide town centres uses within the town centre and at this stage is in outline with details reserved for subsequent approval, it is considered that future reserved matters could be designed in such a manner to address the requirements of the development plan and the requirements of the policies highlighted above regarding design.  However, at this stage the indicative scheme demonstrates that future reserved matters would retain and enhance the permeability around the proposal and within the town centre.

It is appropriate, through the use of planning conditions, to set the key parameters of an outline proposal.  Notwithstanding the relationship of the neighbouring all buildings it is considered appropriate in this instance to condition details of the heights and footprint of the scheme similar to the indicative scheme on drawing P2771 200.

A condition has been recommended which maintains a minimum of 11m between the proposed store and Southway and 13m in height.  This is also relevant in terms of safeguarding the amenity of the existing residents of south tower although further consideration is given to this relationship later in this report.

However, at this stage, it is considered that the principle of the scheme having regard to the indicative layout is acceptable at this stage and that a high quality scheme could be delivered in the future through consideration of reserved matters applications.  Therefore, it is considered that the principle of the proposed scheme accords with the provisions of the development plan with regard design, scale and massing.

Effects of the Development on Existing and Future Neighbours 

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

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

Whilst the proposal seeks to provide a retail scheme within the established town centre together with replacement car parking facilities, the site is bounded by residential development to the south.  South Tower, a 13 storey residential tower building (including a hair dresser and office at ground floor) is located 11m from the western elevation of the scheme as illustrated.  The scheme would comprise of a two storey retail store and two floors of car parking provision above in closest proximity to the residents of South tower.  The height of the scheme, closest to the South Tower is indicated as 11m.  It would be 13m in height above the retained retail units (i.e. above Boots).  Whilst the height of the proposal is indicated at a height of 11m and 13m, the proposal would to the north east of the residential tower and therefore would not lead to shadowing of the residential uses.  In fact, South Tower itself would generate shadowing of the eastern elevation closest to the proposed scheme.

Given the proximity of the proposal to the residents there is the potential for noise and pollution.  This is a view shared by Urban Vision Environment.  However, they consider that through appropriately worded conditions, that noise and air quality would not be a reason to withhold planning permission in this instance.  Conditions have been recommended in relation to noise assessments, noise from fixed plant, air quality assessment and dust management.

Moreover, parameters have also been suggested by way of conditions to ensure that future reserved matters follow the principles set out in the indicative information.  Therefore, at this stage and based on the indicative layout, it is considered that this application accords with policies DES7 and EN17 in this instance.

Design and Crime

Policy DES10 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Design and Crime seeks to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.  Crime and Disorder is a material planning consideration.  

The proposal would utilise an existing vehicular access point and would result in a multi storey car park which would be in use seven days a week.  At present the car park is mainly used through the week only although it is acknowledged that it could open seven days a week.  The proposal would include a new decked car park which would be operated as a short stay shopper car park seven days a week with replacement permit spaces available for contract spaces through the week.  Whilst the detailed design of the decked car park is reserved for future consideration it is considered that the scheme would improve the use of the town centre, particularly within the vicinity of John William Street, and result in increased natural surveillance to the betterment of users of the town centre.

Whilst no formal comments have been received in response to the application publicity from Design for Security, it is considered that the scheme (whilst indicative as this stage) has had due regard to the issues around design and crime in accordance with policy DES10 as highlighted above and the Council’s Design and Crime SPD.

Notwithstanding this lack of response in this particular case the Design for Security team will be fully engaged in the preparation of future reserved matters together with the formal assessment.

Therefore, at this stage, it is considered that the principle of the scheme accords with the principles set out in policy DES10 and the adopted Design and Crime SPD. 

Sustainable Development

Policy DP9 of the RSS sets out how developments should seek to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. 

Policy DP 9 and NW Sustainability checklist forms part of the development plan for Salford.  The applicant has advised that as part of future reserved matters submissions the requirements of the checklist will be met.  

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

Policy EN22 states that development proposals for more than 5000sqm of floorspace 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 wherever practicable.

The scheme is in outline and no operator has been identified within the submission documentation.  However, the design and access statement states:
‘It is widely accepted that the major foodstore operators have well developed strategies for reducing energy use and maximising the use of renewable energies and resources.  Within the retail sector foodstore operators are leaders in the commitment to reduce the carbon footprints of their buildings through high insulation standards, air tightness and efficient ventilation systems.  It is the intention that this site and development will be no different.”

The design access statement goes on to stage that, “at this stage a BREEM rating of ‘Very Good’ is being targeted for the new store development.”  

In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with this policy and sustainability checklist conditions has been recommended requiring a further checklist to accompany subsequent reserved matters applications and that the scheme achieves a high sustainability rating.

Therefore, with the inclusion of conditions and consideration of future reserved matters, it is considered that the proposal would represent sustainable development in accordance with the above policies.

Flood risk

Policy EN19 states development, including the alteration of land levels, will not be permitted where it would:

1. be subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding;
2. materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; or
3. result in an unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of dealing with flooding issues.

A flood risk assessment has been submitted to accompany the proposal.  However, the EA have advised that as the site is less than 1 hectare the flood risk assessment should be withdrawn from the scheme and therefore raise no objection to the scheme.  However, they have suggested conditions relating to surface water, finish floor levels and site investigations and suggested that the scheme be considered by the Council’s drainage engineer.

The Council’s drainage engineer has appraised the scheme and raises no objection but provides advice in relation to conditions relevant to discharge rates of surface water and oil interceptors for the car park.

Appropriate conditions as suggested by the EA and Council’s drainage engineer, have been recommended.  Moreover, no objection has been raised by United Utilities.

Therefore, it is considered that the scheme accords with the provisions of policy EN19 of the development plan as highlighted above.

Community Involvement

The Council has adopted its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in March 2008.  The SCI states that the Council will encourage applicants to undertake pre-application discussions with officers prior to the submission of application where the proposal would meet a number of criteria.  The document also highlights the importance of engagement with the local community which may be affected by a development.

This process is supported by PPS1 ‘Promoting Sustainable Communities’ and PPS12 ‘Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities Through Local Spatial Planning’

In accordance with the above the applicant has undertaken pre-application discussion with officers of the Council, Urban Vision and members of the public.  A detailed overview of the community involvement has been provided.  

The consultation revolved around a series of seven staffed public exhibition sessions over the course of three weeks.  The exhibition took place at Unit 22 of the Eccles Shopping Centre between 10am and 2pm on the following dates:

•	Tuesday 1st September 2009
•	Wednesday 2nd September 2009
•	Monday 7 September 2009
•	Tuesday 8th September 2009
•	Monday 14th September 2009
•	Tuesday 15th September 2009
•	Saturday 19th September 2009

The exhibition banners were displayed in the shop window on dates the exhibition was unstaffed to provide a static display for the community to view. Contact details for the Eccles Information Office were published on the exhibition banners to provide a point of contact whilst the exhibition was unstaffed. 

The information office was created to act as a central point of contact for the local community on the proposal. The information office has its own dedicated e-mail address and local rate phone number and provided an alternative source of information for people who could not attend the exhibition. As part of the consultation, a number of individuals contacted the information office to ask questions and comment on Threadneedle’s proposal. 

The submitted reportr summarises the consultation feedback received from both the public exhibition and from community contact with the information office. 

In addition, since the SCI was originally produced the Salford Advertiser and Salford Online have published articles on the planning application

In total, over 550 people attended the public exhibition.  The addendum statement of community involvement highlights that over 82% of those people who responded broadly supported the proposals for Eccles Shopping Centre.

The addendum report highlights the issues raised through the consultation process and responses provided by the applicants team.

Developer Contributions

The Planning Obligations SPD requires developments to contribute towards the provision of open space, public realm, infrastructure and heritage, construction training and climate change.

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

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

Policy OB4 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to climate change. It states that unless schemes achieve a very good BREAM rating major developments should make a contribution of £2 per square metre towards projects aimed at reducing and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions for none residential development.  The applicant has confirmed in the planning statement that the scheme would achieve a very good rating.  An appropriate condition has been attached.
 
Policy OB5 of the Planning Obligations SPD states that developers should pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the City Council in drawing up and administrating legal agreements. In order to ensure this happens an additional charge of 2.5% will be added to cover the administrative costs of ensuring that the commuted sums are directed towards appropriate schemes.

The above policies highlight the normal applicable financial contributions in order to mitigate against the impact of new developments.

In this particular case the proposal would result in a net increase in retail floorspace of 5,050sq m (gross) This amount of floorspace above does not include the existing or proposal car parking provision nor does it include the floorspace for the market and retail units which would be demolished which equates to 2,311 sq m (gross)

Applying the net increase floorspace to the Planning Obligations SPD would result in the following financial contributions:

Public realm, Infrastructure and heritage	£101,000
Construction Training	£7,575
Climate Change	£10,100

A 2.5% administration fee is also required to cover costs. On this basis a total payment of £118,675 (£121,641) including administration fee) would be required.

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

However, members should note that the outline nature of the application and that future reserved matters applications could provide sufficient detail and value to address the requirements of the obligations paper.  For example, the detailed design of the building is targeting to achieve a high sustainability rating which would mean that no further financial contribution would be required.  In fact, the design and access statement states “ at this stage a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’ is being targeted for the new store development.”  This could also be the case for local training initiatives as most retail operators have their own local training initiatives.

In relation to public realm, infrastructure and heritage the applicant has indicated that the Mall area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed store would have improved together with replacement market facilities focussed on this area.  Given that this area is within the applicant’s control it would be appropriate that physical works are undertaken in and around this area by the applicant during the construction of the proposal. 

Conditions have been recommended requiring schemes to be provided to accord with the requirements of the adopted SPD although it is anticipated at this stage that the implementation of appropriate reserved matters may satisfy these conditions.

Value Added 

The scheme would result in improved shopper car parking provision for the town centre which would be controlled by way of a car park management condition.

The necessary highway works would require alterations and improvements to the Albert Street / Albert Road / Wellington Road junction which would include pedestrian crossing facilities.  Members will note that at present there are no pedestrian crossing facilities at this junction.

Other Issues 

There are no policies contained within the development plan that afford protection to the provision of markets.  Policy S1 seeks to safeguard shops.  Whilst markets are not shops it is considered that the shops that would be lost to facilitate the proposal would be acceptable given the overall benefit of improving facilities and attraction within Eccles Town Centre.  Moreover, the applicant has indicated that the units affected by the proposal would be relocated within the centre.

The applicant has also indicated that the market would also be relocated within the centre.  They highlight that the stalls could be re-provided along the blank elevation of Wilkinson’s where it would front the proposal and within vacant units along Boothway which are generally small units.

Whilst it is understood that these proposals have not had the benefit of detailed consultation with the market traders it is considered that a condition requiring the re-provision of the market stalls within the town centre prior to the commencement of development would be appropriate in this instance.  It is recommended that a condition be attached which would require appropriate re-provision and that the detail be considered in conjunction with the market traders.

Conclusions/Summary 

It is considered that the principle of the proposal is fully in accordance with the development plan for Salford and that the indicative details appropriately demonstrate that a scheme can be designed and appraised at future reserved matters stage which would not unduly impact upon the living condition of residents living closest to the scheme and could accord with relevant policies of the development regarding its position and appearance.

The proposal is located within the defined town centre boundary as such it is not necessary for the Local Planning Authority to refer the scheme to the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

Therefore, subject to the following conditions it is recommended that planning permission be approved.

Recommendation

Approve

1.	Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

	Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
	
	a) appearance;
	b) landscaping;
	c) layout;
	d) scale

	The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the applicant for subsequent approval.

3.	The submission of future reserved matters for the proposed units shall come forward in strict accordance with the following parameters:
	
	A maximum building height of 13 meters from agreed finish floor level
	A minimum distance of 11 meters from the closest element of South Tower to the west of the site 
	A maximum gross retail floor area of 7,350 square meters 
	A minimum of 439 car parking spaces (including not less than 167 contract long stay spaces)

	For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard residential amenity in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4.	Further to the requirement of condition 3 and prior to the commencement development details of the existing and proposed site and finish floor levels shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

	For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard residential amenity in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

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

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

6.	I.	A Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and  
	II.	The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the development; and
	III.	A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

	Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

7.	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.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	No development shall begin until details of a scheme for the provision of public realm, heritage enhancements and/or community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development in accordance with Policies ST1 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the standards set out in Policy OB2 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To ensure adequate provision is made for public realm, heritage enhancements and/or community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development pursuant to Policies ST1 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy OB2 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

9.	The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction /Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating, or equivalent, 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.

	In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability.  This is in accordance with Policy ST14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016

10.	No development shall begin until a scheme detailing how the development will contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst the local labour force is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to commencement of development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To ensure that the development makes an appropriate contribution to the training of local residents and that an adequate supply of construction labour is available to help deliver the scale of development and regeneration being planned for the City of Salford in the interests of social inclusion, environmental sustainability and the promotion of sustainable urban neighbourhoods.  This is in accordance with Policies ST1, ST3 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy OB3 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

11.	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.

	To prevent pollution of the water course in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

12.	No development shall commence until a scheme for the management and control of the multi-storey car park has been submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall demonstrate the provision of 167 long stay permit spaces Monday to Friday, barrier controls between car park and existing service yard and general management arrangements for the provision of a town centre car park.  The scheme shall be operated in conjunction with the approved details at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To accord with the stated intentions of the submitted Transport Assessment and to safeguard appropriate town centre car parking provision in accordance with policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

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

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

14.	The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) by more than -5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.  Noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS 4142:1997 "Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas".  ‘T’ refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs and any 5 minute period between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

15.	Prior to development of this site the developer shall prepare and be submitted for the written approval of the LPA an air quality assessment for the development to assess the existing and future air quality on the site for years 2010, 2020 and opening year with and without the development, for nitrogen dioxide and particles less than 10 microns. The assessment shall identify the worst case exposure, changes in pollution concentration and identify any changes in pollution levels predicted for residents of the proposed development. The predicted levels should be compared with the Air Quality Objectives set in the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (as amended).  The assessment shall identify fully all control measures which are required to control the impact of the development on local air quality and to control the impact of poor air quality on future residents of the development. All control measures identified must be approved in writing by the Local Authority and installed prior to occupation of the development.  All approved measures shall be retained and maintained thereafter.  A verification report shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority confirming that all measures recommended by the air quality report have been implemented in full prior to the final occupation of the site.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

16.	Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Dust Management Plan for the written approval of the LPA. The Dust Management Plan shall identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be generated and further identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the site boundary. Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented and maintained at all times. Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all material handling operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or replaced.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

17.	No development shall take place until a scheme for highway improvements has been submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall detail the junction improvements demonstrated on drawing N91637-01 REV A in relation to the junction of Albert Street / Albert Road / Wellington Street  together with the relocation of the existing bus stop on Albert Street adjacent to the site.  The scheme shall include a timetable for the delivery of the highway works.  The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

	So as not to interfere with the free flow of traffic along Albert Street / Albert Road / Wellington Street  in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

18.	No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of a replacement market has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall include an implementation programme.  The development herby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

	In accordance with the requirements of ST9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

19.	No deliveries, loading, unloading or other servicing activities shall take place at the site outside the hours of hours 07.00 and 23.00 hours to the service yard

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

20.	The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans
	
	Site Location Plan	P2771 -100
	Site Master Plan (access arrangements only)	P2771 200

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

Notes to Applicant

1.	The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
2.	The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice of United Utilities dated 21st September 2009
3.	If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination is caused, the LPA shall be notified immediately.  Where required, a suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be carried out in accordance to an agreed process and within agreed timescales in agreement with the LPA.
4.	Further to the requirements of condition 5 (drainage) the applicant is advised that the scheme should demonstrate how surface water can be restricted to 20 litres per second.
5.	Further to the requirements of condition 18 (replacement market provision) the applicant is advised that the scheme should include appropriate consultation with market traders.

APPLICATION No:	09/58154/FUL	
APPLICANT:	Arndale Properties Ltd	
LOCATION:	Gus Home Shopping Ltd, Worsley Road, Eccles, M30 8NR, 	
PROPOSAL:	Alterations to external appearance of existing warehouse including new vehicular access doors, fire escape doors and cladding, formation of rear yard area together with boundary fencing	
WARD:	Winton	

At a meeting of the panel 14th January 2010 the application was deferred for an inspection of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel. My previous observations are as follows.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Since the report was written PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth has been issued.  It states that Local Planning Authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and that planning applications to secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.  Key issues highlighted for consideration are, impact upon climate change, accessibility, high quality design, impact upon regeneration and local employment.

The proposed development it not considered to be at odds with PPS4.

Since this report was published the applicant has agreed to a condition which would restrict the operation of the newly formed service yard to the hours of 08.00 - 18.00 Monday to Saturday with no activity on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Therefore, it is considered that with the inclusion of such a restrictive condition, together with the proposed acoustic fencing protection, that the alterations to the northern elevation of the building to enable the lawful use of the building to continue, would safeguard the amenity of residential properties in the vicinity.

In conclusion, it is now recommended that the scheme be approved with the inclusion of conditions relating to the following topics and that authority is given to the Assistant Director for Planning and Transport Future in conjunction with the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel to approve the detailed wording of the conditions:

•	Time
•	Restriction of hours of operation of the newly formed service yard to the north of the existing high bay warehouse
•	Implementation and retention of the proposed acoustic fence to the north west corner of the site
•	The Colour treatment of the proposed security fencing
•	Restriction of any external storage within the newly formed service yard to the north of the existing high bay warehouse to 4m in height

Description of Site and Surrounding Area 

This application relates to the southern part of the former GUS/Littlewoods Shop Direct site.  The application site is 2.98ha in area and accommodates a ‘high bay’ warehouse, constructed in 1987.  The warehouse is approximately 16m in height to the eaves, has 10 no. loading doors along its western frontage and a small single storey office building to the north of these doors and associated yard.  The building is finished in profiled metal cladding with two tones of grey set in horizontal bands across the elevations.  Parts of the building are expressed in blue, as are the doors and window frames of the office block.  The building has a floorpsace of some 11,800 square metres.

The only other building within the application area is a security lodge close to the entrance on Worsley Road.

The site as a whole was vacated in 2007 and has not been used since that time.  The remainder of the site area is open land with the remnants of the floor slab of the former mill building.  It is this area which is the subject of a second application which also appears on this agenda (09/58155/OUT) which seeks outline consent for B1 and B2 floorspace.

To the north of the site (albeit part of the former GUS site) is cleared.  To the east is the access road to the former mill and Bridgewater Canal which is lined on both banks by industrial development, much of which is now vacant.  To the south is a pedestrian alleyway and high-level railway line, which separates the site from the residential properties further to the south.  To the west is the main entrance, servicing arrangements, securing lodge and access.  Beyond this is predominately residential accommodation including Lulworth Road and Bromsgrove Avenue

The site is unallocated in the development plan although falls within a mixed residential and industrial area.  

Description of Proposal 

The application seeks detailed planning permission for alterations to the existing high bay warehouse.

The alterations proposed relate to the northern elevation where it previously adjoined the former mill building.  This particular element is single storey and includes remnants of the former brick mill.  It is proposed that three new loading doors would be provided for use by HGV’s together with a new pedestrian fire door and the remainder of the elevation would be clad to match the existing high bay element.  

The loading doors would measure 4m X 5m and would be located within the western most element of the northern elevation.

Acoustic fencing is proposed along the western boundary to the rear of those properties on Lulworth Road.  Further 2.4m high palisade fencing is also proposed which would form a new service yard.

The applicant has advised that the amendments are required to enable the premises to be acceptable for occupation by Sambro Internal who are a large privately-owned toy manufactures.

All other access, service and car parking arrangements would be unchanged by this proposal.

Planning History

Whilst there is no planning history relating to the provision of loading arrangements within the northern elevation the most relevant planning decision for the site as a whole relates to the area of the site that previously accommodated the mill building which directly linked into this high bay warehouse.  In that particular case, planning permission was refused for the refurbishment of premises and alterations to elevations in April 2008 (08/56041/FUL).

The reasons for refusal state: 

1. The proposed development, by virtue of the demolition to an extensive part of a Locally Listed mill, including its chimney, towers and other ancillary warehousing and structures, would result in the loss of an important Edwardian landmark, typical of early 20th century industrial architecture in the Salford and Greater Manchester area. The mill forms an important relationship with the historic Bridgewater Canal and, along with other similar premises, is key to the evolution of the city as a global industrial presence. The development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policy CH8, ER3 and ER4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed new development, by virtue of its height, massing, position and materials, would fail to relate well to the established industrial and residential character of the wider area. The architecture and landscaping would neither relate well to the context of the canal or the adjoining residential neighbourhood or the retained brick built element of the existing building. The development therefore would be contrary to Policy DES1, DES8, DES9 and E5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed development, by virtue of its height, length, massing and use of materials, would be adversely detrimental on the amenity enjoyed by the residents of properties along the eastern side of Lulworth Road. The development constitutes a proposal, which would be overbearing, oppressive and would result in a loss light to the properties and gardens of these long established dwellings and would therefore be contrary to Policy DES1 and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposed development, by virtue of the combined service yards, parking spaces and through access along the eastern boundary, would be hazardous to users and would result in a vehicular and pedestrian interface that would compromise safety. Furthermore, the significant increase in parking has not been accompanied by a Transport Statement and therefore the application has insufficient information. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Members will aware that planning permission is not required for the demolition of none residential buildings.  Therefore, no further planning consent was required for the demolition of the locally listed mill which took place in early 2009.

Publicity

Site Notice: Article 8 site notice	Date Displayed: 27 October 2009

Neighbour Notification 

257 neighbouring properties have been notified of the application.

Representations 

3 individual letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity together with a 16 named petition.  The following issues have been raised:

24hour, 7 days a week operation
Noise pollution during construction
Unsupported statements within reports
Loss of amenity
Air pollution
Impact on roads and sewers
Restriction of the neighbouring railway bridge and impact on traffic
Impact of traffic generally

Consultations

Highways - No objection

Main Drainage - No comments received to date.

Design For Security - No comments received to date.

Urban Vision Environment - Recommend that the scheme be refused on the grounds that the new service arrangements would result in a loss of amenity to residents

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy E5  -  Develop. in Established Employment Areas
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES7  -  Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN17  -  Pollution Control
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A2  -  Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A8  -  Impact of Development on Highway Network
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES2  -  Circulation and Movement

Appraisal 

It is considered that the main planning issues in this particular case relate to whether the principle of employment provision on this site is acceptable and whether the proposal would safeguard residential amenity.  Each is discussed in detail below.

Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site

The site constitutes an “established employment area,” within the remit of policy E5. The policy states that:

Within established employment areas, planning permission will be granted for the following types of development where they are consistent with other relevant policies and proposals of the UDP: 

•	the modernisation and refurbishment of existing buildings; 
•	the redevelopment of land and buildings for employment purposes; 
•	improvements to access, circulation, parking and servicing, particularly where this would foster sustainable transport choices; 
•	the environmental improvement of the area including, where appropriate, the landscaping of vacant sites; and 
•	improvements to property and personal security, where this is consistent with the need to maintain high standards of design.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims of this policy, which is to promote the protection and improvement of the city’s employment sites. The policy states that planning permission will be granted for this type of development where it is consistent with other relevant policies and proposals of the UDP.

Effects of the Development on Neighbours 

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

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

It is important to note that there are no planning restrictions relating to the hours of operation of the existing high bay warehouse.  Therefore, it can be assumed that the former operators and any other B8 (warehouse and distribution) use could operate from the building (without any alterations to the elevations) without any further planning consent and could operate on a 24 hours 7 days a week basis.

Whilst this is an important material planning consideration it is considered that the introduction of new servicing doors, which require planning consent, would change the way in which this particular part of the site would operate.  Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the impacts that the proposed alterations would have on the amenity of nearby residents. 

The proposals have been accompanied by an air quality assessment and noise assessment.  The details of which have been considered by Urban Vision Environment.

Urban Vision Environment advise that:

The noise assessment report concludes that operational noise from the use of the site will cause the ambient noise climate to increase by a negligible amount, except at one location (55, Lulworth Road) where a minor increase is predicted at night. Furthermore, off-site traffic noise levels are predicted to increase by a negligible amount and noise limits for fixed items of plant are recommended.

The report however, concludes that maximum noise levels associated with heavy goods vehicle movements on site are predicted to exceed the level that the World Health Organisation states is an indicator of sleep disturbance.

The report goes onto to recommend noise mitigation in the form of a 4m high acoustic fence or wall between the site and the adjacent properties on Lulworth Road, and the use of various noise control measures by on site managers eg. The use of signage for operators of the site to minimise noise; management of the use and activities of the site; site personnel identified to respond to noise complaints from residents.

I am concerned that this proposal is likely to cause loss of amenity to the adjoining residents on Lulworth Road, particularly due to the movements and loading/unloading of heavy goods vehicles in the open yard areas and on a potential 24/7 use basis, even with proposed mitigation measures in place.

Whilst the proposed 4m high fence or wall will help mitigate the impact of noise I do not consider this to be the best way of controlling noise to an acceptable level. Indeed, in the longer term the maintenance of a fence as an effective acoustic barrier could be an issue. Rather, I consider it  be better to redesign the layout of the site and position the proposed buildings from the Application B site such that they act as a noise barrier to the dwellings to the west from any activities that take place in the proposed, open yard area. In effect, there would be a ‘continuous line’ of buildings separating the two development sites from the dwellings to the west.

Local residents are sensitive to noise issues from this site and associated activities. There is a history of complaints received by the City’s Environmental Health Service, particularly in respect of the use of heavy goods vehicles at unsocial times.

In respect of air quality and the conclusions of the report, I have no further comment to make.

In conclusion, I am concerned that noise from the use of heavy goods vehicles on the development site as proposed will be an issue and is likely to cause loss of amenity to local residents, particularly at night. I therefore object to the proposal and recommend the application is refused.

Whilst it is appropriate to consider impact upon residential amenity it is also appropriate to consider whether the use of planning conditions could overcome any element of the scheme which is considered unacceptable and therefore result in an acceptable scheme.

In relation to this particular point discussions have been held with the applicants agents regarding the restriction of operating hours relating to the new access arrangements and therefore its service yard to ascertain whether such conditions would appropriately address the concerns regarding residential amenity highlighted by Urban Vision Environment.

It has been suggested that the condition could be attached which would restrict the use to normal day time hours for example only operating the new service yard between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm, excluding Sundays and Bank Holidays.  The use of the building and existing loading bays would be unaffected by such a condition.

However, the applicant has confirmed that such a restriction would render the investment in the property as proposed unviable.

Circular 11/95 ‘The use of Planning Conditions’ is clear that the attachment of a condition (without any clear prospect of it being achievable) is inappropriate and should be refused.

It is appropriate that all other material planning considerations are considered and carefully weighed in the balance.

Other Material Planning Considerations

The applicant’s agent has provided information regarding the job creation benefits that the proposal would bring about should planning permission be approved.  He states

The existing high-bay warehouse was constructed specifically for GUS in the 1980’s.  The site was closed as part of a national re-organisation of distribution capacity within the Littlewoods/Shop Direct group, as this site was considered to be inefficient and poorly located compared to capacity elsewhere.

Our client had all but given up on ever securing any tenant for the high bay warehouse, or indeed any other part of the site, despite marketing the property.

The opportunity provided by the relocation of Sambro, a local distributor of toys, is, therefore, considered almost unique; a chance to bring this warehouse back into use that is unlikely to be repeated.  If the works required to allow Sambro to move into the warehouse are not permitted, our client will almost certainly reconsider their future strategy for the site as a whole.  It is of relevance to note that Salford’s own Employment Land Review (Published in November 2008) classed the site as a ‘Swing Site’ which performs either poorly or very poorly, and a future change of use might be considered appropriate.  In our view, if this application fails, it is highly likely that the site will be lost to employment uses altogether.

Sambro are a significant local employer, operating out of two sites in Greater Manchester, employing some 60 people.  Opening a new facility at the former GUS site is a vital element in their continuing business plan.  The site would employ 80 staff, a mix of new recruits and staff relocated from elsewhere.  There is also the potential for future expansion of employment depending on future trading conditions.  If this application is not approved, it is highly likely that these jobs will be lost to Salford entirely, and Sambro will look for accommodation further afield as there are no other high bay units in Salford that accommodate them, and they must relocate by mid 2010.”

Job retention within Greater Manchester and the potential for further jobs to be created within Salford is a compelling material planning conditions.  However, whilst other solutions and the use of planning considerations could safeguard residential amenity albeit methods which could not be agreed with the applicant it is not considered that the job creation argument set out in this particular case is sufficient to accept a situation which would result in an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity.

Therefore, it is considered that the alterations, without any restriction on the hours that they could be used, would result in an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity contrary to policies DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Access and Highway Arrangements

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 A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact of highway safety or the ability of the Strategic Route Network to accommodate appropriate traffic flows.

The applicant's agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with PPG13 and the implications of the development together to the proposals to the north of the site which utilises the same access arrangements have been jointly considered.  The submitted TA highlights that the reduction in floorspace (41,000sq m to 21,000 sq m) will have a significant reduction in the number of vehicle movements at the junction of the main site with Worsley Road.  On this basis there is no objection to the scheme and is therefore considered to accord with the relevant policies highlighted above.

Design Implications

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. 

In design terms the scheme seeks to mirror the existing materials for a small section of building which has been exposed by the demolition of the former mill.  Within the context of this site and having regard to the position of the part of the building to which the alterations relate, it is considered an appropriate design solution in accordance with the requirements of those conditions highlighted above.

Other Issues

The applicant’s agent is considering the issues raised by Creamline Diaries (in response to the outline application also on this agenda to the north) to consider a comprehensive access through the former GUS site to enable the employment uses on Weymouth Road to access their premises via Worsley Road and this site.  However, the applicant has stated that this would be subject to approval of this planning application.

Conclusions/Summary 

In conclusion, it is not considered that the material planning considerations would outweight the impact of that the proposed alterations would have upon the residential amenity.  Therefore, it is considered that the scheme should be refused.

Recommendation

Refuse

	The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of noise and disturbance, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy DES7 and EN17.

APPLICATION No:	09/58155/OUT	
APPLICANT:	Arndale Properties Ltd	
LOCATION:	Gus Home Shopping Ltd, Worsley Road, Eccles, M30 8NR, 	
PROPOSAL:	Outline application including means of access for the redevelopment of part of former GUS Site to provide new business units B1 (C) / B2 retention and refurbishment of existing warehouse, car parking and landscaping	
WARD:	Winton	

At a meeting of the panel 14th January 2010 the application was deferred for an inspection of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel. My previous observations are as follows.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Since the report was written PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth has been issued.  It states that Local Planning Authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and that planning applications to secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.  Key issues highlighted for consideration are, impact upon climate change, accessibility, high quality design, impact upon regeneration and local employment.

The proposed development it not considered to be at odds with PPS4.

For clarification in a twenty five named petition objecting to the proposal has also been received.  The petition raises no new issues from those listed and considered in the main report.

With regard to the floorspace figures quoted within the ‘Description of Proposal’ section the report should read 4246 sq m for the refurbished floorspace (Class B8) and 4490 sq m of new provision in the form of small business units.  These figure reflect the revised indicative layout.

Description of Site and Surrounding Area 

This application relates to the northern part of the former GUS/Littlewoods Shop Direct site.  The application site is 2.5ha in area.  At its northern end, the site accommodates a brick built warehouse building (formerly a ‘sorting hall’) with a floorpsace of 4,275 square metres.  It is predominantly single storey but with a ridge which rises to approximately 7m.  A small amount of the former mill building is located close to the south eastern site boundary; this building was not demolished as it contains a substation.

The western boundary of the site is formed by a 2m high concrete fence which runs along the boundaries of the gardens of the properties along Lulworth Road.  Set in from that boundary is the eastern wall of the former mill building which stood on the site but which was recently demolished,  The eastern elevation was previously around 5 – 6m in height; upon demolition this was lowered to some 2 – 2.5m in height.

The remainder of the site area is open land with the remnants of the floor slab of the former mill building.

The site was vacated in 2007 and has not been used since that time.

A more recent modern clad warehousing building to the south of the site is the subject of a separate application which also appears on this agenda (09/58154/FUL).  That scheme seeks to retain the warehouse with alterations to elevations and formation of a service yard.

The site is unallocated in the development plan although falls within a mixed residential and industrial area.  

To the east of the site is the Bridgewater Canal, which is lined on both banks by industrial development, much of which is now vacant.  Industrial uses extend to the north of the site as well as on the opposite bank from the site.  To the south of the site is a high-level railway line, which separates the site from the residential properties further to the south.  An inter war housing estate of both terrace and semi-detached houses occupies the land to the west and is only separated from the mill buildings by a narrow service road and alleyway.

The site access is from Worsley Road via a security controlled cordon.  An existing access road routes to the south and east of the adjoining warehouse.  This access formerly provided a service route to and from the now demolished mill building

Description of Proposal 

The application seeks outline planning consent for the redevelopment of the site to provide new B1(c)(Business/Office) / B2 building (General Industrial), and the refurbishment of the one significant remaining building on the site (formerly a ‘sorting hall’) for warehousing purposes.  All matters are reserved except access.

Whilst the application is in outline only, it is accompanied by an illustrative masterplan which indicates the potential capacity of the site and establishes a number of development parameters.  It illustrates a development comprising some 4275sq m of floorspace in the refurbished warehouse and a further 4680sqm in the form of small business units.  Combined with the retention of the ‘high bay’ warehouse to the south, this results in a total site development on the former GUS site as a whole of 20,755sqm.  This compares to the former floorspace on the site as a whole of approximately 41,000sq m.

The parameter plan indicates that the buildings would be sited 6m from the western boundary shared with the residential properties on Lulworth Road.  Whilst the outline nature of this scheme does not define building heights is it indicated that the they would be of a simple mono-pitched terrace rising from 6m at the rear to 7m at the front.

The supporting information also indicates that the external appearance is likely to be of a modern industrial standard utilising a steel frame and panelling system.

Planning History

Planning permission was refused for the refurbishment of premises and alterations to elevations in April 2008 (08/56041/FUL).

The reasons for refusal state: 

1. The proposed development, by virtue of the demolition to an extensive part of a Locally Listed mill, including its chimney, towers and other ancillary warehousing and structures, would result in the loss of an important Edwardian landmark, typical of early 20th century industrial architecture in the Salford and Greater Manchester area. The mill forms an important relationship with the historic Bridgewater Canal and, along with other similar premises, is key to the evolution of the city as a global industrial presence. The development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policy CH8, ER3 and ER4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed new development, by virtue of its height, massing, position and materials, would fail to relate well to the established industrial and residential character of the wider area. The architecture and landscaping would neither relate well to the context of the canal or the adjoining residential neighbourhood or the retained brick built element of the existing building. The development therefore would be contrary to Policy DES1, DES8, DES9 and E5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed development, by virtue of its height, length, massing and use of materials, would be adversely detrimental on the amenity enjoyed by the residents of properties along the eastern side of Lulworth Road. The development constitutes a proposal, which would be overbearing, oppressive and would result in a loss light to the properties and gardens of these long established dwellings and would therefore be contrary to Policy DES1 and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposed development, by virtue of the combined service yards, parking spaces and through access along the eastern boundary, would be hazardous to users and would result in a vehicular and pedestrian interface that would compromise safety. Furthermore, the significant increase in parking has not been accompanied by a Transport Statement and therefore the application has insufficient information. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Members will aware that planning permission is not required for the demolition of none residential buildings.  Therefore, no further planning consent was required for the demolition of the locally listed mill which took place in early 2009.

Publicity

Site Notice: Article 8 site notice	Date Displayed: 10 November 2009

Press Advert: Salford Advertiser	Date Published: 19 November 2009
Reason: Article 8 Standard Press Notice

Neighbour Notification 

259 neighbouring properties have been notified of the application.

Representations 

5 letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity.  The following issues have been raised:

•	Noise
•	Traffic
•	Height of buildings
•	Type of potential business
•	Loss of light
•	Lack of privacy
•	What are the opening hours – something with residential opening hours would have no objection
•	Since the closure of GUS the area has been quiet
•	Loss of value of residential properties

Furthermore, Creamline dairies have asked that the opportunity to provide a link through this site should not be overlooked to ease problems on Weymouth Road

Consultations

Main Drainage - Advises that the scheme should discharge surface water into the Bridgewater Canal.  If this is not achieveable then advice is provided regarding discharge rates

Highways - No objection but advise that measures to safeguard pedestrian access should be secured.

Urban Vision Environment - No objection subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to attentuation of noise from any fixed plant.

The Highways Agency - No objection subject to the inclusion of a travel plan

Environment Agency - No objection subject to the inclusion of condition controlling surface water drainage

Design For Security - No comments received to date.

G M Passenger Transport Executive -  No comment to make

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit - No objection.  Advice provided within main appraisal section of this report

United Utilities - They advise that surface water cannot discharge into the public sewer and must discharge to the canal which may require the consent of the Environment Agency

Manchester Ship Canal Company - No comments received to date.

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP9 - Reduce Emmissions, Adapt to Climate Cha
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy E5  -  Develop. in Established Employment Areas
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A2  -  Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A8  -  Impact of Development on Highway Network
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES7  -  Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN17  -  Pollution Control
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN19  -  Flood Risk and Surface Water
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES10  -  Design and Crime
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN12  -  Important Landscape Features
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN8  -  Nature Conservation of Local Importance

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Design SPD

Appraisal 

It is considered that the main planning issues in this particular case relate to whether the principle of employment provision on this site is acceptable, whether the proposal would safeguard residential amenity, whether the proposal would result in a detrimental impact upon highway safety and whether the scheme addresses the relevant reasons for refusal of the previous scheme.  Each is discussed in detail below.

Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site

The site constitutes an “established employment area,” within the remit of policy E5. The policy states that:

Within established employment areas, planning permission will be granted for the following types of development where they are consistent with other relevant policies and proposals of the UDP: 

•	the modernisation and refurbishment of existing buildings; 
•	the redevelopment of land and buildings for employment purposes; 
•	improvements to access, circulation, parking and servicing, particularly where this would foster sustainable transport choices; 
•	the environmental improvement of the area including, where appropriate, the landscaping of vacant sites; and 
•	improvements to property and personal security, where this is consistent with the need to maintain high standards of design.

The proposal involves elements of each of the bullets highlighted above and is considered to be consistent with the aims of this policy, which is to promote the protection and improvement of the city’s employment sites. The policy states that planning permission will be granted for this type of development where it is consistent with other relevant policies and proposals of the UDP.

Access and Highway Arrangements

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 A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact of highway safety or the ability of the Strategic Route Network to accommodate appropriate traffic flows.

In considering access arrangements it is important to have regard to the former use of the site and the reasons attached to the previous decision to refuse planning permission together with the current proposal.  The previous use of the site was similar in that it provided employment provision with access (loading and unloading mainly) to the rear.  However, the site operated as one planning unit whereas this scheme would not and would create new and independent employment provision to the rear which would be accessed via the route indicated on the submitted plans wrapping around the high bay unit.  Therefore, it is necessary to consider all aspects of access including how pedestrians would access the proposed units as previously there was no such need as pedestrians would have first reported to the front of the site adjacent to Worsley Road.

The reasons attached to the previous refusal notice are set out earlier in this report.  In relation to the first part of the 4th reason for refusal regarding vehicular and pedestrian conflict, the applicant has indicated that a pedestrian route can be provided along most of the proposed access where it wraps around the existing high bay warehouse.  However, there is a pinch point to the rear of the building where it would be difficult to provide a separate pedestrian footway.  However, they have suggested that a scheme could be implemented and managed through the use of signage and road markings highlighting priority to pedestrians in this area.  The route would be retained as a private route and would not be adopted by the Highway Authority. 

This route has been highlighted as an area of concern by the Council’s highway engineer.  However, subject to a condition which requires a safe pedestrian route to be secured there is no objection to the scheme in terms of future potential conflict.

The applicant's agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with PPG13.    The submitted TA highlights that the reduction in floorspace (41,000sq m to 21,000 sq m) will have a significant reduction in the number of vehicle movements at the junction of the main site with Worsley Road.  On this basis there is no objection to the scheme and it is therefore considered to accord with the relevant policies highlighted above and the later part of the fourth reason for refusal attached to previous planning refusal (08/56041/FUL).

In conclusion, therefore, it is considered that the scheme would accord with the provisions of the development plan as highlighted above with regard to access and highway arrangements and would not be at odds with the earlier reason for refusal.

Effects of the Development on Neighbours 

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

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

Whilst the scheme seeks only access at this stage in accordance with the minimum requirements for considering outline schemes the applicant has provided an indicative layout.  Moreover, this scheme has been revised following initial concerns from Urban Vision Environment that the indicative layout would result in a loss of amenity by way of noise to the residents of Lulworth Road.

The revised indicative layout (drawing A004 Rev A) sets out the proposed buildings in a similar arrangement to the former mill building in that they would be parallel to the rear boundaries of the neighbouring residential properties albeit set in from the common boundary.

Firstly, in relation to noise and disturbance the indicative layout is sufficient to demonstrate that the quantum of development proposed can be accommodated on this site in the manner set out.  Moreover, Urban Vision Environment have considered the revised indicative layout and consider that the building itself would provide sufficient acoustic protection to the residential properties on Lulworth Road sufficient to withdraw their objection.  However, they do suggest a condition in relation to the attenuation of any noise from fixed plant.  Such a condition has been recommended.

Secondly, the indicative layout proposes that the building would be set in from the residential boundary by 6m and would by 7m in height (at its highest furthest from the residential boundary), and a distance of 22m (at its closest) from the rear elevations.  Members will recall that the previous refused scheme sought amendments to the mill itself which was sited much closer, being approximately 1.5m from the common boundary and at a height of 5-6m at this point.  Therefore, it is considered that the indicative layout is sufficient to demonstrate that the principle of this development would not result in a detrimental impact upon residential amenity as it would improve upon the position prior to the demolition of the mill.  However, parameters have been suggested by way of conditions to ensure that future reserved matters follow these principles.

Therefore, at this stage and based on the indicative layout, it is considered that this application accords with policies DES7 and EN17 in this instance.

Flood risk

Policy EN19 states development, including the alteration of land levels, will not be permitted where it would:

1. be subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding;
2. materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; or
3. result in an unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of dealing with flooding issues.

A flood risk assessment has been submitted to accompany the proposal.  The Environment Agency have raised no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring surface water drainage to be agreed.

The submitted flood risk assessment and drainage strategy indicate that there are two different methods to discharge surface water at present.  The drainage strategy states that surface water is discharged into the Bridgewater Canal whereas the Flood Risk Assessment indicates that surface water is discharged both into the public sewer network and Bridgewater Canal.

Having considered the submitted information the Council’s drainage officer advises that surface water should continue to be discharged into the Bridgewater Canal as records suggest that there is no surface water sewer in the immediate vicinity.  United Utilities advise that surface water must drain into the Bridgewater Canal.

The applicant’s agent have responded to this advise stating that they have no legal rights to discharge surface water into the Bridgewater Canal and could be held to ransom if such a condition was imposed.

United Utilities advice is based on the submitted information and seeks to prevent flooding to the combined sewer.  However, there is some doubt regarding the existing arrangements for the discharging of surface water.  Therefore, a condition is recommended that requires the drainage strategy to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development.  The details will require the developer to confirm the existing arrangements surrounding the use of the canal and any legal restrictions.  Should the canal not be an appropriate method to discharge surface water then the rates of discharge into the sewer network and attenuation measures shall be first agreed with the local planning authority in conjunction with United Utilities

Therefore, subject to the inclusion of a drainage condition it is considered that the scheme accords with the provisions of policy EN19 as highlighted above.

Design Implications

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 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.  

Given that the scheme seeks to provide employment provision on a site which was last used for employment provision and at this stage is outline with details reserved for subsequent approval, it is considered that future reserved matters can be designed in such a manner to address the requirements of the development plan and the requirements of the policies highlighted above regarding design and crime prevention.

Trees and Landscaping 

Policy EN12 seeks to protect important landscaping features.  Policy DES9 relates to landscaping and considers that development will be required to incorporate hard and soft landscaping provision, where appropriate.

There are no trees which would be affected by this proposal.  The indicative layout demonstrates that provision for appropriate landscaping can be made within the site although they will form future reserved matters.

Ecology

The Bridgewater Canal adjacent to the application site is designated as a Site of Biological Importance within the adopted UDP and policy EN8 is therefore of relevance.  This states that development that would affect the nature conservation value of the SBI will only be permitted where the benefits of the development outweigh any reduction in value, any impact has been mitigated as far as practicable and appropriate mitigation is provided.  Therefore the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have considered the application given its relationship to the Bridgewater Canal.  They state:

“The application site is adjacent to the Bridgewater Canal Site of Biological Importance. The Canal has been designated because it supports important populations of scarce aquatic plants, including the European Protected Species Luronium natans, and a rare moss, Tortula freibergii. While it would appear that the Canal will not be directly affected by the redevelopment of the application site, I note that the application is in outline only and detailed designs may be subject to change.

I would recommend that, in the interests of conserving the special nature conservation importance of the Canal, 

1	Best construction practice be followed during the construction phase of any permitted development to prevent pollution of the Canal.

2	If at any time it is considered necessary to carry out works that may directly affect the Canal, then further ecological surveys must be carried out to determine whether any rare species are likely to be affected by proposed works. If it is found that there is likely to be disturbance of rare species a Method Statement must be prepared and submitted for approval giving details of how any disturbance is to be avoided and/or mitigated.”

An informative advising the applicant of this advice is recommended together with a site operating statement condition.

Therefore, given this advice, it is considered that the scheme is consistent with the requirements of policy EN8 of the development plan for Salford.

Sustainable Development

Policy DP9 of the RSS sets out how developments should seek to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. 

Policy DP 9 and NW Sustainability checklist forms part of the development plan for Salford.  The applicant has advised that as part of future reserved matters submissions the requirements of the checklist will be met.  

In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with this policy and checklist a condition has been recommended requiring a further checklist to accompany subsequent reserved matters applications.

Developer Contributions

The Planning Obligations SPD requires developments to contribute towards the provision of open space, public realm, infrastructure and heritage, construction training and climate change.

In this particular case the development would result in an overall reduction in floorspace across the site of approximately 20,000sq m.  Therefore, given that the purpose of a S106 contribution is to mitigate the impact of a development it is not considered appropriate to apply the requirements of the SPD in this particular instance as it would result in a significantly reduced floor area.

Value Added 

Amendments have been secured to the indicative layout to address concerns regarding residential amenity

Conclusions/Summary 

In conclusion, it is considered that, subject to the inclusion of conditions, the scheme accords with the provisions of the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh this.

Recommendation

Approve

1.	Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

	Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
	
	a) appearance;
	b) landscaping;
	c) layout;
	d) scale

	The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the applicant for subsequent approval.

3.	The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) by more than -5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.  Noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS 4142:1997 "Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas".  ‘T’ refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs and any 5 minute period between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs.

	To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES 7 and EN 17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4.	The submission of future reserved matters for the proposed units shall come forward in strict accordance with the following parameters:
	
	A maximum building height of 7 meters
	A minimum distance of 6 meters from the western common boundary
	A maximum floor area of 4,500 square meters

	For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard residential amenity in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5.	No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to provision of: a buffer to the riverbank and protective fencing; permitted hours for construction works; delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment; provision and use of on-site parking contractors’ and workpeoples; vehicles; wheelwashing; and street sweeping; and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.

	To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policies DES 7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to regulate surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

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

7.	Prior to the commencement of development a travel plan 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 use of the car park unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	In accordance with Planning Policy Guidance note 13 and policies DP5 and RT2 of Regional Spatial Strategy

8.	Prior to the commencement development details of the existing and proposed finish floor levels shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

	Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

9.	Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing the pedestrian access arrangements from Worsley Road to the retained and proposed units shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall indicate the provision of a footpath, safety measures, signage and lighting together with a management strategy for its continued use.  The approved details shall be implemented prior to first use of any unit and shall be available at all times in conjunction with the approved units.

	Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Notes to Applicant

1.	The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
2.	The applicants attention is drawn to the advice of the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit dated 27th November 2009 regarding ecological issues surrounding the adjoining Bridgewater Canal.

APPLICATION No:	09/58339/DEEM3	
APPLICANT:	Salford City Council	
LOCATION:	Avon House, Avon Close, Worsley, M28 0LA, 	
PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 15 no. 3 bedroom dwelling houses	
WARD:	Little Hulton	

At a meeting of the panel (insert date) the application was deferred for an inspection of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel. My previous observations are as follows.

Description of Site and Surroundings

This scheme relates to Avon House in Little Hulton.  This site comprises of a two storey former care home which is currently used as Council offices.  

The existing buildings are located centrally and to the west of the site.  The car park, which is located to the rear of the building is accessed from Worsley Grove.  A number of trees are on the site with the most prominent mature trees located along the Avon Close boundary.  The site as a whole is the subject of a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  A proportion of the Avon Close boundary is also delineated by a hedge.

The site is located within a predominantly residential area and is bounded by houses on Avon Close and Worsley Grove.  To the south is open space and playing fields.  The houses in the locality are typically two storey semi detached properties.  Those properties opposite the site on Avon Close have off street car parking provision in the form of shared driveways.  There are a number of the properties on Worsley Grove which have no off street car parking provision.  There are no parking restrictions in place on either of these streets.

Beyond the open space to the south is a railway line.

Description of Proposal

This proposal seeks to demolish the existing buildings and to erect fifteen two storey houses in three distinct blocks of 5 units each.  Each house would have three bedrooms, an off street car parking space and be orientated to face the highway network.

Two blocks, each comprising of 5 dwellings, would front Avon Close.  The third block would front Worsley Grove.  Each dwelling would be predominantly brick with contrasting elements of brick and timber cladding.  

The southern slope of roof on those properties fronting Worsley Grove would be set higher that the northern slope in order to provide location for solar panels.  The two blocks on Avon Close would have a typical pitched roof design with solar panels on the rear (south facing) roof.

Each dwelling would have front and rear gardens.
Relevant Planning History 

There is no relevant planning history relating the provision of residential provision on this site.

Planning permission was granted in March 1988 to change the use of the site from a residential children’s home to offices (ref: E/22755/LA). 

Publicity

Site Notice: Article 8 site notice	Date Displayed: 24 November 2009

Press Advert: IN Salford	Date Published: 14 December 2009
Reason: Article 8 Standard Press Notice

Neighbour Notification 

1 -32 (Con) Avon Close
6 - 28 (e) Worsley Grove

Representations 

6 objections have been received in response to the application publicity (some objectors have written or e-mailed more than once) together with a 136 name petition

The following issues have been raised:

The design of the properties are horrible and not in keeping with the surrounding character
Residents opinion have not been heard
Road is not wide enough
Safety of children playing in the street due to increase in cars (road safety)
Already have problems with emergency access and refuse collection
Already existing drainage problems
Avon house should not be demolished - it should create revenue for the Council as offices
Why not use the building as a day centre for the elderly or build bungalows?
Construction impact, noise, vibration etc
Result in a loss of visual amenity
Harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties due to its size / massing
Disruption to the area especially the elderly
Does not respect the wider area
Area of land considered locally as a nature reserve providing habitats to a number of wildlife

Photographs have also been provided by residents indicating car parked on both sides of Avon Close in order to support issues raised above.

Barbara Keeley MP has also objected to the scheme on behalf on her constituents.  She highlights the following concerns (summarised):

Impact on privacy
Overlooking
Impact upon trees
Anti social behaviour due to introduction of social housing in a privacy area
Parking problems
Reception that this is a foregone conclusion

37 copy letters of objection have also been received in response to the pre-application exercise undertaken by the applicant's agent.  The following issues were raised:

Existing building should be for community use
Impact on access
No benefit to existing residents
Loss of value
Lack of information
Why a park_
Anti social behaviour (associated to a new park)
Loss of value
Impact on utilities
Impact on views

Consultations

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit - . No objection.  Further comments are contained within the appraisal section of this report.

Design For Security - No objections

Main Drainage - No objection subject to the limit of surface water drainage to 15 l/s in agreement with United Utilities

Highways - No objection.  They advise that gates should not open out over the highway

Environment Agency - No objection subject to a condition relating to site remediation

Urban Vision Environment - No objection

United Utilities - I have no objection to the proposal provided the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the public surface water sewerage system we may require the flow to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP1 - Spatial Principles
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP2 - Promote Sustainable Communities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP3 - Promote Sustainable Communities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP4 - Best Use of Existing Resources
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP5 - Manage Travel Demand
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP6 - Marry Opportunity and Need
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP7 - Promote Environmental Quality
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP8 - Mainstreaming Rural Issues
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP9 - Reduce Emmissions, Adapt to Climate Cha
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy RDF1 - Spatial Priorities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy MCR1 - Manchester City Region Priorities
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy MCR2 - Regional Centre, Inner Manchester City
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST1  -  Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST12  -  Development Density
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy H1  -  Provision of New Housing Development
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES2  -  Circulation and Movement
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES3  -  Design of Public Space
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES7  -  Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES9  -  Landscaping
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN9  -  Wildlife Corridors
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES10  -  Design and Crime
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EM16  -  Energy Conseravtion and Efficiency
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST14  -  Global Environmental

Other Material Considerations

Planning Policy Statement - PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement - PPS3 Housing
Planning Policy Statement - PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Design SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Trees and Development SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations SPD

Appraisal 

The main planning issues to be considered in the determination of this application are: 
•	The principle of development;
•	The design and appearance;
•	Crime Prevention;
•	Addressing Climate Change;
•	The impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and future occupants;
•	Trees and ecology ;
•	Noise, air quality and contaminated land;
•	Drainage and Flood Risk;
•	Transportation, Parking and highway safety; and 
•	Whether an appropriate planning contribution should be provided.

Principle

(1) Location

One of the criteria to be considered under paragraph 5 of PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) states that “Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community”.

The government further expresses the need to focus development in sustainable locations under PPS3 (Housing) which makes reference back to PPS1 and the need for housing development to comply with the key principles of sustainable development. At its core is the need for housing to be well connected and located in accessible locations, providing future residents with good socio-economic opportunities. 

The North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) endorses these national principles into the Development Plan through Policies DP1 through DP9, RDF1, MCR1 and MCR2.

Policy RDF 1 (Spatial Priorities) requires development to accord with a sequential test for the strategic location of new development. Following the first priority for growth and development within the regional centers of Manchester and Liverpool, the plan looks to the inner areas surrounding these regional centers, where the application site is located. Following this it is concerned with other town and smaller cities across the region.

UDP Policy ST1 (Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods) encourages development that creates sustainable neighbourhoods in the urban areas of the city.

The application is located within the built up area of Greater Manchester adjacent to bus routes offering connections Salford and Trafford and a variety of other neighbourhood and district centres including Worsley, Swinton and Monton. The location is considered to be sustainable and as such the development is fully in accordance with the above national, regional and local policy objectives.

(2) Previous Use of site

A further test of the sustainable credentials of a site are addressed under PPS1 paragraph 21 which states that  “The broad aim should be to ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised” (for example, by building houses at higher density on previously developed land, rather than at low density on Greenfield sites).

Clearly, the site is previously developed as the existing buildings are still in use and evident on site. The proposal complies with the PPS’s identification of suitable housing sites, which includes “additional housing in established residential areas” (paragraph 38) and the criteria for effective use of land “A key objective is that Local planning Authorities should continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed  (paragraph 40). 

A national target of 60% of housing development should be on previously developed land, the RSS translates that into at least 90% for development in the North West Region. The redevelopment of this site for housing helps meet that target of sustainable housing development in the city.

RSS Policy DP 4 (Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure) makes clear the regional priority given to development, which should accord with the following sequential approach:

•	first, using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements, and previously developed land within settlements;
•	second, using other suitable infill opportunities within settlements, where compatible with other RSS policies;
•	third, the development of other land where this is well-located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure and which complies with the other principles in DP1-9.

As the application proposes the re-sue of previously developed land, it is considered to be a second tier category site in terms of sustainability and therefore a preferable location for development of housing.

(3) Density

PPS3 advises that a residential development in a central location is built out to 50 units per hectare and 30 units per hectare in a more suburban location, UDP Policy ST12 (Development Density) aims to secure a high density on sites close to key public transport routes and interchanges.

UDP Policy H1 (Provision of New Housing Development) also aims to deliver no less than 50 units per hectare on sustainable and well connected sites (in line with PPS3). 

The development of this site is in a principally residential area, and whilst in the built up area of the city is not close to any town centres or major public transport infrastructure (although served by bus routes). The site can be classified as being a more suburban location. The proposed density is 32 units per hectare, which accords fully with the national and local density aspirations for an area such as this.

(4) Housing Mix (Tenure, Type & Accommodation)

Paragraph 23 of PPS3 (Housing) states that “Developers should bring forwards proposals for market housing which reflects 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”.

RSS Policy MCR 1 (Manchester City Region Priorities) seeks to “meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population in order to support economic growth” whilst Policy MCR 2 (Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region) notes that residential development should “secure the improvement of community facilities and the creation of sustainable communities. The emphasis will be on providing a good range of quality housing, in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability”.

RSS Policy DP 2 (Promote Sustainable Communities) along with the suite of other spatial strategy policies (DP1 through DP9) aims to addressing social inequalities in the region and provide quality housing in all areas to deliver improved prosperity.

UDP Policy ST2 (Housing Supply) requires control over the type of housing delivered. The Housing Planning Guidance (2006) provides clearer advice concerning this control over type of housing through Policy HOU1. This policy states that “Within West Salford the majority of dwellings within new development should be in the form of houses rather than apartments, in order to protect the existing character of the areas and reflect the generally lower levels of accessibility compared to other parts of the city”. Policy HOU2 of the Guidance goes on to state that “The majority of new houses should have at least three bedrooms”.

The scheme comprises 100% 3 bedroom (5 person) terrace housing. Whilst this does not offer a mix of dwelling type, the Planning Design and Access Statement does provide a clear rationale for the need of this type of housing within this area of Salford in order to secure the need of family housing.

National, regional and local planning policy seeks the delivery of affordable housing in major schemes. UDP Policy H4 (Affordable housing) is the most relevant in this instance and is supported by a suite of policies in the Housing Guidance document (HOU3 and HOU4). The proposal offer 100% affordable housing and as such satisfies these policies.

It is considered, therefore that the principle of residential development is fully in accordance with national advice and the development plan for Salford.

Housing Need

The Homes and Community Agency is the single, national housing and regeneration agency for England. Their role is to create opportunity for people to live in high quality, sustainable places. They provide funding for affordable housing, bring land back into productive use and improve quality of life by raising standards of the physical and social environment. 

A £1.5billion Housing Pledge was announced in June 2009 as part of the Building Britain’s Future scheme. This funding pledge came in addition to that announced through the 2009 Budget, where £100 million was identified for local authorities to deliver new council homes for social rent. It is anticipated that there will be 3,900 homes developed nationally with this fund.  This scheme is one of ten submitted bids seeking to benefit from this funding.

Salford’s Housing Planning Guidance indicates that, “Salford is increasingly being faced with affordability problems in its housing markets...these worsening problems of affordability are potentially highly damaging for the city.” The Salford Affordable Housing Strategy (2006) and Update Report (2007/08) outlines the need for affordable housing in Salford. The report indicates that tackling the lack of affordable housing issue in Salford is a key priority for Salford’s Strategic Housing Partnership. Despite this, the growing problem of affordable housing has seen demand for social housing increase while the volume of affordable social stock has decreased every year from 2001 to 2007. The Affordable Housing Strategy indicates that the number of households on the social waiting list has increased by 7.2% (from 8,644 in 2000 to 9,269 in 2007), whilst the affordable social stock supply has decreased by 9.8% (from 40,134 in 2000 to 36,552 in 2007). 

Providing affordable housing assists in the creation and maintenance of balanced and stable communities, where a wide range of housing needs can be met. The Salford Housing Needs Assessment (2007) revealed that there would be a projected net annual shortfall of 674 affordable homes in Salford, with 90% of these being for social rented dwellings. The study indicates that the type and size of property let in the social sector has also changed. Fewer three plus bedroom properties and houses are becoming available for re-letting indicating that further dwellings of this type are required. The proposals will increase the supply and quality of affordable housing, increasing the availability of the affordable housing offer to help meet the growing population forecasts across the city. 

Little Hulton and Walkden Local Housing Market Assessment (2006) provides an overview of the housing market needs for the area. The research indicates that there will be an increase in demand for 1, 3 and 4 bed semi detached properties, indicating a rise in the demand for medium sized households. The study also identified that there will be an increase in demand for properties rented from Registered Social Landlords. The development will secure improvements in the quality and range of housing, through the introduction of 3 bedroom properties that will help to attract families to live in Salford. This approach will assist in achieving Salford’s Housing Strategy aim of providing choice and access to quality homes for all.  

Developing these affordable units will ensure that there is a diverse range of available residential accommodation, in terms of type, tenure and cost. The planning system, through PPS3 aims to deliver a, “mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households in all areas.” This process will support the process of social inclusion and integration.  

As a result, the proposal would meet an identified need for 3-bed affordable housing and is considered to be in accordance with the national, regional and local policies relating to housing.

Design and appearance

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 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,

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) is concerned with ensuring that development is well designed and adopts the Governments principles of sustainable development.

Paragraph 34 states that “Planning authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted”.

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing (2006) identifies under paragraph 12 that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. Paragraph 16 goes on to note matters to consider when assessing design quality in new developments, including, along with other things, whether the proposal:

•	Is well integrated with and complements the neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally in terms of scale, density, layout and access;
•	Takes a deign-led approach to the provision of car parking space that is well integrated with a high quality public realm and streets that are pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly; and
•	Creates or enhances, a distinctive character that relates well to the surroundings and supports a sense of local pride and civic identity.

By Design: DTLR (2001) helps implement the Government’s commitment to good design. It reinforces the Urban Task Force’s report “Towards an Urban Renaissance” for better-informed urban design. Page 20 of the document notes that it is important to integrate new development into its setting. It goes on to address the importance of ensures that adjacent buildings relate to one another. “Integrating existing buildings and structures into new development can maintain the continuity of the built fabric as well as retaining buildings of local distinctiveness, historic or townscape merit”. Proposed buildings scale, massing and height should be considered in relation to that of adjoining buildings, views and landmarks. “The character of townscape depends on how individual buildings contribute to a harmonious whole, through relating to the scale of their neighbours and creating a continuous urban form”.

DES1 (Respecting Context) is also relevant. DES1 requires consideration of issues including scale, character impact on views and vistas, respecting existing building lines, vertical and horizontal rhythms and impact upon local identity.

The Planning Design and Access Statement offers a simple overview of how the development relates to the surrounding context. Members should also note that the scheme has been amended since the application was submitted to safeguard more of the mature trees facing Avon Close and to simplify the roofline of those properties fronting Avon Close.

The houses all have a strong vertical definition in order to balance the horizontal proportions that emphasize the principal design concept of the terrace. This is achieved through the use of repeating entrance features and frontage detailing on each of the properties and creating front to rear gable roofs along Worsley Grove that help delineate each property from the whole. Whilst this has a sustainable credential (discussed later) it also creates a rhythm within the roof line fronting Worsley Grove.

UDP Policy DES2 (Circulation and Movement), DES3 (Design and Public Space) and 
DES9 (Landscaping) provide criteria on how the public realm should connect to the wider network of open space and interface with private realm. 

Urban Design Compendium: English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation (2000). The guidance provides a comprehensive review of how to deliver good quality density, form, architecture and design of both public and private realm. It promotes the creation of ample open space that is well connected to the existing space network.

Due to the infill nature of the proposal the development strengthens the street pattern and would provide increased natural surveillance to the areas of open space to the south of the site along Worsley Street.  Moreover, future occupiers would enjoy well proportioned individual gardens.

The development has been designed to achieve a layout that supports sustainable development and helps secure successful places. All properties will be fully DDA accessible and have been designed to meet the Lifetime Homes standard, incorporating a fully accessible disabled toilet at ground level and providing potential for the future installation of a lift and breakout panel between the main bedroom and bathroom.

In conclusion, it is considered that the layout of the scheme relates appropriately to the surrounding properties and the design, together with its use of materials, would comply with the relevant design documents and policies highlighted above.

Trees

Policy EN13 seeks to ensure that development does not result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees. 

The site as a whole is the subject of a provisional tree preservation order (TPO).  The provisional order was made following the submission of the application in order that the merits of the trees could be fully appraised within the assessment of the planning application.

The scheme has been amended from that which was submitted in order to retain more of the mature trees which front Avon Close. The applicant has indicted that the revised scheme would retain a treescape along Avon Close.

The Council’s arboricultural consultant has reviewed the site for the purposes of a tree preservation order, the submitted scheme and the amended proposals.  He advised that: 

“I initially assessed this site on the 17th December 2009, after which I requested further information from the applicant regarding the impact the proposal would have on the trees on the site, particularly trees numbered T10 to T21 on the applicant’s tree survey.  The applicant has now supplied this further information.

The following trees will require removal to accommodate the proposed development: T1, T2, T4, T6, T7, T8, G9, T10, T12, T15, T17, T19, T20, G22, G23, T24, G25, G28, and G29 to G37.  There are also pruning works proposed for: T11, T13, T14, T16, T18, and T21.  

During my site assessment I identified a significant amount of basal decay on T13, a willow trees forming part of the group along the Avon Close boundary.  This decay was not highlighted by the applicant’s tree survey.  Under BS5837:2005 this tree would be classified as a category R tree, which should be removed.

Trees numbered T3, T5, T11, T14, T16, T18, T21, T26, T27, T38 and T39 are to be retained under the proposal.  Trees numbered T11, T14, T16, T18 and T21 will be directly affected by the proposed development, as the root protection areas of these trees will be used for the frontage onto Avon Close and this frontage will include a single car parking space for each dwelling and footpath access to the property.

In order to retain the specified trees on the site and to install the parking spaces and footpath, the applicant has proposed a No-Dig Method to install hard surfacing within the root protection area.  This surfacing will form the parking spaces and footpaths over the Root Protection Areas without removing soil from within the RPAs of the trees.  The methodology proposed should also limit compaction of the soil within the Root Protection Areas, allowing oxygen to continue to reach the roots of the trees.  To ensure that there is no damage to the retained trees the applicant must employ a qualified Arboricultural Consultant to supervise ALL works within the RPA of any retained trees.

The applicant has proposed to plant replacement trees along the Avon Close boundary and to the south of the development site in the area which will form the properties gardens.  In order to mitigate the removal of trees along the Avon Close and Worsley Grove boundary the replacement trees along the roadsides should be of an extra heavy standard size and planted in the locations indicated on the proposed plan.

The proposed development can be approved providing the following protection is provided for the retained trees on the site.  In order to protect the trees to be retained during the construction phase and following the development the Area TPO currently in force upon the site should be confirmed.  The planning application submitted can be approved, permitting the removal of trees numbered T1, T2, T4, T6, T7, T8, G9, T10, T12, T13, T15, T17, T19, T20, G22, G23, T24, G25, G28, and G29 to G37.  The consent should also approve the proposed pruning of T11, T14, T16, T18, and T21.

The trees to be retained will still be afforded protection by the original Area TPO for the duration of the construction and landscaping phase.  Once the development has been completed the TPO will be reviewed to include the extra heavy standard trees planted as replacements and a new order issued.”

The trees to be removed are to be replaced on a two for one basis in accordance with Policy TD6 of the Salford City Council SPD Trees and Development.  The position of the replacement trees is to be confirmed with the applicant by submission of a planting scheme for approval.  However, the layout plan indicates that 19 replacement trees would be provided whereas 21 would be removed.  Whilst it is possible for two for one replacement trees to be provided on site, in terms of the treescape of the area, it is considered that the number of replacements proposed of a heavy standard along Avon Close is appropriate in this instance.

The revised design is mindful of the trees which would be retained on the site together with new replacements that will fall within individual private gardens. The Trees and Development SPD (2006) is applicable to this application and the following policies will be accorded with: TD2 (Retention of Existing Trees); TD3 (Relationship Between Trees and Habitable Room Windows; TD4 (Protection of Existing Trees); and TD6 (Replacement Tree Planting). The trees are set at an adequate distance from habitable room windows (over 8m) and conditions are attached to ensure their survival during and after the construction period. New trees are also proposed within individual gardens to help retain the treescape particularly along Avon Close.  

Whilst the removal of trees would alter the existing appearance of this part of the site is it considered that targeted removal and retention strategy, together with extra heavy standard replacement, would safeguard the avenue of trees which characterises this part of Avon Close and would not, therefore, result in an unacceptable loss of trees having regard to all other material planning consideration in this case.

A condition is recommended requiring a fully detailed Arboricultural Method Statement to be provided for approval by the LPA prior to any work commencing.  Subject to the provision of a method statement it is considered that the scheme would accord with the requirements of policy EN13 as highlighted above and the Trees and Development SPD.

Members should also be aware that should planning permission be granted it would supersede the provisional tree preservation order in that the trees identified for removal would be allowed to be removed.  Should planning permission be granted the provisional order would be revised to reflect these changes before confirmation by this panel.

Ecology 

PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation sets out the Government’s planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. It encourages local authorities, inter alia, to:
•	Maintain, enhance, restore or add to bio-diversity and geological conservation interests;
•	Prevent harm to such interests; and
•	Ensure networks of natural habitats are protected from development, and, where possible, strengthened by or integrated within it. 

PPS9 emphasises that the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, it is advised that local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities are required to ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, PPS9 stipulates that the planning permission should be refused.

Many individual wildlife species receive statutory protection under a range of legislative provisions and the development management process plays a critical role in ensuring that the statutory protection of these species is applied. Circular 06/05 states unequivocally that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering development proposals.

RSS Policy DP7 states that environmental quality should be protected and enhanced by, inter alia, maintaining and enhancing the quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat. 

RSS Policy EM1 encourages local planning authorities to conserve and expand the ecological fabric of the Region and asserts that proposals should seek to avoid loss of or damage to assets, mitigate any unavoidable damage and compensate for loss or damage through offsetting actions.

UDP Policy EN9 stipulates that development that would affect a wildlife corridor or land that functions as an important link between habitats will not be permitted where it would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna.

The overarching goal of Salford’s Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD (January 2006) is to ensure that there is no net loss of nature conversation assets, and where appropriate there is an improvement in them. The SPD recognises that biodiversity resources are under constant pressure from human activity, and without specific consideration in decision-making they may suffer significant decline. Accordingly, policy NCB1 of the SPD states that development proposals should seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity and the nature conservation of sites. It goes on to state that where significant negative impacts of development on biodiversity cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated, appropriate compensatory provision should be provided as near as practicable to the development site.

Policy NCB2 requires an ecological appraisal to be submitted alongside planning applications for developments that could potentially have a detrimental impact on any designated nature conservation site; locally significant areas of national and/or local priority habitat; or a protected species.

The proposed development site contains a range of terrain, including a small area of woodland to the east of the site, a hedgerow and an area of semi-improved grass/scrub/tree mosaic and a dry pond. In accordance with the requirements of this policy framework, the supporting information included an ‘extended’ Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

The summary in Section 4.1 highlights that the terrain found on site has limited intrinsic ecological value. The habitat survey did however note that there is scope to create biodiversity gain in the grassland/scrub/tree mosaic area.

In relation to protected species, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey established that the site contains terrain that has the potential to support Great Crested Newts. A pond assessed as having average potential to support breeding Great Crested Newts was recorded within 500m of the site. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey therefore recommends that great crested newt presence/absence surveys should be undertaken. Nonetheless, as this pond is more than 200m from the site and on the other side of a railway line, then the possibility of great crested newts being significantly affected by the development is likely to be low. 

The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have considered the submitted habitat survey and concluded that “I would think that the possibility of great crested newts being significantly affected by the development is low, and therefore a survey would not be needed in advance of determining the application. The issue could be dealt with by requiring an amphibian method statement to be prepared as a condition of any approval that may be granted to the scheme (e.g. what to do if any amphibians were to be encountered during site clearance works/groundworks). As regards bats, this building has come to our attention before as one of Salford CC’s own proposed demolitions, so we already have some level of survey & again I think that on the basis of these survey results conditions could be used to protected bats”.

Recent case law highlights that local planning authorities must be satisfied that the same tests which need to be satisfied prior to the grant of a license must also be satisfied before planning consent can be issued.  In this case, given the distance of the possible habitat to the site and the advice of the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit, it is considered those considerations are satisfied sufficiently as not to with hold the grant of planning permission in ecology terms.

Furthermore, the habitat survey ascertained that the white willow trees on the northern boundary did not appear to have any cracks and crevices of appreciable depth to be used as bat roosts. Therefore, they were assessed as low roost potential. Nevertheless, Avon House itself has moderate potential to support roosting bats. It is therefore recommended that an internal building inspection and two dusk emergence surveys and one dawn swarming survey are undertaken to assess the presence/absence of bats. Previous bat surveys have been undertaken in relation to Avon House. It is therefore considered that it would be acceptable to secure these additional surveys by condition.

The Habitat Survey identified that the scattered trees, scrub and long grassland on site has the potential to support breeding birds. Nevertheless, it also affirms that avoiding the removal of vegetation during the bird breeding period, or by ensuring that vegetation is only removed under the guidance of a suitably qualified ecologist, should be sufficient to avoid damage to or the destruction of nests. 

A method statement will be produced to detail how all necessary surveys will be undertaken at the earliest opportunity in advance of the commencement of the proposed works. The method statement will also enable a contractor to act in a lawful manner in the event of a protected species being found.

Consequently, with the attachment of appropriate conditions to any planning permission, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on legally protected species or the ecological value of the site. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistent with national, regional and local policies relating to ecology and biodiversity.

Crime Prevention

UDP Policy DES10 (Design and Crime) does not permit development unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. The Design and Crime SPD (2006) considers a range of issues in policies that are relevant to this development. These include, footpaths, walkways and dedicated cycle routes, frontage of buildings, private spaces behind buildings, natural surveillance, building entrances, lighting, boundary treatment and perimeter gates.

A Crime Impact Statement has been prepared for the proposed development. Advice provided by the Greater Manchester Police Design for Security Architectural Liaison Officer has been sought and subsequently incorporated into the design of the proposal in order to ensure that the development can be built to Secured by Design standards. The proposal would augment natural surveillance in the area and robust rear boundary treatments can be secured by condition to minimise the likelihood of a dwelling being subject to a burglary. As a result, it is considered that the proposed development has been designed to minimise the risk of crime and anti-social behaviour. The proposal is therefore in accordance with UDP Policy DES10 and the Design and Crime SPD.

Design for Security consultation response confirmed that the Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections to the scheme.

It is considered that the proposal would accord with Policy DES10 of the development plan and would add additional natural surveillance to the adjoining streets.

Climate Change

PPS22: Renewable Energy (August 2004) sets out the Government’s energy policy, including its policy on renewable energy, is set out in the Energy White Paper. This aims to put the UK on a path to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% by 2050, with real progress by 2020. The guidance states that development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.

All homes built under the Homes and Community Agency’s Social Housing Grant scheme are required to achieve very high standards of sustainability. Specifically, all homes are required to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 as a minimum and the HCA strongly encourage proposals to aim higher and strive to design and build high quality schemes of Code Level 4 and above.

The proposed dwellings would achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. As such, they would achieve a level of energy efficiency that is 44% better than Part L of the 2006 Building Regulations through a combination of measures to improve the energy performance of the dwellings, including effective insulation to the walls, roof, floors and windows and the installation of solar panels (1.2m x 2m) to provide solar water heating. The sustainability of the development would be further enhanced through the installation of rainwater harvesting systems and the use of modern construction methods, including wooden frames and pre-fabricated houses.

In accordance with RSS policy DP9, the proposed development has been assessed against the North West Sustainability Checklist for Developments. This appraisal demonstrated that the proposed development achieved the ‘good’ rating on four of the eight objectives. The proposal met ‘best practice standard’ on the remaining objectives of:

•	Ensuring the most sustainable sites are used for development and that the design process, layout structure and form provide a development that is appropriate to the local context and supports a sustainable community;
•	Ensuring that the ecological value of the site is conserved and enhanced, maintaining biodiversity and protecting existing natural habitats which can contribute to and enhance the amenity of the area;
•	Promoting the more sustainable use of resources related to both the construction and the operation of new developments; and
•	Ensuring that the design of individual buildings does not undermine the sustainability of the overall development.

The proposal involves the re-use of previously developed land and is therefore in line with the sequential approach to development set out in RSS Policy DP4. The application site is located in close proximity to Madams Wood Road which is served by a high frequency bus route that operates between Bolton and Manchester. It is also within reasonable walking distance of Manchester Road East (A6), which provides good bus connections to Manchester, Bolton and the town and neighbourhood centres of Walkden and Little Hulton respectively. The site is also well related to open space and schools. The proposed development site is therefore considered to be in a sustainable location.

As a result, the proposal achieves a very high standard of sustainability. It is therefore considered to be in accordance with the national, regional and local policies relating to climate change and sustainability.

It is considered that the scheme accords with RSS Policy DP 9 (Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change) and EM 16 (Energy Conservation & Efficiency), along with UDP Policy ST14 (Global Environment) and the Councils Sustainable Design & Construction SPD (2007) Policy SDC1 (Sustainable Design and Construction in New Developments).

Amenity of Neighbouring Occupiers and Future Residents

UDP Policy DES7 requires that developments respect sunlight, daylight, aspect and privacy and general amenity of future occupiers and surrounding occupiers.

The houses are at a height of 8m to the ridge. Sections have been provided to indicate how this relates to the scale of existing neighbouring properties. In terms of separate distance the scheme would maintain 21.5m between existing and future residents across Worsley Grove and a distance of 28m (increasing to 33m) across Avon House.  The rear aspects of the southern properties on Avon Close (32 – 39) would maintain 21m to the gable of the closets proposed dwelling.  The Council’s normal separation distance is 21m between habitable rooms.  This is a distance contained within the House Extensions SPD but advocated within the Design SPD.

Bin, refuse and cycle storage can be provided within the adequate private rear gardens of the properties, which range from 12m to 21m in depth.

It is considered, therefore that the proposal would safeguard sufficient distance to provide existing and future occupiers with sufficient privacy and amenity in accordance with policy DES7 of the UDP.

Noise, Air Quality and Contaminated Land

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

PPG24: Planning and Noise (DoE, September 1994) addresses mattes concerning the impact of noise which is a material planning consideration. It notes that it must be a consideration, where practical, to mitigate noise levels.

Urban Vision Environment have appraised the scheme in relation to potential noise, air quality and site remediation.  They advise that the proposal raised not issue in relation to noise or air quality. Similarly a Contaminated Land Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application and has been assessed to be satisfactory.

Conditions have been recommended in accordance with the advice of Urban Vision Environment with respect contaminated land, as such, it is considered that the proposal accords with the provisions of policy EN17 of the development plan.

Flood Risk

Policy EN19 states development, including the alteration of land levels, will not be permitted where it would:

1. be subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding;
2. materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; or
3. result in an unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of dealing with flooding issues.

PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (CLG, December 2006) is the government’s policy document addressing all forms of flooding and their impact on the natural and built environment.  The aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. The application site is within a Zone 1 Flood Risk Area, which covers areas of least risk. As the proposal is under 1ha in size it is not therefore mandatory to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment.

A Mains Drainage Statement and Utilities Statement has been undertaken and assessed by Urban Vision Drainage. It is concluded that the development can be satisfactorily accommodated within the local infrastructure.  Moreover, no objection have been raised in response to the application publicity from either United Utilities or the Environment Agency.  It is considered, therefore, that the scheme accords with policies EN19 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Transportation, Parking and Highway Safety

Planning Police Guidance 13 (PPG13 2001) provides strategic guidance on matters of transportation with aims to discourage dependency on the private car and encourages development within settlement boundaries, where the use of local centres, community facilities and commerce can be sustainable accessed.

RSS Policy DP 5 (Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel, and Increase Accessibility) and Policy RT 2 (Managing Travel Demand) reiterates central government policy and seeks development in locations so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and to enable people as far as possible to meet their needs locally.

The application site is located in close proximity to Madams Wood Road which is served by the number 36 bus route which operates between Bolton and Manchester at a frequency of one bus every ten minutes. It is also within reasonable walking distance of Manchester Road East (A6), which provides good bus connections to Manchester, Bolton and the town and neighbourhood centres of Walkden and Little Hulton respectively. The site is also well related to open space and schools. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with the objective of locating development where there is good access to public transport as advocated by PPG13 and RSS policy RT2.

Avon House is presently used as offices for Salford City Council’s Children’s Services department. The office manager for the offices has indicated that 30 staff work at Avon House and there are 21 off-road parking spaces at the site. As a result, staff working at Avon House often need to park on Avon Close or Worsley Grove. The proposed development, with the provision of a dedicated off-road parking space for each dwelling may therefore actually result in a reduced number of vehicles parked on the street. Consequently, it is contended that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety by virtue of resulting in an increased level of on-street parking.

Appendix C of the UDP set out the parking standards for the city. With regards to residential development it refers to the guidance set out in Policy A10. This requires housing schemes to be considered on a case by case basis, having regard to the type and accommodation of the properties, their location, the availability of and proximity to public transport, the availability of shared parking facilities, and the existing level of on-street parking.

A number of objections have been received in relation to emergency access and on street car parking which currently exist as present.  It is evident from site visits that the existing use of Avon House results in on street car parking within the vicinity once the associated car park is full.  Moreover, it is clear that should that use cease then some of the existing on street car parking issues raised would be eased.  In this case the proposal seeks to provide a ratio of 1 car parking space per dwelling which is considered satisfactory within this urban setting.

The Council’s highway engineer has considered the application and policy A10 as well as policy A8 (Impact of Development on the Highway Network) and raised no objection.  It is considered, therefore that the scheme would accord with the relevant policies as set out above regarding transportation, parking and highway safety.

Planning contribution

UDP Policy H4 (Affordable Housing) seeks to ensure adequate affordable housing is provided and is supported by further policies within the Housing Guidance document. 

Policy DEV5 (Planning Conditions and Obligations) is now supported by the Planning Obligations SPD (2007) which covers a number of standard areas. Firstly Policy OB1 (Open Space Provision), secondly Policy OB2 (Public Realm Infrastructure and Heritage), thirdly Policy OB3 (Training Programmes for Construction Workers) and finally Policy OB4 (Reducing and Offsetting Carbon Dioxide Emissions).

The proposal forms part of the nation wide Central government ‘Housing Pledge’ programme, with funding direct from the Homes & Communities Agency (HCA), through a Social Housing Grant (SHG). The application is therefore being funded from the public purse and it would be inappropriate to request monies in connection with a central government programme for 100% affordable housing.

Statement of Community Involvement 

The Council has adopted its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in March 2008.  The SCI states that the Council will encourage applicants to undertake pre-application discussions with officers prior to the submission of application where the proposal would meet a number of criteria.  The document also highlights the importance of engagement with the local community which may be affected by a development.

This process is supported by PPS1 ‘Promoting Sustainable Communities’ and PPS12 ‘Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities Through Local Spatial Planning’

A pre-application public consultation event was held on the 1st October 2009, at the Little Hulton Area Office and the Walkden Gateway Centre. Residents from Avon Close raised a series of issues for consideration by the project team. The project team addressed these issues at a further consultation event at the Little Hulton Sure Start Centre on the 28th October 2009. The list below highlights the issues raised and responses provided by the project team

Appropriateness of the site
The previous care home / council offices are surplus to user requirements and no longer conform to modern user needs.

Removal of trees
The trees have grown too close together and are intertwined so that to remove one may undermine the stability of them all. Some trees have grown up lop-sided and have not been trimmed / maintained over the years. Removed trees will be replaced with younger healthier specimen trees, which compliment the design of the new dwellings.

Access to the site
The road width (5.7m) is in accordance with adoptable standards for the road type and car parking provision is in accordance with Local Planning Authority requirements.

Drainage issues
United Utilities will be consulted as part of the planning process to ensure that the existing system is capable of accepting waste water from the new properties. Permeable surfaces will be used for car spaces to avoid unnecessary increases in the surface water run off.

Construction traffic and access issues
The contractors will be signed up to the considerable contractors scheme and will be made aware of the site restrictions to ensure that appropriate measures are taken in order to minimise inconvenience to local residents during the construction period.

Increase in the number of dwellings on the original plans
The housing provision has increased to 15 dwellings in order to avoid left over space and make up for where provision was reduced on other sites.

Value Added 

The development has been amended to retain a number of the mature trees which bound Avon Close, which together with additional planting of heavy standard replacement trees, would retain the treescape along this road and therefore the a significant element of the areas character.

Conclusions/Summary 

The application has taken into account the full extent of national, regional and local planning policy by seeking to develop a sustainable community.

Whilst the proposal offers 15 units of similar accommodation (all comprising 3 bedroom, 5 person homes) it accords fully with the aspirations and needs set out in the cities Housing Guidance.

The housing accords with rigorous urban design principles which in this instance create a building form that addresses the established development form in the locality, yet installing sustainable credentials that create a sense of place and offer a new take on the traditional built form established in the wider area.  The houses have a strong vertical rhythm offer surveillance and are of an appropriate density.

Good gardens are provided and acceptable separation distances to existing housing is protected. Space is provided for refuse, recycling and cycle along with other general storage.

The houses are intended to meet Level 4 of the Code For Sustainable Homes and will therefore accord with all level of government’s policy in tackling climate change, both through the use of a previously developed site in an accessible locations as well as the use of construction techniques and technologies in order to reduce dependency on finite energy sources.

Recommendation

Approve

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

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

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the materials for the external elevations  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.

	Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3.	The car parking spaces and bicycle, motorcycle storage and refuse and recycling storage areas shown on drawing no. AR03-900 Rev P4 and any subsequent amendments approved by the Local Planning Authority, shall be made available for use prior to first occupation the development hereby approved.

	To ensure that satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles and waste collection facilities in connection with each dwelling in accordance with policy A10 and EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

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 contractors’ and workpeoples; vehicles; wheelwashing; and street sweeping; and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5.	I. A Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and
	II. The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the LPA. Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the development; and 
	III. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA

	Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

6.	The development hereby approved shall achieve a 4 star Code for Sustainable Homes rating, as a minimum. A post completion certificate confirming such an outcome shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To ensure the development accords with policy EN22 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7.	Prior to the commencement of development details of the finish floor levels shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

	To prevent flooding in accordance with Policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to regulate surface water to 15 litres per second has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To prevent flooding in accordance with Policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

9.	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 and surface treatment and shall be carried out within the first available planting season following completion of the development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

10.	Prior to the commencement of development, a bat survey that addresses the detailed impact of the development on the presence of bats on the site and any mitigation or compensation measures required to safeguard the legally protected species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  At no time shall any work be undertaken to any of the trees within the site, or demolition of any buildings start, until a scheme of mitigation has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved mitigation or compensation measures statement, which, for the avoidance of doubt, will include as a minimum at least one 'bat brick' per building, shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timescales.

	To identify any threat to the habitat of a protected species and to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken in accordance with policies ST13 and EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

11.	Prior to the commencement of development, a further survey shall be undertaken to discover the location of nesting birds within the site.  If nesting birds are identified, a method statement detailing the measures to be taken to mitigate against any disturbance to nesting birds and the timescales involved in such mitigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved method statement shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timescales.

	To protect and prevent unnecessary disturbance of nesting birds in accordance with policies ST13 and EN22 of the City of salford Unitary Development Plan.

12.	Prior to the commencement of development, a further survey shall be undertaken to discover the location of amphibians within the site.  If amphibians are identified, a method statement detailing the measures to be taken to mitigate against any disturbance to amphibians and the timescales involved in such mitigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved method statement shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timescales.

	To protect and prevent unnecessary disturbance of amphibians in accordance with policies ST13 and EN22 of the City of salford Unitary Development Plan.

13.	Prior to the commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

	Reason: To safeguard the existing trees on the site and to ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried out.

14.	Prior to the commencement of development details of the construction of the driveways and pedestrian access points shall be submitted of the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall demonstrate the ‘no dig’ method set out in the submitted in formation to safeguard the retained trees on site.  The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	Reason: To safeguard the existing trees on the site and to ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried out.

15.	No trees, other than those clearly marked on drawing AR03-900 Rev P4 shall be removed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

16.	Further to the requirements of condition 9 (Landscaping) the replacement trees identified on drawing AR03-900 Rev P4 along the Avon Road frontage shall be replaced by "heavy standard" tree(s) in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1:Trees and Shrubs) and shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 2.5m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 4.0m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 12cm and the tree(s) shall be root balled.  The species and location of the replacement tree(s) shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the felling of the tree(s).

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

17.	The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
	
	AR03-900 Rev P4
	AR03-901 Rev P2
	AR03-902 Rev P2
	AR03-903 Rev P2
	AR03-904 Rev P2
	AR03-905 Rev P2
	AR03-906 Rev P1

	Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1.	The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
2.	The applicants attention is drawn to the advice of the Environment Agency dated 14th December 2009
3.	Further to the requirements of condition 9 the applicant is advised that access gates should not open out onto the public highway

APPLICATION No:	09/58438/DEEM3	
APPLICANT:	Salford City Council	
LOCATION:	Alleyway To Rear 21-45 Douglas Street, 39-57 Wellington Street West, 4-6 St John Street And 7-9 Scovell Street, Salford, M7 2FE, 	
PROPOSAL:	Erection of 2.2m high gates and 0.6m high wall top railings to alleyway	
WARD:	Broughton	

Description of Site and Surrounding Area 

This application relates to alleyways to the rear of properties at 21-45 Douglas Street, 39-57 Wellington Street West, 4-6 Howe Street And 7-9 Scovell Street, Salford 7. The area is predominantly residential in nature and is dominated by terraced properties with alleyways to the rear. There are a number of similar schemes in the area.

Description of Proposal 

Consent is sought for the erection of two 2.2m high alley gates and 0.6m high wall top railings.

Gate 1 - would be located to the rear of 4 and 6 St John’s Street, and would be in line with the existing 2.2m high side/rear boundary wall of 6 St John’s Street and the existing 1.9m/2m high wall and gates at 4 St Johns Street. It would comprise of a 2.8m wide double gate.

Gate 2 - would be located to the rear of 7 and 9 Scovell Street, and would be in line with the existing 1.9m high fence to the side/rear of 9 Scovell Street. The driveway of 7 Scovell Street runs adjacent to the alleyway and the rear boundary treatment of 7 Scovell Street currently consists of a 1.6m high wall. It is proposed to erect 6.8m of 0.6m high wall top railings to the existing wall along this rear boundary.  

The gates and railings would be constructed of galvanised steel and are proposed to be painted black with gold finials. 

Site History 

The site has no previous planning history

Objections have been received to the gating order, which is also on today’s Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel agenda.

Publicity

Site Notice: Affecting highway	Date Displayed: 13 January 2010

Press Advert: Salford Advertiser	Date Published: 28 January 2010
Reason: Article 8 Affect Public right of Way

Neighbour Notification 

The following neighbour addresses have been notified: 

23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 and 45 Douglas Street
39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55 and 57 Wellington Street West
4, 4A and 6 St John Street
7 and 9 Scovell Street

Representations 

The application is to be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel as the proposal received objections during the community involvement undertaken by the applicants. As a result of this publicity, the gating order for the alleyway is also to be considered on this agenda. 
The following issue was raised:
-	Most of the houses which adjoin the alleyway are tenanted. People do not treat the area with respect and will not treat the alleyway any differently.

Consultations

Design For Security - Fully support the application

Highways - No comments received to date.

The Open Spaces Society - No comments received to date.

Ramblers Association Manchester Area - No comments received to date.

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society - No comments received to date.

The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Assoc. - No comments received to date.

United Utilities - No objections but have provided the following comments 'United Utilities will require 24 hours per day access to all apparatus. Should access be required, every effort will be made to obtain access via a keyholder, but in the event that forced entry is required, United Utilities will cause the minimum damage necessary to gain entry to our apparatus, but will not be held liable for the cost of repairing or making good any damage so caused.'

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES7  -  Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES10  -  Design and Crime
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A2  -  Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime SPD

Appraisal 

The main issues for consideration with this application are the impact of the proposed gates and railings on the safety of the highway, the amenity of users and neighbour and the character of the surrounding area. The main policies of relevance are DES1, DES7, DES10 and A2 of the City of Salford adopted UDP and policy DC18 of the Design and Crime SPD. 

Visual Impact

Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.

The proposed alley gates are to be constructed of galvanised steel painted black with gold finials and will allow surveillance along the alleyway.  The materials and scale of the proposed development are considered to be appropriate within this location and consequently it is considered that the introduction of the proposed alley gates and railings would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area.  The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy DES1 of the adopted UDP.

Design and Crime

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

Policy DC18 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Design and Crime states alley gating should be designed as to make scaling them difficult and their locks should be protected so as to deter tampering and vandalism.  They should be flush with the building line and should allow views through them.

The main purpose of the alley gates is to control the access to the alleyway in order to prevent anti-social behaviour and damage to private property. The alley gates would offer added security as well as clearly defining the alley as a communal space for adjoining residents.

It is considered that the siting of the gates and railings and the inclusion of finials and the fact that the gates do not have any central horizontal bars means that they will be difficult to scale and therefore people will be prevented from climbing over them. In addition they are designed in such a way to allow views through them and along the alleyway ensuring a high level of natural surveillance.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would be in accordance with DES10 and DC18.

Amenity

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

Although visible from the adjacent residential properties, it is not considered that the gates and railings would significantly affect the amenities of adjacent residents.  It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.

Access

Policy A2 of the UDP states: Development that would result in the diversion or extinguishment of an existing public right of way will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that adequate levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained to, around and where appropriate, through the site.

All adjacent property owners would have a key to the alley gates with landlords being responsible for supplying tenants with a key. Any utility company that has equipment on the alleyway will also be entitled to gain access. The proposed alley gates would restrict the use of the alleyway to the residents adjacent to the alleyway. The alleyway provides access to the rear of the properties adjoining it and pedestrian and cycle traffic could easily be diverted to the footpaths to the front of Douglas Street and Wellington Street West which are well lit, without any significant increase in travel distance. 

There is currently vehicular access to the rear of the properties and this would be maintained with the double gates, which are wide enough to allow vehicle access. The gates are positioned as such to allow vehicle parking to the rear of the properties without blocking the gates. In addition there are no parking restrictions to the front of the properties on Douglas Street, Wellington Street West and Scovell Street. Consequently it is considered that the proposed alley gates would not affect the safe and convenient access to and around the site and as such the proposal is in accordance with Policy A2 of the UDP.

Waste Collection

The existing waste refuse collection will remain unchanged. As such it there would be no impact on the current waste collection arrangements which are currently in place. It is noted that all alley gating proposals provide for residents a key to the gates which allows them to place bins for collection, ensuring that service is maintained. In some circumstances residents may be physically unable to place bins for collection, in which case they can use the ‘Bin Assist’ service offered by Environmental Services, which is available for residents (whether or nor alley gating is present) to request that bins are collected. The ‘Bin Assist Team’ have master keys available to them to access the alley gates.

The need for the alley gate

The proposed alley gating scheme is located in an identified crime hotspot area. The Broughton ward has above average burglary and anti social behaviour.

Residents were consulted prior to the submission of this application and were asked to fill in a questionnaire. 41% responded and of these responses 91% were in favour of the proposal with only 4% being against. 

27% of respondents felt unsecure or very unsecure in their property and 36% felt unsafe or very unsafe when using the alleyways. 46% of respondents were of the view that crime or anti-social behaviour had been aided by the alleyway, a clear issue in terms of perceived fear of crime. Specific incidents of crime reported by residents in the survey include burglary, people congregating, drinking and using the alley as an escape route.

Whilst not necessary to demonstrate need in planning terms it is considered that the reduction of crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour in the area has the potential to be considerable with the installation of the gates. The alley gates would define public and private space and would act as a deterrent and limit access to residents only.

It is considered that the proposed alley gating is likely to assist in crime reduction in the area, with the fear of crime also likely to be reduced.

Conclusions/Summary 

It is considered that the proposal would not compromise highway safety or be out of character with the surrounding area. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would not cause any significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or unacceptably restrict movements of pedestrians or mobility impaired. The proposal would reduce the potential for crime to arise and would be in accordance with all relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan and the Design and Crime SPD and there are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies.

Recommendation

Approve

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

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

2.	The gates hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour black with gold finials prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3.	The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plansGate position plan, Site overview plan, Gate 1 and Gate 2.

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

1.	United Utilities will require 24 hours per day access to all apparatus. Should access be required, every effort will be made to obtain access via a keyholder, but in the event that forced entry is required, United Utilities will cause the minimum damage necessary to gain entry to their apparatus, but will not be held liable for the cost of repairing or making good any damage so caused.'

APPLICATION No:	10/58479/DEEM3	
APPLICANT:	Salford City Council	
LOCATION:	1-15 Mather Avenue, 2-14 Chadwick Road And, 2-10 Francis Avenue, Eccles,  	
PROPOSAL:	Erection of a 2.2m high alleygates	
WARD:	Eccles	

Description of Site and Surrounding Area 

This application relates to alleyways at the rear of properties on Mather Avenue, Chadwick Road and Francis Avenue. The area is predominantly residential in nature. St Andrews Church which is a Grade II* Listed Building is directly opposite Gate 3. There is an apartment block at the northern end of Francis Avenue beyond which is the Manchester to Liverpool Railway Line. 

Description of Proposal 

The application relates to the erection of three 2.2m high alleygates. The gates would be curved top and painted black with gold finials.

Gate 1 - would be located to the rear of 14 Chadwick Road and the side elevation of 2 Francis Avenue. It would be set back 1m from the front elevation of 2 Francis Avenue. It would be a 2.9m wide double gate.

Gate 2 -  would be located to the rear of 15 Mather Avenue and to the side boundary with I.Lands No.2 block of apartments and runs adjacent to the perimeter of the railway line which bounds the rear boundary of I.Lands No.2 and would be set back 0.2m back from the fence line of the existing footpath which bounds the rear boundary of I.Lands No.2.  It would be a 2.7m wide double gate.

Gate 3 - would be located to the side of 1 Mather Avenue adjacent to the side elevation of the garage and the side elevation of 3 Mather Avenue and would be set back 0.3m from the front elevation of 3 Mather Avenue.  It would be a 3.1m wide double gate.

Site History 

There is a gating order currently pending consideration of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel which is on this agenda.  There are objections to the gating order.

Publicity

Site Notice: Affecting highway	Date Displayed: 28 January 2010

Site Notice: Setting of LB site notice	Date Displayed: 19 January 2010

Press Advert: Salford Advertiser	Date Published: 21 January 2010
Reason: Affecting setting of Listed Building

Press Advert: Salford Advertiser	Date Published: 21 January 2010
Reason: Article 8 Affect Public right of Way

Neighbour Notification 

The following neighbour addresses have been notified: 

3-15 Mather Avenue (Inclusive)
2-8 Francis Avenue (Inclusive)
2-14 Chadwick Road (Inclusive)
1-10 I Lands (Inclusive)

Representations 

The application is to be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel as the proposal received objections during the community involvement undertaken by the applicants. As a result of this publicity, the gating order for the alleyway is also to be considered on this agenda. No objections have been received in response to the planning application publicity.

Consultations

Design For Security - No Objections

Highways - No comments received to date.

The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Assoc. - No comments received to date.

The Open Spaces Society - No comments received to date.

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society - No comments received to date.

Ramblers Association Manchester Area - No comments received to date.

Conservation And Heritage - No comments received to date.

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES7  -  Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES10  -  Design and Crime
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A2  -  Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy CH2  -  Dev. Affecting Setting of Listed Buildin

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime SPD

Appraisal

The main issues for consideration with this application are the impact of the proposed gates and railings on the character of the surrounding area, amenity of users and neighbours, accessibility and the impact on personal and property security. The main policies of relevance are DES1, DES7, DES10 and A2 of the City of Salford adopted UDP and policy DC18 of the Design and Crime SPD.

Visual Impact

Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.  

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

Gate 3 is relativley small in scale and whilst it would be visible from St Andrews Church which is a Grade II Listed Building it would only be visible from a limited number of vantage points from Mather Avenue. It is therefore considered that proposal would not affect the setting of the listed building.

The proposed alley gates are to be constructed out of galvanised steel with gold finials and will allow surveillance along the alleyway. The majority of properties in the area are traditional terraced properties with rear yards which are enclosed with brick walls with the exception of the I Lands apartment block which is a relatively modern development of apartments. The materials and scale of the proposed development are considered to be appropriate within this location and consequently it is considered that the introduction of the proposed alley gates would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area.  The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy DES1 and CH2 of the adopted UDP.

Amenity

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

Although visible from the adjacent residential properties, it is not considered that the gates will significantly affect the amenities of adjacent residents.  It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.

Design and Crime

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

Policy DC18 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Design and Crime states alley gating should be designed as to make scaling them difficult and their locks should be protected so as to deter tampering and vandalism.  They should be flush with the building line and should allow views through them. 

The main purpose of the alley gates is to control the access to the alleyways in order to prevent anti-social behaviour and damage to private property. The alley gates would offer added security as well as clearly defining the alley as a communal space for adjoining residents. It is considered that the siting of the gates and the inclusion of finials and the fact that the gates do not have any central horizontal bars means that they will be difficult to scale and therefore people will be prevented from climbing over them. 

In addition the gates are designed in such a way to allow views through them and along the alleyway. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be in accordance with DES10 and DC18.

Access and Movement

Policy A2 of the UDP states: Development that would result in the diversion or extinguishment of an existing public right of way will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that adequate levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained to, around and where appropriate, through the site.

All adjacent property owners would have a key to the alley gates with landlords being responsible for supplying tenants with a key. Any utility company that has equipment on the alleyway will also be entitled to gain access. The proposed alley gates would restrict the use of the alleyway to the residents adjacent to the alleyway. The alleyway provides access to the rear of the properties adjoining it and pedestrian and cycle traffic can easily be diverted to the footpaths to the front of Mather Avenue and Chadwick Road which are well lit, without any significant increase in travel distance. 

There is currently vehicular access to the rear of the properties and this would be maintained with the double gates, which are wide enough to allow vehicle access. The gates are positioned as such to allow vehicle parking to the rear of the properties without blocking the gates. 

Consequently it is considered that the proposed alley gates would not affect the safe and convenient access to and around the site and as such the proposal is in accordance with Policy A2 of the UDP.

The need for the alley gate

Residents of Mather Road, Francis Avenue and Chadwick Road were consulted prior to the submission of this application and were asked to fill in a questionnaire. 60% of those consulted responded and of these responses 92% were in favour of the proposal with 8% against. (1 respondent)

Reasons given by neighbouring occupiers for the proposed alley gates include people running down the alleyway, needles been found, theft and burglary.

Results of the survey shows that 34% of respondents felt unsecure or very unsecure in their property and 42% felt unsafe when using the alleyway. 83% of respondents were of the view that crime or anti-social behaviour had been aided by the alleyway, a clear issue in terms of perceived fear of crime.

Whilst it is not necessary to demonstrate need in planning terms it is considered that the reduction of crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour in the area has the potential to be considerable with the installation of the gates. The alley gates would define public and private space and would act as a deterrent and limit access to residents only.

The application site and surrounding area is located within the Eccles ward and has above average burglary, anti-social behaviour and British Crime Survey crime rates. It has been subject to a significant number of crimes over the last couple of years and it is considered that the proposed alley gating is likely to assist in crime reduction in the area, with the fear of crime also likely to be reduced.  

Waste Collection

It is noted that the proposals provides for residents a key to the gates which allows them to place bins for collection, ensuring that service is maintained. In some circumstances residents may be physically unable to place bins for collection, in which case they can use the ‘Bin Assist’ service offered by Environmental Services, which is available for residents (whether or nor alley gating is present) to request that bins are collected. The ‘Bin Assist Team’ have master keys available to them to access the alleygates.

Conclusions/Summary 

It is considered that the proposal would not compromise highway safety or be out of character with the surrounding area. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would not cause any significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or unacceptably restrict movements of pedestrians or mobility impaired. The proposal would reduce the potential for crime to arise and would be in accordance with all relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan and the Design and Crime SPD and there are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies.

Recommendation

Approve

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

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

2.	The gates and railings hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour black with gold finials prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3.	The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans received on the 4th December 2009

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

Notes to Applicant

1.	This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right of way as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
2.	The applicants are advised that United Utilities will require 24 hours per day access to all apparatus. Should access be required, every effort will be made to obtain access via a keyholder, but in the event that forced entry is required, United Utilities will cause the minimum damage necessary to gain entry to their apparatus, but will not be held liable for the cost of repairing or making good any damage so caused.'

APPLICATION No:	09/58375/OUT	
APPLICANT:	Mr Christopher Rustage	
LOCATION:	Riverside, Agecroft Road, Pendlebury, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8SJ, 	
PROPOSAL:	Extension of time for implementation of planning permission 06/53550/OUT	
WARD:	Pendlebury	

Description of Site and Surrounding Area 

This application relates to an industrial complex.  The main industrial / warehousing units are vacant although there is an amount of office provision still on site.

The site is bounded by the River Irwell to the north, Slack Brook Country Park to the west, the access road to HMP Forest Bank to the south and Agecroft Road to the east. Beyond the River Irwell is Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. The Agecroft Road and River Irwell boundaries include a number of mature trees.

The Thirlmere aqueduct is located within the highway to the front of the site. Where it crosses the River Irwell the aqueduct is a grade II listed building.

Description of Proposal 

Planning permission is being sought to extend the time limit of application 06/53350/OUT. This application sought outline planning consent for the principle of the site to be used for residential purposes and access only. The application was supported by indicative layout which demonstrated how a residential scheme of 72 house and 8 apartments could be brought forward. For the avoidance of doubt whilst this is an application to extend the time limit for a previous application members are advised that should they be minded to approve the application a new stand-alone planning permission will be issued.

Site History 

In 2005, a scheme for the principle of residential development was refused (05/51365/OUT).  The scheme sought outline consent for 86 apartments and 46 houses. The application was refused on 2nd February 2010 for the following reason:

The site lies within a location that is not well served by a choice of means of transport and is not well related to housing, services and infrastructure.  The proposed development would be contrary to Policy ST11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan, as the applicant has not demonstrated that there are insufficient sites higher up the sequential order that are or could realistically become available for development.

This application was resubmitted in the form of the planning permission which this current application seeks to extend (06/53550/OUT). This scheme sought outline planning permission for residential development comprising 72 houses and eight apartments and alterations to existing vehicular access. This application was granted planning permission on 6th December 2006. This application was subject to a number of conditions and linked to a 106 Agreement. The agreement includes the following heads of terms:
1) Financial contribution of £535,000 towards public transport improvements in accordance with GMPTE's recommendations
 
2) Financial contribution of £54,411 towards riverside enhancement works within the land under the applicant's control as identified on the site layout plan
 
3) Financial contribution (undisclosed) towards the provision and future maintenance of Public Open Space in the vicinity (note: legal wording will need to reflect the fact that the number of bedrooms is a reserved matter and as such the actual sum cannot be agreed at outline stage)

This is the permission which the applicant wishes to extend the time limit.

Publicity

Site Notice: Article 8 site notice	Date Displayed: 3 December 2009

Site Notice: Setting of LB site notice	Date Displayed: 3 December 2009

Press Advert: Salford Advertiser	Date Published: 17 December 2009
Reason: Article 8 Standard Press Notice

Press Advert: Salford Advertiser	Date Published: 17 December 2009
Reason: Affecting setting of Listed Building

Neighbour Notification 

The scheme has been advertised by way of site and press notice

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	2 - 8 (even) Billington Road
	HMP Forest Bank Prison, Forest Bank

Representations 

No responses

Consultations

Design For Security - No Objection

Main Drainage - No Objections

Highways - No comments received to date.

United Utilities - No Objections

Environment Agency - Requested that a revised FRA be submitted with the appliaction which will reference PPS25 and use the up to date modelling of the River Irwell as part of the site is shown to be wihtin flood zone 2.

A FRA was submitted and EA have removed their objection and recommend a number of additional conditions.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit - Recommend a noise and contaminated land conditions attached to previous application.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit - No Objection

G M Passenger Transport Executive - Previous comments on application 06/53350/OUT still apply to this application. There previous comments are as follows:
In considering the application 05/51365/OUT GMPTE considered that the site was poorly served by public transport and as such consider that should the application proceed to reserved matters, it should ensure that the pedestrian environment is designed to encourage pedestrian access. Also, that a section 106 contribution is sought from the applicant toward improvements to public transport infrastructure. 

Bury Metro - No Objections

Urban Vision Environment - No comments received to date.

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy H1  -  Provision of New Housing Development
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy H8  -  Open Space Provision with New Housing
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST3  -  Employment Supply
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN7  -  Nature Conservation of National Import
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A8  -  Impact of Development on Highway Network
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A10  -  Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Park
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy CH2  -  Dev. Affecting Setting of Listed Buildin
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy E5  -  Develop. in Established Employment Areas
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy R1  -  Protection of Recreation Land Facilitie
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy R2  -  Provision of Recreational Land Facilit
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy R3  -  Regional Park
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy R4  -  Key Recreational Areas
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy R5  -  Countryside Access Network

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations SPD

Appraisal 

Background

Members may be aware that the ability for an applicant to extend the time for implementing a planning permission is a recent development and is made possible following changes to primary legislation (SI 2009 No. 2261) in October 2009. In determining such applications the Local Planning Authority must assess whether there have been any material changes in circumstances that should be considered before issuing another permission. Matters of principal design and layout should generally be considered acceptable unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Main Issues

The main issue in the determination of this planning application is whether there has been any material change in either development plan policies or the immediate area surrounding the application site, since the original planning permission was granted which would prevent the Local Planning Authority from granting an extension of time. In addition the applicants wish to extend the life of the planning permission by a further 5 years and argue that this time will allow for market conditions to improve.

Application Site

The application site is bounded by River Irwell, Slack Brook Country Park, the access road to HMP Forest Bank and Agecroft Road. From a site visit it appears that there have been no significant changes in the immediate area. In addition, planning history records show that there are no significant works proposed or planning permission granted which may impact on this application. It is considered therefore that there have been no material changes on site which would impact on the deliverability of this application.

Material Changes in the Development Plan

This application was approved under the City of Salford UDP which was adopted in June 2006, some of the policies have been not been saved. This report will solely focus on aspects of the development in which there has been a material change to the development plan. The application will also be assessed against the North West of England Plan RSS to 2021 which was adopted in September 2008.

Loss of Employment Land

The previous application was assessed against UDP policy E5 - Loss of Employment Land. The previous application was support by a range of marketing evidence and appraisals and it was concluded that the loss of this land to a non employment use was acceptable.  

The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review (ELR) of the City’s Employment sites. As the site already had permission for residential development it was not considered as part of the Employment Land Review as it was considered that it had already been lost to employment uses.  Consequently there is nothing in the ELR that would make the Local Planning Authority reach a different view to that in the previous application.  There has been no material change in development plan policy as the policy (E5) has not altered/deleted since the original grant of the permission and the site was not included in the ELR, it is not acceptable to request that additional information should be submitted to support the principle of development.

The Principle of Residential Development

This site was considered in the previous application to be isolated in comparison to the surrounding existing residential areas and that that the topography and historical development of the surrounding area provides little permeability. It was also recognised that country park is unlikely to be developed in the future. As such in terms of UDP policy ST11, which was applicable at the time of approval (this policy is no longer saved), the site was not considered to be located in an area which is well served by a choice of means of transport and is not well related to housing, services and infrastructure. In order to address this in the previous application the applicant entered into a 106 agreement to provide improved public transport links along Agecroft Road. It was considered that the improvements in public transport facilities would also result in a more accessible site and thus justify the release of the site in accordance with the sequential approach set out in policy ST11.

Policy ST11 of the UDP has been deleted however RSS policy DP4 – Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure also deals with the sequential approach of the development of land and buildings. DP4 states that development should accord with the following sequential approach:
first, using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements, and previously developed land within settlements;
second, using other suitable infill opportunities within settlements, where compatible with other RSS policies;
third, the development of other land where this is well-located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure and which complies with the other principles in DP1-9.

The thrust of DP4 is to focus development towards existing settlements and sites which are well related to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. In the planning history of this site it has always been concluded that this site is isolated in terms existing settlements, local amenities and public transport links. It is considered that there have been no significant changes in the immediate area, since the previous application was approved, which would make the Local Planning Authority reach a different view on accessibility of the site. As in the previous application the developer will enter into a Section 106 obligation to improve public transport provision along Agecroft Road. In light of this obligation it is considered that  the principal of developing this site for residential is still considered to be consistent with current development plan policies.

Housing Mix

The Housing Planning Guidance was adopted in December 2006 and as such is relevant in the determination of this application. Policy HOU1 of the Housing SPG states that the large majority of new development within this particular part of Salford (West Salford) should be in the form of dwellings rather than apartments, in order to protect the existing character of the area.  Typically, this would mean at least 80%-90% of dwellings on individual sites being in the form of houses rather than apartments. In this application the mix has been specified as 72 houses and 8 apartments. This mix is considered to be wholly appropriate for this area of the city in accordance with the SPG.

Planning Obligations

In the previous application there were three components to the 106 agreement. Firstly there was the contribution towards public transport which has been discussed above and amounted to £535,000.

Secondly as the site is adjacent to a public footpath which runs alongside the River Irwell the applicant agreed in the previous application to contribute a figure of £54,411 to the wider investment in the Slack Brook Country Park.  Given that there has been no material changes to the Development Plan with regard to the Slack Brook Valley Country Park. 

Thirdly a contribution was sought for public open space. As the original application was an outline application with the number of bedspaces being a reserved matter the actual sum required for Public Open Space was not agreed, but would have been fixed by the reserved matters application.  The reserved matters application would have been determined by the planning policy framework as adopted at the time as should this application.  As the Planning Obligations SPD was adopted in March 2007, this is current document for determining financial contributions and at this stage is the document that should be used to determine the Public Open Space contribution. This applicant has agreed to pay sums in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

Flooding

Since the previous application was approved the PPS25 has been adopted and the EA have undertaken modelling of the River Irwell which shows that part of the site is located within flood zone 2. The applicant has submitted a revised Flood Risk Assessment and this confirms that part of the site is within flood zone 2 but has also stated that detailed design will adopt the sequential approach within the site to avoid proposed dwellings in the zone 2 area. The EA have no objections to the revised Flood Risk Assessment but recommend a number of conditions.

Sustainability

Since the approval of the previous application the North West Sustainability Checklist and the Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document have been adopted and are now material considerations in the determination of this application.

In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with this policy and checklist a condition has been recommended requiring a further checklist to accompany subsequent reserved matters applications.

Time Limit

It is noted that the applicant is seeking to extend the life of the permission by 5 years.  Any grant of consent would represent a new permission which would normally have a three year limit for submission of reserved matters. There is discretion however to grant permission for longer periods if this is justified on planning grounds.  The applicant’s case for extending the life of the permission to 5 years seems to be entirely based on economic arguments that the downturn in the north will last longer and therefore developments in the north will take longer to come forward.  It is considered that this argument alone does not justiy an extension of the permission as the extension of time mechanism and use of standard three year is reason this legislation has been brought in.  Further as this site is predominantly housing rather than apartments it would be expected that this would be a more attractive site that would come forward sooner than those that are apartment led schemes.  Therefore it is not considered that there are strong planning grounds to justify a longer than normal permission in this case.

Conditions
The conditions attached to the previous application have been assessed. It is considered that the contaminated land condition (3) should be updated in accordance with Local Planning Authority current practice. 

Conclusions/Summary 

The proposal would not comprise the aims and objectives of the relevant policies contained within the adopted Unitary Development Plan and there are no material planning considerations that would justify a refusal of permission. It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved.

Recommendation

Approve, subject to Section 106 for

1) Financial contribution of £535,000 towards public transport improvements in accordance with GMPTE's recommendations
 
2) Financial contribution of £54,411 towards riverside enhancement works within the land under the applicant's control as identified on the site layout plan
 
3) Financial contribution in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document as set out below

Open space provision - £598 per bedspace for units with three or more bedrooms or £658 per bedspace for units with two or less bedrooms
Public realm, infrastructure & heritage - £1,500 per dwelling	
Construction training - £150 per dwelling
Climate change - £200 per dwelling	
plus Administration fee (2.5%)

(note: legal wording will need to reflect the fact that the number of bedrooms is a reserved matter and as such the actual sum cannot be agreed at outline stage)

			

Recommendation

Approve

1.	Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

	Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the applicant for subsequent approval.

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
	
	b) landscaping
	
	c) layout
	
	d) scale

	Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the applicant for subsequent approval.

3.	Prior to the commencement of the development, a Preliminary Risk Assessment report, including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential risk of land contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Should a potential risk be identified then: 
	
	I.	A Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and  
	
	II.	The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the development; and
	
	III.	A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

	Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

4.	No development shall take place until a scheme for the acoustic mitigation measures has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Such a scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

	Reason: 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.

5.	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a detailed scheme of surface water drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.  
	 
	The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

	To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

6.	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a detailed scheme of floor and external levels has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.  
	 
	The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

	To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

7.	No development shall take place until a scheme for the boundary treatment adjacent to the watercourse has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Such a scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

	To protect the river corridor in accordance with policy R7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development

8.	No development approved by this condition shall be commenced until a landscaping scheme for boundaries bordering the River Irwell corridor and Slack Brook Country Park, based on the TEP Landscape Strategy report (August 2005) of permission 06/53350/OUT, has been agreed by the Local Planning Authority.  Such a scheme shall be carried out in accordance with a programme for planting and maintenance related to the stages of completion of the development, and will incorporate landscaping based on native species.

	To protect and restore the natural features of importance within or adjoining the watercourse and adjoining greenspace in accordance with policies R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and R7 and  of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

9.	Prior to commencement of any development, full details of a scheme for the management, destruction and/or disposal of Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed, to be carried out by the developer, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This plan shall include a timetable for implementation.

	To prevent the spread of invasive Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed and ensure with existing wildlife legislation.

10.	Any application for the approval of reserved matters for the development hereby approved shall be accompanied by a completed NW Sustainability Checklist.

	In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability.  This is in accordance with Policies ST1 and ST14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

APPLICATION No:	09/58445/OUT	
APPLICANT:	Affinity Sutton	
LOCATION:	Humphrey Booth Gardens, Sandy Lane, Salford, M6 8RU, , 	
PROPOSAL:	Outline application with approval sought for all matters for the demolition of 3 no. buildings and the erection of 1 no. three storey building and 1 no. four storey building comprising 50 no. apartments, together with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works (Phase 1).  Outline consent with means of access sought for the demolition of 9 no. buildings and the erection of up to 55 dwellings with a maximum height of 3 storeys (Phase 2)., , 	
WARD:	Langworthy	

Description of Site and Surrounding Area 

The site, which extends to 2.3 hectares, is located on the south side of Eccles Old Road and is roughly ‘L’ shaped.  Levels across the site vary, with the site sloping down from both Eccles Old Road and Sandy Grove.  The site is bounded by residential properties in Langworthy Road to the east, Greenbank Road to the south and Sandy Grove to the west. The Humphrey Booth Gardens Community Centre is situated to the north east of the site.

The site is currently occupied by 224 affordable socially rented residential dwellings comprising 192 bedsit flats and 32 one bedroom cottage flats provided in 12 blocks ranging from two to three storeys.  All are constructed of red brick with pitched tile roofs.  The existing properties do not meet the Decent Homes Standard.

An historic plaque dating from 1951 stating ‘This stone of Lancashire grit symbolises the spirit of Humphrey Booth the Elder (died 1635) and his grandson Humphrey Booth (died 1672) from whose endowments these homes were built for the comfort of the old people of Salford’ is located on the eastern elevation of the central block on the Eccles Old Road frontage.  

181 of the existing properties are vacant with 43 remaining occupied, these residents would need to be re-housed within phase 1 of the proposed development.

The site contains a small single storey community building of approximately 106 square metres located to the north of the site.  This building provides communal laundry facilities and a general purpose lounge / meeting room but is in a poor state of repair.

Tree Preservation Order No.51 covers the site and protects two trees, a Beech and a Sycamore, both are located to the north west of the site.  

A public right of way runs through the site from the south east of Sandy Grove through to Sandy Lane.  

Description of Proposal 

The site is split into two phases, each will be described in turn:

Phase 1

The phase 1 site is the eastern part of the site and currently consists of 3 blocks of three storeys in height containing 72 residential properties.

Outline permission is sought with no matters reserved for future consideration for 50 socially rented affordable two bedroom dwellings.  This would represent a total of 48% affordable housing across the site and would provide accommodation for the existing 43 residents.  The dwellings would be managed by the applicant Affinity Sutton, a registered social landlord and charity.

Two blocks of two bedroom flats are proposed, 24 flats in the four storey block 1and 26 within the three storey block 2.  Within block 1 the flats would range in size from 60.4 square metres to 64 square metres and within block 2 the flats would range in size from 58 square metres to 69 square metres.  Each of the flats would be built to Lifetime Homes Standards so that they can be adapted when required.

Block 1 would be roughly ‘L’ shaped and would have a maximum width of 34 metres, maximum depth of 30 metres and height of 12.7 metres with a flat roof.  The block would be set back approximately 9 metres from Eccles Old Road at its closest point.

Block 2 would be roughly rectangular in shaped and would have a maximum width of 43 metres, maximum depth of 22 metres and a height of 10.2 metres with a flat roof.  

Both blocks would incorporate a green (sedum) roof in areas and photovoltaics.

Semi-private amenity areas are provided for use by the residents in the northeast and east of the site.

40 car parking spaces are proposed, 4 of which would be disabled car parking spaces.  50 cycle spaces are proposed.

Phase 2

The phase 2 site is the western part of the site and currently consists of 9 blocks, comprising 4, two storey blocks and 5, three storey blocks containing 152 residential properties.

Outline consent is sought with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration / approval.  Indicative details proposed up to 55 market dwellings to include 31 two bedroom, 20 three bedroom and 4 four bedroom plus properties to include a mixture of flats and houses (mews, semi-detached and detached).  The indicative plans show 55 car parking spaces and 20 cycle spaces.

It is currently proposed that all the units proposed on phase 2 are for market sale, however, the applicants have indicated that should grant funding become available it may be possible for some of the units to be affordable.

Community involvement has been run from April 2008 to November 2009.  Consultation with existing residents included: residents meetings on 9th April 2008 and 5th August 2008 held at the Humphrey Booth Gardens Community Centre; a newsletter circulated on 1st December 2008; and a consultation event on the 18th February 2009.  A community consultation event with wider residents as well as existing residents included a public consultation event held on the 3rd November 2009.  All stakeholders (including residents, Councillors, Age Concern and the MP) were sent a letter advising them of the event.  No-one from the wider community attended.

The following documents have been submitted in support of the application: 

	Planning Statement;
	Crime Impact Statement;
	Noise Assessment;
	Travel Plan;
	Appraisal of renewable and low carbon technology energy options;
	North West Sustainability Checklist;
	Utility Services Report;
	Construction Waste Management and Operational waste management plan;
	Foul Sewerage Assessment;
	Tree Survey;
	Bat and Phase I Habitat Survey;
	Sustainability Planning pre-assessment including Code for Sustainable Homes;
	Statement of Community Involvement;
	Affordable Housing Statement;
	Flood Risk Assessment;
	Design and Access Statement; and
	Transport Assessment.

Site History 

None.

Publicity

Site Notice: Affecting highway	Date Displayed: 20 January 2010

Site Notice: Setting of LB site notice	Date Displayed: 20 January 2010

Neighbour Notification 

The following neighbours were notified by letter on 21st December 2009:

2, 4, 6, 8-10, 10 – 22 (evens) Sandy Grove
1-22 Ashfield Close
1-185 Humphrey Booth Gardens
187-224 Humphrey Booth Gardens
38, 49, 52 – 60 (evens), 41 – 55 (odds) Eccles Old Road
17- 23 (odds) 22, 25 – 69 (odds) Chaplin Close
2 – 12 (evens) Castleway
14 – 36 Castleway
38 – 48 (evens) Castleway
295 – 333 – (odds) Langworthy Road
401 – 407 (odds) Langworthy Road
1 – 33 (odds) Brentwood
Brentwood Villas, Brentwood
1 - 12 15, 17 Sandywood
1 – 8, 10, 12 Hexon Close
Flats 1 – 6, 2 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 - 6, 4 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 - 6, 6 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 – 6, 8 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 - 6, 10 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 – 6, 12 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 – 6, 14 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 – 3, 16 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 – 2, 18 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 – 6, 20 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 – 6, 22 Sandy Grove
Flats 1 - 9, 1 Brentwood
Flats 1 – 9, 3 Brentwood
Flats 1 – 9, 5 Brentwood
Flats 1 – 9, 9 Brentwood
Flats 1 – 9, 11 Brentwood
Flats 1 – 10, 15 Brentwood
Flats 1 - 9, 17 Brentwood
Flats 1 – 9, 19 Brentwood
Flats 1 – 6, 21 Brentwood
1 – 6 Castledene Avenue
1 - 22 Cheviot Close
Hollybank, 40 Eccles Old Road
1 – 12 Buile House, Seedley Terrace
Humphrey Booth Day Centre, 33 Eccles Old Road
3 – 13 (odds) Southgarth Road
1 – 12, 11A, 14 – 18 Greenbank Road
20 – 38 (evens) 112 – 128 (evens), 130 – 138 Seedley Terrace
1 – 20, 22 – 28 (evens) Ashcroft Avenue
21 – 47 (odds) Sandy Lane
Buile House, Seedley Terrace
Salford Education Careers Service, 36 Eccles Old Road
28 – 32 Cineam House, 399 Langworthy Road
Cinema House, 399 Langworthy Road
7 – 12, 14 – 27 Theatre House, 397 Langworthy Road
Theatre House, 397 Langworthy Road
Buile Hill Youth Training Centre, Eccles Old Road

Representations 

48 responses have been received in response to the application publicity, this is in the form of 8 individual letters from 6 different properties and 40 letters in a pro-formal style, from 29 different properties.  In summary, the following concerns have been raised:

Sandy Lane and Greenbank Road are already busy and congested especially at peak periods with vehicles taking a short cut by-passing the traffic lights at the junction of Langworthy Road and Seedley Road.  The roads are both narrow with parked cars on both sides, the additional traffic will create a safety hazard for both motorists and children;
	Noise, dust, disturbance and pollution;
	Inadequate parking for the development;
	Where will tradesmen, deliveries and visitors park;
	Very few of the existing residents have cars;
	How is rubble and debris to be removed from site;
	Neighbour consultations were badly timed over the Christmas break;
	At least one of the blocks of flats should be reserved for the over 55s;
	Loss of a large area of green open space adjacent to houses on Sandy Lane;
	New dwellings and inhabitants may compromise security;
There is still a foundation stone on one of the buildings with an inscription that clearly states these homes were built for the elderly of Salford.  How can hundreds of homes be demolished to build 55 family homes?

Consultations

Design For Security - Phase 1 - It is recommended that: the main entrance doors into the apartment blocks should be positioned in clearly visible locations and recesses should not exceed 600mm; parking areas should be enclosed with a secure boundary; and the boundary fencing to the amenity areas should be 1.8 metres high.

Phase 2 - It is recommended that: housing should be orientated to face public roads and spaces; parking spaces should be located within view of habitable rooms; the proposed footpath between the new apartments blocks leading from Eccles Old Road should be omitted; and the applicant should provide details of proposals to control access to, and the management of the amenity woodland in the south west corner of the site

Main Drainage - No objection subject to satisfactory drainage provision.  Restricted discharge to sewer 15L/s maximum from each phase to United Utilities approval. The surface water drain quoted to the north east of the site is too small to connect into, and may not be a public sewer but a highway drain and therefore cannot be connected into. Minimum floor levels should be 300mm above the adjacent road.  No surface water run- off must discharge onto adjacent properties

Highways - No comments received to date.

Environment Agency - No objection subject to a condition relating to surface water run off

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit - Satisfied that sufficient investigations have been undertaken to assess the site for features of biodiversity value and protected species and habitats. The application can be forwarded for determination with the recommendation for conditions relating to japanese knotweed, nesting birds and bats.

Urban Vision Environment – No comments received to date.

Group Leader  Landscape Design - No comments received to date.

United Utilities - No objection provided the site is drained on a separate system, with foul drainage connected to the foul sewer

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society - No comments received to date.

Ramblers Association Manchester Area - No comments received to date.

Planning Policy Framework

Development Plan Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP1 - Spatial Principles
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP5 - Manage Travel Demand
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy DP7 - Promote Environmental Quality
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy L4 - Regional Housing Provision
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy L5 - Affordable Housing
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy EM1 - Enhancement and Protection of Assets
Regional Spatial Strategy  - Policy RT2 - Managing Travel Demand
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy ST14  -  Global Environmental
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy H1  -  Provision of New Housing Development
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy H3  -  Housing Improvement
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy H4  -  Affordable Housing
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy H8  -  Open Space Provision with New Housing
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES1  -  Respecting Context
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES7  -  Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES9  -  Landscaping
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DES10  -  Design and Crime
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A8  -  Impact of Development on Highway Network
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy A10  -  Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Park
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy DEV5  -  Planning Conditions and Obligations
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN12  -  Important Landscape Features
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN13  -  Protected Trees
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy EN19  -  Flood Risk and Surface Water
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy CH2  -  Dev. Affecting Setting of Listed Buildin
Unitary Development Plan  -  Policy PPS3  -  Housing

Other Material Considerations

Planning Policy Statement - PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement - PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Planning Policy Statement - PPS22 Renewable Energy
Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Trees and Development SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Design SPD
Supplementary Planning Document - Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD

APPRAISAL

The main planning issues to be considered in the determination of this application are the acceptability of: the principle of development; the housing mix and density; affordable housing; design and appearance; design and crime; sustainability; the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the amenity provisions for future occupants; the impact of the development on trees; ecology; parking and highway safety; and planning contribution.

Principle

PPS1, PPS3 and policy DP4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) advocate a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.

Policy L4 of the RSS states that the use of vacant and under used brownfield land and buildings should be maxmised.

The site is currently occupied by residential and is therefore previously developed land and its development is in accordance with PPS1, PPS3 and DP4.  

No objection is raised to the principle of residential development in this location.

Housing mix and density

Policy H1 of the UDP states that all new housing will be required to amongst other things: contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability; and be built at an appropriate density, which will be no less than 30 dwellings per hectare (net) throughout the city, and no less than 50 dwellings per hectare (net) on sites within or adjoining the mixed use areas, town and neighbourhood centres and major transport nodes along good quality public transport corridors.

In determining whether the proposed mix and density of dwellings on site is appropriate and acceptable, regard will be had to the following factors:

A.	the size of the development;
B.	the physical characteristics of the site;
C.	the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area;
D.	any special character of the surrounding area that is worthy of protection;
E.	the accessibility of the site, and its location in relation to jobs and facilities;
F.	any specific need for, or oversupply of, residential accommodation that has been identified;
G.	the strategy and proposals of the Housing Market Renewal Initiative; and
H.	any other relevant housing, planning or regeneration strategies approved by the city council.

The site falls within the area defined by policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance as the ‘rest of Central Salford’.  Within this area the policy states that new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types and that apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible locations.  Policy HOU2 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that the majority of new houses should have a least 3 bedrooms and where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad mix of dwelling size, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net residential floorspace.  Both policies state that alternative approaches on individual sites may be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated by the applicant that there are specific circumstances that justify this, particularly having regard to criteria A – H of policy H1 of the UDP.

The application is replacing existing social rented accommodation which consists entirely of bed sits and 1 bedroom flats.  Overall the proposed scheme would provide a mix of dwellings comprising a mixture of 2 bedroom flats and houses of various sizes.  The mix proposed provides a much greater balance of dwelling types than currently exists on the site.  The accommodation to be provided on phase 2 is not fixed but the indicative proposal shows that nearly 70% of the houses would have 3 or more bedrooms.  Phase 1 would be entirely 2 bedroom flats.  At this stage, the majority of these would be to re-house the 43 existing occupiers of the site.  All of the flats would have a floorspace greater than 57 square metres suggested in the housing planning guidance.  This will make them more flexible and adaptable in the future.  

Whilst, a more even distribution of different types of accommodation across the phasing would be preferred, the applicants have advised that all of the 43 residents who wish to remain on site are over 65 and either live alone or with a partner.  The applicant considers that 2 bedroom flats would therefore be the most appropriate form of accommodation having regard to the age and needs of the existing residents.  In these circumstances the provision of 100% 2 bedroom flats in phase 1 would be acceptable.

The density across the site would be 46 dwellings per hectare which is well above the 30 dwellings per hectare expected in the city generally and not much below the minimum level required on the most accessible sites.  The density on phase 1 would equate to 74 dwellings per hectare and is much higher than on phase 1 which would be 34 dwellings per hectare.  Phase 2 would have a lower density due to a number of constrains including the two trees protected by TPO, site levels and the existing public right of way.  Despite these constrains, the density on phase 2 is still above the minimum requirement.

The application represents an improvement to the balance and mix of dwellings across the site and the proposal is therefore in accordance with policy H1 of the UDP and the advice contained within Housing Planning Guidance.

Affordable Housing

Policy H4 of the UDP states that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the city council, to provide an element of affordable housing, of appropriate types, on all residential sites over 1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more dwellings.

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

In order to avoid the negative implications of social exclusion and isolation, affordable housing homes within housing schemes should normally be distributed across the site.  New developments should be tenure neutral with no distinguishable features between open market and the affordable dwellings.

It is proposed that all of the 50 apartments proposed as part of phase 1 would be affordable equating to approximately 48% of the overall development, which far exceeds stated standards.

The applicants have stated that if the affordable housing were pepper potted across the site, residents would have to be re-located off the site during the construction process and await an affordable unit becoming available.  This would mean residents, all of which are elderly would have to move more than once and would place additional pressure on the Council’s housing waiting list.

The City Council's Housing directorate are in support of the development.   They have advised that whilst pepperpotting is desirable, due to the issues raised, housing have agreed that 100% provision of affordable housing on phase 1 is acceptable.  
 
Furthermore, housing have confirmed that any affordable units not taken up by the existing residents (in phase 1), would then be prioritised to support the regeneration and renewal activities at the neighbouring Pendleton Housing Private Finance Initiative.  

With regards to phase 2, this is currently proposed to be market housing, however the applicants have indicated that should grant funding become available it may be possible for some of the units to be affordable.  Housing have advised that the Council has agreed to look at the potential for affordable housing funding (from the Homes and Communities Agency and / or others).  

The applicant has set out a clear justification for the affordable housing to be entirely within phase 1 and the proposal is therefore in accordance with the general thrust of policy HOU4 and the advice contained within Housing Planning Guidance.

Design and Appearance

Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.

Policy DP7 of RSS states that environmental quality should be protected and enhanced by amongst other things: understanding and respecting the distinctiveness of places and landscapes; and promoting good quality design in new development and ensuring that development respects its setting.

The design of the apartment blocks within phase 1 has been subject to pre-application consultation and a number of improvements have been made, including:

Re-siting of the blocks to safeguard the residential amenity of the future occupiers of the development;
Amendments to the elevational treatment of the flats to simplify them.  Number of materials and design features reduced;
Changes to the scale and massing of the blocks.  Block 1 was amended to be entirely 4 storeys and block 2 was amended to be entirely 3 storeys so the greatest height would be adjacent to Eccles Old Road;
	Increase built development / frontage to Eccles Old Road; 
	Overall reduction in on-site car parking to phase 1 from 100% to 80% provision in order to safeguard trees, prevent the domination of the site with car parking and to improve the opportunities for private amenity space to serve the flats;
Layout of the car park to serve block 2 reconfigured and rationalised to avoid car parking entirely circling the building and improved amenity space; and
	Re-siting of bin stores to more discrete locations within the site.

The pedestrian entrances and staircores to the blocks are emphasised using curtain walling incorporating coloured glass ensuring that the buildings are legible.

The applicants have responded to comments raised by the City Council’s Urban Designer at pre-application stage and the design of phase 1 would therefore have a positive impact on the visual amenity of the area.

In terms of scale and massing, the existing buildings on site range in height from 2 to 3 storeys.  Within phase 1 all of the existing buildings are 3 storeys in height with a pitched roof and a maximum height of 11.3.  Block 1 would be four storeys in height with a flat roof and a maximum height of 12.7 and block 2 would be three storeys in height with a flat roof and a maximum height of 10.2 metres.  It Is therefore considered that the scale and massing would be appropriate.

Within phase 1, it is indicated that bin stores and cycle stores would be provided within the parking courts.  In order to ensure that the design of / materials used to construct these bin and cycle stores are satisfactory, a condition requiring full details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development would be attached to any planning consent.

A varied material palette is proposed including red clay facing brick with blue brick detailing, parapets with aluminium trim, grey aluminium doors and windows, and coloured glazing.  A condition requiring samples of materials is recommended to ensure that they are of a sufficient quality to ensure the proposed buildings would make a positive contribution to the character of the area.  

It is proposed that the plaque that is located on one of the existing blocks be retained on site.  The applicants have confirmed agreement to this in writing and a condition is recommended to secure this.

With regards to phase 2, the City Council’s Urban Designer has advised that whilst the number of proposed dwellings seems achievable, the indicative layout is currently unacceptable in its current form and the Council would wish to work with the applicant further to ensure a satisfactory solution is achieved through the reserved matters application.  An informative to this effect is recommended.

In planning terms Members must be comfortable, in coming to a decision, that the number of units proposed can adequately be accommodated on site.  It is considered that given the size, site and scale parameters set out that an appropriate scheme for 55 units could come forward subject to reserved matters of layout, scale, design and landscaping.

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.  The grade II listed Theatre House is situated approximately 65 metres to the north east of the application site on Langworthy Road.  Given the distance between the site and the listed building and the site levels, with the site being set at a lower level than the listed building, it is not considered that the proposed development would be read in context with the listed building and would not therefore have a detrimental impact on the character or setting of the Theatre House.

It is considered that the design is acceptable and the proposal would not unduly affect the setting or character of Theatre House. It is considered therefore, that the scheme accords with the provisions of policies DES1 and CH2 of the UDP.

Design and Crime

Policy DES10 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Design and Crime seeks to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.  Crime and Disorder is a material planning consideration.  

The applicants have submitted a Crime Impact Statement in support of the application.  Design for Security have considered the proposals and comment that with regard to phase 1 that parking areas for the apartments be enclosed within a secure boundary, with access controlled gates.  The City Council’s urban designer has raised concerns that it is important that these flats retain a relationship with Sandy Lane.  The arrangement of the car parking and the blocks (particularly block 1) means that any need to incorporate fencing of 1.8 metre or above would be difficult to achieve with the retention of the entrances on the key frontage to Sandy Lane and without creating a gated community. It is considered that the design incorporates natural surveillance and there is not therefore a need to gate in the car parks.

It is further advised that recesses in the front elevations should not exceed 600 mm.  The plans have been amended to ensure that this is the case.

Design for Security have provided a number of detailed comments in relation to phase 2 which would be considered through any future reserved matters application.  These comments would be attached as an informative to the planning permission should Members be minded to approve the application.

Therefore, it is considered that this application accords with Policy DES10 of the Development Plan.

Sustainability

PPS22: Renewable Energy sets out the Government's energy policy.  The guidance states that development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.

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

The Sustainable Design and Construction SPD states that in order to minimise the potentially negative impacts on new development on the local and global environments, and maximise the benefits for occupiers / users of buildings and spaces, it is vital that such development incorporates sustainable design and construction measures wherever possible.

The North West Sustainability Checklist has been completed and submitted in support of the application.  In summary, this confirms that the homes would achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 3, by way of including:

	Green (sedum) roofs;
	Apartment blocks orientated for solar shading;
	Rainwater harvesting;
	Photovoltaics on apartment roofs; and
	All 50 apartments would be built to Lifetime Homes standards.

The scores for the proposed housing against the 8 criteria set out within the North West Sustainability Checklist are set out below:

- Climate Change - adaptation, mitigation and energy: Score 45% Minimum
- Place Making: Score 62% Good
- Transport: Score 50% Good
- Ecology: Score 42% Minimum
- Resources: Score 67% Good
- Business: Score 67% Good
- Buildings: Score 67% Good

A condition is recommended to ensure that Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 is reached.

In consideration of the above, it is considered that the development would be in accordance with policy ST14 of the UDP, PPS22 and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD.

Amenity

Policy DES7 considers that all new development would not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

The existing buildings within phase 1 are all three storeys in height with a pitched roof.  The flank elevation of 2 of these buildings face Greenbank Road at a distance of 7 metres to the rear boundary at the closest point.  A principal elevation of one of these buildings faces properties within Langworthy Raod at a distance of 20 metres to the rear boundaries at the closest point.

In relation to the proposed block 2, at a maximum of 10.2 metres in height, it is lower that the existing buildings which have a maximum height of 11.3 metres.  There is a minimum separation distance of 15 metres between the south elevation of this block and the rear boundaries of properties on Greenbank Road and a minimum of 25 metres to the rear elevations of these properties.  There is a minimum separation distance of 24 metres between the east elevation of block 2 and the rear boundaries of properties on Langworthy Road.  There is a minimum distance of 20 metres between habitable room windows in blocks 1 and 2, this is at an obscure angle.

In relation to the indicative properties within phase 2, there is a minimum separation distance of 25 metres between the indicative location of houses within phase 2 and the front elevations of properties on Sandy Grove.

It is considered that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of existing residents of the neighbouring dwellings.  The application accords with policy DES7 of the UDP.

Trees

Policy EN12 of the UDP states that development that would have a detrimental impact, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not be permitted.

Policy EN13 relates to trees protected by Tree Preservation Order stating that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.

In relation to replacement trees, the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document states that the Council will require, wherever practicable, the replacement on the basis of at least two new trees for each tree lost.

A tree survey has been submitted in support of the application, this identifies that within phase 1 there are 33 existing individual trees and 4 groups comprising 3 category A (high quality and value), 19 category B (moderate quality and value) and 15 category C (low quality and value).  10 trees require removal, 5 of these would be category B trees and 5 would be category C trees.  20 replacement trees would be required.   The tree survey has been considered by the City’s arboriculturist who has advised that the trees to be retained are located around the outer edges of the site and will add maturity to the final development.

Within phase 2 there are 33 existing individual trees and 7 groups comprising 3 category A, 19 category B, 16 category C, 2 category R (those in such a condition that any existing value would be lost within 10 years and which should, in the current context, be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management) and 2 subject to Tree Preservation Order.  8 trees require removal, 3 are young specimens that can be replaced as part of the landscaping scheme and the remainder suffer from symptoms such as reduced crown density, surface root damage and girdling roots.  16 replacement trees would be required.  

In relation to phase 2, the City’s arboriculturist has advised that as the application is in outline there is limited information regarding the number of proposed dwellings.  The phase 2 outline proposal will require the removal of 8 trees which lie centrally to the site in order to facilitate the development. There are 4 Category B trees and 4 Category C trees.  The trees proposed to be retained are located around the outer edges of the site and will add maturity to the final development.

A total of 36 replacement trees are required across the whole site.  The applicants have submitted a plan showing the location of 29 replacement trees within phase 1, these would be semi-mature with a girth of 18-25cm.  No details have been provided regarding the location of replacement trees within phase 2 as the layout is reserved for future consideration.  However, there is adequate space within phase 2 for a further 7 replacement trees.  This will be secured through condition.

On the above basis, the proposal would accord with the provisions of policies EN12 and EN13 of the UDP.

Ecology

Policy NCB1 of the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document states that development proposals should seek to maintain and enhance the biodiversity and the nature conservation interest of sites.  

A Bat Survey and Phase 1 Habitat Survey (dated November 2009 by TEP) was submitted in support of the application.   The survey has been reviewed by the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit who have advised that the survey was undertaken by a licensed surveyor using an appropriate methodology to represent reasonable effort in assessing the potential of the site to support roosting bats.

Although the survey was undertaken in October when maternity roosts have dispersed and no activity surveys (dawn / dusk emergence surveys) were undertaken, this does not invalidate the findings.

The survey found no evidence that the properties had been used by roosting bats.  

The survey found a number of features that may be used by a small number of bats.

The survey concluded that at present the properties had low potential for bats and that demolition could proceed using a precautionary approach as set out with the Bat Survey and Phase 1 Habitat survey and detailed in the following paragraph, without being detrimental to the favourable conservation status of the species.

The precautionary approach includes the removal of certain features (soffits, window casements and ridge tiles) by hand and timing the demolition to avoid the active bat season (April to August inclusive).  If bats are found at any stage then all works should cease and advice sought and implemented from the licensed bat surveyor.

The survey of the trees indicated that there is one tree on the southern boundary which supports rot cavities that may be utilised by bats.  Prior to felling this tree should be investigated in detail by a licensed bat surveyor and if no bats are found to be present it should be section felled above and below the cavity to ensure that undetected bats are not injured.

It is recommended that these precautionary approaches to buildings and the tree are controlled by condition.

In relation to nesting birds, the survey identified that a number of trees support bird's nests. Most species of birds are protected whilst nesting by the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1984). Therefore, it is recommended through condition, that tree felling avoids the breeding season (March - July inclusive). 
 
In respect of Japanese knotweed, the survey identifies stands of this highly invasive species to the south east of the site. It is recommended that a Control Programme is required via a condition in order to implement a programme to attempt to eradicate this species. If spoil is to be removed from the site it would need to be transported to a controlled waste tip as Japanese knotweed is controlled under the Environmental Protection Regulations 1991.
 
In conclusion, sufficient investigations have been undertaken to assess the site for features of biodiversity value and protected species and habitats. 

Parking and Highway Safety

Policy A8 of the UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The site would utilise the existing access points from Greenbank Road and Sandy Lane.  The site currently has 224 units, albeit 192 of these are bedsits, the proposal is for 105 units which represents a significant reduction.  Whilst it is acknowledged that these units will be larger than the existing units on site and some would be in the form of family housing, it is not considered that this would exacerbate traffic to such an extent that a refusal on these grounds could be justified.

In relation to objectors concerns relating to construction traffic, it is acknowledged that Greenbank Road and Sandy Lane are narrow residential streets and it is therefore recommended that a site operating condition be attached to any planning consent requesting details in relation to the provision of permitted hours for construction works and delivery of materials, delivery and collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking contractors’ and work peoples; vehicles; wheel washing; and street sweeping.

A public right of way runs through phase 2 of the site from the south east of Sandy Grove through to Sandy Lane.  The indicative proposal for phase 2 accommodates the retention of this public right of way.

Policy A10 of the UDP considers that residential development with more than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling or unit of accommodation, averaged over the city area, in unlikely to be regarded as sustainable.

40 car parking spaces are proposed within phase 1 equating to 80% provision and 55 within phase 2 equating to 100% provision.  The parking was reduced from 100% provision in phase 1 following negotiations with the Council’s Urban Designer in order to improve the design of the site, safeguard additional trees and increase the scope for private amenity space within the development. 

The site is located on Eccles Old Road (A576) which is a major public transport route of services and facilities associated with this.  In light of the above, the Council’s maximum car parking standards and the need to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, it is considered that the proposed level of parking is acceptable and would not exacerbate parking problems to such an extent as to result in material harm to highway safety or a significant increase in traffic in the locality.  The proposal would be in accordance with policy A10 and no objection to the application is raised on highway grounds. 

Contribution

The Planning Obligations SPD explains the city council’s overall approach to the use of planning obligations, and sets out detailed advice on the use of obligations in ensuring that developments make an appropriate contribution.

The applicant has stated that they are agreeable to the following being secured:

	A financial contribution of £15,000 in lieu of off-site public open space;
	A requirement to achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; and
	Contractor to be a Member of the Salford Construction Partnership or equivalent.

Policy OB1 of the SPD relates to where a commuted sum is to be paid in lieu of the provision and maintenance of open space required by new residential development.  A contribution of £598 is required for houses and £658 for apartments with two bedrooms or less.

The existing residential provision on site comprises 192 bedsits (192 bedspaces) and 32 one bedroom cottage flats (64 bedspaces), this equates to 256 bedspaces.  

Phase 1 of the proposal would provide 50 two bedroom flats (150 bedspaces).  Phase 2 is indicative but as predominantly 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses are proposed it can be reasonably assumed that the overall number of bedspaces on the combined scheme would be above that currently existing on site, although the number of units is smaller.  The planning obligation for public open space should be calculated on the increase in bedspaces provided.  A condition to this effect is recommended.  Given that the implementation of phase 1 would represent a decrease in the number of bedspaces on site, it is recommended that the condition be triggered by the commencement of phase 2 of the proposed development.

Policy OB2 of the SPD relates to where a commuted sum is to be paid in lieu of the provision of improvement of public realm, infrastructure or heritage features.

Whilst there is an increase in the number of bedspaces, the overall number of units on the site would decrease and therefore no payment is required for public realm, infrastructure and heritage.

Policy OB3 of the SPD states that major developments should contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst Salford residents, either through the Salford Construction Partnership or an equivalent scheme.

The applicants have agreed to being part of the Salford Construction Partnership or equivalent and in this instance no payment is required for construction training.  A condition ensuring this is recommended.

Policy OB4 of the SPD states that major development that do not achieve at least the Very Good ‘ BREEAM’ standard should make a financial contribution towards projects aimed at reducing and / or offsetting carbon dioxide emissions.

The applicants intend to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 3, this is the equivalent to a Very Good BREEAM standard and therefore, if this is achieved, no obligation is required for climate change.  This would be ensured through the attachment of a condition.

Conclusions/Summary

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 public open space.

Recommendation

Approve

1.	The application shall be in accordance with the phasing plan (PL56).

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

2.	Phase 1 of the development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

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

3.	Application for approval of reserved matters for phase 2 shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

	Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the applicant for subsequent approval.

4.	No development on phase 2 for which outline planning permission has been hereby granted shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority:
	
	a)	appearance;
	b)	scale; 
	c)	layout; and
	d)	landscaping.

	Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the applicant for subsequent approval.

5.	No development shall be started on any phase (including site clearance and demolition) until all the trees within (or overhanging), with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).  Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

	To safeguard protected trees on the site and to ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried out, in accordance with EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	No trees (other than those clearly shown to be so affected on the submitted plan) shall be topped, lopped or cut down without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority and any trees dying or being removed before or within 5 years of completion of the development hereby permitted shall be replaced within 12 months of removal or death in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing beforehand by the Local Planning Authority.

	To safeguard protected trees on the site and to ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried out, in accordance with EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

7.	No development authorised by this permission (including site clearance and demolition) shall take place on any phase unless and until the local planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement for the provision of: Permitted hours for construction works; delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment; provision and use of on-site parking contractors’ and workpeoples; vehicles; wheelwashing; and street sweeping; and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.

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

8.	No development (save for site clearance / demolition) shall be started on any phase until full details of the design and construction of the bin and cycle stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such approved bin and cycle stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the development is brought into use.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

9.	As a minimum, the development hereby approved shall achieve a 3 star Code for Sustainable Homes rating or equivalent, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
		
	Where this is achieved, a post-construction certificate confirming such an outcome shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first occupied.
		
	Where this is not achieved, a scheme to offset the development's impact on the global environment, in accordance with the standards set out in Policy OB4 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first occupied.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

10.	No development shall begin until a scheme detailing how the development will contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst the local labour force is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to commencement of development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To ensure that the development makes an appropriate contribution to the training of local residents and that an adequate supply of construction labour is available to help deliver the scale of development and regeneration being planned for the City of Salford in the interests of social inclusion, environmental sustainability and the promotion of sustainable urban neighbourhoods.  This is in accordance with Policies ST1, ST3 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy OB3 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

11.	No development shall begin on phase 2 until a scheme for the provision of formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a twenty year period, in accordance with the standards set out in Policies H8 and R2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	Reason - To ensure that adequate and appropriate provision for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a twenty year period is made.  This is in accordance with the standards set out in Policies H1, H8, R2, ST1 and DEV5 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Salford 2004-2016 and Policy OB1 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

12.	No phase of the development hereby permitted (save for site clearance / demolition) shall be commenced until such time as a scheme to regulate surface water run-off has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
	
	The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

	To reduce the risk of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of / disposal of surface water from the site in accordance with policy EN19 of the UDP.

13.	No phase of the development hereby permitted (save for site clearance / demolition) shall be commenced until such time as details of the existing and proposed floor and external levels has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
	
	The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

	To reduce the risk of flooding from overland flows in accordance with policy EN19 of the UDP.

14.	The submission of future reserved matters for the proposed dwellings within phase 2 shall come forward in strict accordance with the following parameters:
	A maximum building height of 3 storeys from the level approved through condition 13
	A maximum of 55 car parking spaces
	A maximum of 55 dwellings

	The application is for outline permission only and for the avoidance of doubt.

15.	Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved within phase 1, the 40 car parking spaces shown on the approved plan (PL57) shall be constructed and laid out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall be made available at all times.

	Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

16.	Phase 1 of the site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is started (save for site clearance / demolition).  Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted to include a minimum of 20 replacement trees, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced with the same species within twelve months.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

17.	Prior to the commencement of any phase of the development hereby approved (save for site clearance / demolition), samples and details of the materials for the external elevations 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.

	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

18.	There shall be no clearance of vegetation during the main bird breeding season (March to July inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	In order to ensure than legally protected species are not unacceptably affected, in accordance with the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD and PPS9.

19.	No development on any phase shall commence until areas subject to Japanese Knotweed have been identified.  No development on any phase shall commence within the identified areas until a detailed method statement and eradication scheme have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement and eradication scheme.

	In accordance with the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD and PPS9.

20.	Prior to the commencement of development on any phase (save for site clearance / demolition), a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such Travel Plan to include:
	
	(i)	the form and timing of travel surveys including provision and installation of continuous automatic counting devices;
	(ii)	interim targets pending the results of travel surveys;
	(iii)	actual targets based on the results of travel surveys and measures adopted;
	(iv)	measures proposed to achieve the targets including publicity;
	(v)	the means of monitoring the travel plan;
	(vi)	enforcement and sanctions linked to targets;
	(vii)	timing of submission of the final travel plan together with a timetable for the implementation of each such element and mechanism for ongoing appraisal, target revision and implementation;
	(viii)	details of the travel plan co-ordinator including duties and hours of employment;
	(ix)	incentives to promote the use of sustainable transport; and
	(x)	a signage scheme for sustainable transport modes to promote their use.
	
	No phase of the development shall be occupied prior to implementation of those parts of the approved Travel Plan for that phase capable of being implemented prior to occupation.  Those parts of the approved Travel Plan for that phase that are identified therein as only being capable of implementation after occupation shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of that phase is occupied.

	In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with Policy RT2 of the RSS.

21.	Prior to the commencement of phase 2 (including demolition), details of how the plaque that exists on the eastern elevation of the central block fronting Eccles Old Road housing flats 17-20 will be retained shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall detail: the method of removal; the new position of the plaque; and details of fixing the plaque in its new position and the plaque shall be positioned in its new location prior to the occupation of phase 2 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

	To protect the region's environmental historic assets in accordance with policy EM1(C) of RSS.

22.	Prior to the commencement of any phase of development (including site clearance and demolition), an arboricultural method statement detailing construction procedures in relation to trees to be retained on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

	To safeguard protected trees on the site and to ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried out, in accordance with policies EN12 and EN13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

23.	Demolition within all phases hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the precautionary approach identified within the Bat and Phase 1 Habitat Survey and GMEU’s email of 2nd February 2010 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.   A method statement detailing the staged section felling of tree T1 on the submitted plans and specifications including timescales shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved method statement shall be implemented in full within the approved timescale.

	In order to ensure than legally protected species are not unacceptably affected, in accordance with the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD and PPS9.

Notes to Applicant

1.	The indicative details shown within the submitted site layout plan for phase 2 is unlikely to be acceptable.  It is recommended that pre-application advice be sought prior to the submission of any reserved matters application.
2.	The permission hereby granted does not imply that any work may be carried out to trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, nor does it imply that such work would be authorised.
3.	16 replacement trees shall be provided within phase 2.
4.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from Design for Security in relation to phase 2.