APPLICATION No:	06/53263/REM

APPLICANT:	Space Developments UK Ltd

LOCATION:	Land Bounded By Reservoir Street, Half Street, Dean Road And Springfield Lane Salford     

PROPOSAL:	Details of the siting, design and external appearance of a 5/6 storey building with ground floor car parking comprising 77 apartments together with associated landscaping and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:	Irwell Riverside

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a small rectangular site bounded by Springfield Lane to the east beyond which is the large Urban Splash site where outline planning permission exists for 500 apartments and 2,437sq.m of commercial/retail floorspace.  Dean Road lies to the south beyond which are two terraces of refurbished terraced properties and Half Street bounds the site to the west beyond which is a three storey block of apartments and family housing on a larger site developed in the 1980s.  Reservoir Street lies to the north beyond which is an industrial estate where outline planning permission also exists for 178 apartments and 515sq.m of commercial floorspace.  The site measures just 68m by 24m and is currently occupied by a long vacant brick built industrial building that is in a poor state of repair.  Both Half Street and Reservoir Street are subject to considerable fly tipping.

It is proposed to demolish the existing building and erect a building that steps up from five storeys from Half Street to six storeys on Springfield Lane and which comprises 77 apartments.  The architects have liaised with Urban Splash’s architects and it is intended that this development mediates between the existing scale of development on Dean Road – two and three storeys – and the proposed development on Springfield Lane – eight to ten storeys 

A total of 45 parking spaces would be provided at ground level although six of these would be tandem spaces (i.e where you cannot get your car out without the car in front being moved – these are usually allocated to larger apartments where households have two cars).

The development fills the site, reinforcing the existing street pattern.  As well as parking, the ground floor also provides two main entrances into the building and plant and refuse collection and to maximise ground floor activity it is proposed to clad the majority of the principle elevations to Springfield Lane and Dean Road in translucent glazed planks, the same as those on Transport House at the corner of Chapel Street and Oldfield Road.  In common with Transport House the applicant will work with a local lighting engineer or artist to create a light installation that will be an addition to the streetscape.

The building would be clad principally in grey brick, the architects’ modern interpretation of the traditional common building material in the area.  The corners of the building have been occupied with external private balconies.  These provide relief and occasional activity and add a more sophisticated composition of steel and glass set against a white brick wall to the two internal corners of the balconies.  The entrances are clearly marked by two double storey height red portals that sit within vertical slots in the brickwork faēade.

The majority of the window openings allow full height glazed apertures with a strong vertical emphasis.  The windows are full height within rooms allowing a fuller view of sky and ground from within when compared to traditionally proportioned window.  Most windows are subdivided vertically with two panels – one glazed and the other a solid metal panel in a deep orange.  These solid panels appear on the elevation randomly and help scale down the massing and scale to Springfield Lane and Dean Road.

There are 27 one bed and 50 two bed apartments and 58% of apartments are in excess of 57sq.m in size.  In addition to this more than half of the apartments have external private balconies and five apartments at first floor have significant garden areas  

The applicant has submitted statements on contaminated land, traffic, acoustics and bats with the application.

SITE HISTORY

Outline planning permission was granted in August 2003 for the development of this site for residential purposes (06/46053/OUT).  This permission did not include approval of any reserved matters.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – Responded recently requiring additional information from the applicants.  I have attached conditions that cover their areas of concern.

United Utilities – No objections. 

Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – supports this proposal that will successfully redevelop the vacant Remploy factory site which has suffered from extensive vandalism and fire damage.  The scheme has been drawn up in consultation with Urban Vision and staff from the URC.  It is a high quality and well designed residential development with interesting architectural detailing.  The building is of an appropriate mass and scale for this location and the mix/size of apartments broadly complies with current planning policy guidance.

Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposed development but requests that conditions be attached regarding contaminated material and drainage.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No objections  

Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is within walking distance of the nearest bus stops on Blackfriars Road that offer very frequent bus services to a range of destinations.  The site is also located approximately 800m from Victoria rail and metrolink stations which is considered to be just within reasonable walking distance.  Future residents of the development will therefore have access to a choice of travel mode and, together with the site’s proximity to Manchester city centre, should help reduce the amount of car travel demand that would otherwise be generated by this development.  The application places strong emphasis on the application being a sustainable development and stresses the importance of pedestrian trips and the wide range of facilities on offer within a short walking distance of the development site.  It is therefore vital for the success of this development that the pedestrian routes between the site, the nearby public transport facilities and the city centre, are designed to be as safe and convenient as possible so as not to discourage people from accessing the site on foot and public transport.  It is important to influence people’s travel patterns and therefore GMPTE would expect a residential travel plan.

PUBLICITY

The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	1 to 33 incl Evans Street
2 to 12 Poplin Drive
2 to 12 Georgette Drive
1 to 12 incl Twillbrook Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

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

	Overdevelopment
	The proposed building is too high
	Overlooking and loss of privacy
	The development is better suited to a city centre location
	Lack of ground floor amenity space
	Materials are unsuitable – especially the grey brick which is too dark and the glazing at ground floor which will be subject to vandalism.
	Car parking should be at basement level
	The ground floor elevation has no relationship with the streetscape
	Lack of parking
	Will the red and orange look out of date quickly
This development forms part of a massive amount of development in this area for a large number of apartments.  This will lead to a housing market problem in the future and does not constitute ‘a balanced mix of dwellings’.
	There should be a pedestrian crossing of Trinity Way
	Noise from the garage doors opening and closing
	There should be better street lighting
	The scheme should incorporate cctv
	Bats may live in the existing building

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site Specific: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES5 Tall Buildings, H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, DES2 Circulation and Movement, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, DEV6 Incremental Development, EN22 Resource Conservation.

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1 Regional Development Principles
MCR2 Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the mix and type of units are acceptable, whether the design, scale and massing of the development is acceptable in principle and appropriate in detail, whether there is significant impact on neighbours, whether there is sufficient parking, whether sufficient open space provision has been made and whether the proposed materials are acceptable. 

Principles of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be brought forward with higher densities being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability. 

Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary.  The policy is based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance and policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West. 

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

Policy MCR2 of the draft Regional Spacial Strategy states that within this part of the city proposals for residential development will be acceptable if they are part of a mixed use scheme.  This policy is in draft form only at this stage and attracts only limited weight.

The site is previously developed in an accessible location close the Regional Centre.  The principle of the redevelopment of the site is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national government guidance and planning permission has already been given for the residential development of this site. The application proposes a development of one and two bed apartments and proposes a size of apartment in excess of the standards set out in the draft supplementary planning document on housing.  The surrounding area is characterised by predominantly family housing.  I consider that in this location close to the regional centre, the level of provision is appropriate.

The issue of whether ground floor parking is acceptable or not is also a matter of principle.  It is appreciated that underground car parking is more desirable than ground level parking but the site has significant levels of contamination that, the applicant argues, has meant that commercially the development needed to avoid excavation and removal of the land to remain viable.  The architects have tried hard to design a faēade that contributes to the street particularly at ground floor level.  The integrated lighting design behind the cast glass channels will provide public art that will enliven the streetscape. 

Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via a number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene and the quality of the proposed materials.

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

The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and it is considered that this has been achieved and that this development is of a very high quality.

The building is deliberately built up to the back of pavement and the architects have stated that there are two reasons for this.  Firstly, that by creating a strong line along the site edge the street lines are reinforced in a similar way that the Victorian terraced housing on Evans Street does, particularly the gable end wall on Dean Road.  Secondly, from a commercial point of view it would not have been possible to build on only part of the site and give over part as public space.  The principal of amenity space about buildings within new developments is fully endorsed but this site is not large enough to be able to accommodate this economically.

I consider that these two arguments are valid.  The site measures just 24m in depth on the Dean Road frontage and setting the building back would either be a small meaningless gesture or would be so significant as to make the site virtually undevelopable

The proposed materials that are used are of high quality.  The tone of the grey bricks is not actually any darker than the red bricks on Evans Street, simply a different colour.  Although no detailed application is yet submitted on the Urban Splash site the architects for that development have confirmed that they do not foresee that brick is to be one of the main materials used for the facade of any building.  The architects for this development feel the choice of brick to be an integral part of the design and appropriate to the development and I do not consider that there are any grounds on which to disagree with this view.  With regard to the use of colour I would point out that advice that is consistently given to architects is to avoid the use of colour that will tend to date the building.  Colour is successfully used on buildings however and the Panel may be aware that the Stirling prize for architecture was awarded to a building that featured the colours of the rainbow enthusiastically used.  I would also point out that PPG1 reminds local planning authorities that they should not impose their own personal taste on those who design buildings where those buildings are of acknowledged high quality design.

I consider that the proposed materials would provide a sympathetic contrast to the surrounding older buildings and would maintain the quality of development in the area and would properly bridge the change in materials from the Victorian houses on Evans Street through this site and on to the Urban Splash site.  The use of predominantly glazed materials at street level and the commissioning on lightwork to the principal elevations would allow visibility of the ground level, an identity to the building and would provide for an animated night time perspective in this part of the City.  I consider that the proposed development accords with policies DES3 and DES5.

I have referred to policy DES5 as objections have been made to the height of the building.  I consider that a part five/part six storey building appropriate to its context and location and consider that it responds well to the existing properties and to the proposed Urban Splash development on the opposite side of Springfield Lane.  The buildings are designed to a high standard and use high quality materials.  I consider that the proposed development accords with policy DES5. 

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

I have received objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the proposed development on their amenity, and in particular overlooking and loss of privacy. Given the location of the site and the nature of the development, it is not appropriate to apply the interface standards that are used to guide development elsewhere within the city.  Such concerns must be considered against the benefits of the scheme, namely the redevelopment of an underused and largely unattractive site, the provision of a high quality building that would enhance the area and which accord fully with other Council policies. 
  
In terms of privacy I consider the separation distance of 13m between the proposed building and the gable of the terraces on Evans Street is sufficient.  There are no principal habitable room windows in the gables of the two terraces that face the proposed building.  These properties do have substantial rear yards/gardens but these are already overlooked and I do not consider that overlooking from the proposed building is so significant as to warrant amendment or refusal of the application.  The adjacent building on Dean Road is a three storey apartment building but beyond this, on Georgette Drive are two storey dwellings that face Reservoir Street.  The proposed scheme has been amended to reduce the impact on properties on Georgette Drive.  The dwellings do not directly face the proposed building and I have attached a condition to ensure that there is no overlooking from the external balconies on the closest corner of the proposed building.  I am satisfied that this relationship, in this location, is acceptable.   I do not therefore consider that there will be any significant loss of privacy or an unacceptable outlook suffered by residents surrounding the site.  I do not consider that the height of the building is such that it would prove overdominant when viewed from any neighbouring property given the distances and circumstances described above.

In terms of the effect of this development on the development sites to the north and east I am satisfied that the likely orientation of the Urban Splash development will mean that as well as being at least 19m from this site there is unlikely to be any significant number of dwellings facing this site.  I consider the relationship of this development to the Urban Splash site to be acceptable.  With regard to the site to the north, the sites are divided by the narrow Reservoir Street

In conclusion, I consider that the benefits of the scheme, namely the provision of a high quality building which would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area, and the removal of a building that has been attractive to vandals outweigh any concerns relating to loss of privacy and overlooking.  I therefore have no objections to the application in respect of residential amenity.

Parking 
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.

The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development would not have a material impact on the local highway network.  Capacity assessments at the junction of Springfield Lane and Trinity Way show that this junction would operate within capacity with minimal delays.  It has already been established that the Urban Splash development will require junction improvements.

There are 45 spaces provided within the development that represents 58% of the apartments having a space.  The apartments will be reasonably priced and it is likely that people buying the apartments are doing so because of their proximity to Chapel Street and the regional centre.  These people may well not own, or have need for a car.  In addition there are now shared ownership schemes being set up within the regional centre and it is anticipated in the near future that residents of apartments such as this will be able to access cars as and when they are needed thereby further reducing the need for households to have their own vehicle that is exclusively for their use alone.

I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking provided for the proposed development.   The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this highly accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would consider a greater level of provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and planning policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.  

Open Space Provision
In accordance with policy  H8 of the UDP and the draft SPD on planning obligations open space and children’s play space can be accommodated off site through a financial contribution. This application proposes 204 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £110,160.   In addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of £1000 per apartment would be generated by the development for environmental improvements.  It is envisaged that this sum would be spent on environmental improvements in the local area, improvements to pedestrian crossing facilities and upgraded street lighting.

Other Objections Raised by Neighbours

i) That there is an oversupply of flats in the area and that the scheme amounts to overdevelopment.
This is a location close to the regional centre where higher dwelling densities should be encouraged and where it is right to provide apartments.  The scheme contributes to the mix of dwellings in this particular area and the siting and height of the building are considered to be entirely appropriate.  This has produced a scheme that is of high density but it is considered that this is appropriate.

ii) That there should be better street lighting and pedestrian crossing facilities.
The development will generate a significant commuted sum that would normally be spent on local environmental improvements.  This may include pedestrian crossing facilities and better street lighting.

iii) Bats
The bat report submitted by the applicant stated that the desktop survey found no bat records within the site boundary.  The 2006 bat survey found no evidence of bat usage anywhere on site.  Other habitat on site was also considered generally unsuitable for roosting or foraging bats.  The report also concluded that there was limited potential for roosting bats within the building. 

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	
In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP and the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development Control Policy Note, the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £187,160. This would contribute to the provision of open space and environmental improvements in the vicinity of the site.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the scheme accords with the policies of the development plan and that subject to the following conditions and legal agreement the application should be approved.  I do not consider that there are any other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.

RECOMMENDATION

Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play equipment and local environmental improvements to the value of £187,160

Conditions

1.	Prior to discharge into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from the car parking areas shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.

2.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.	A noise assessment detailing the acoustic protection measures to be incorporated into the final design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such assessment shall also detail mitigation measures to demonstrate how the noise levels agreed within the report will be achieved when the ventilation rates are increased (windows open - as for when summer cooling or rapid ventilation is required).  Any additional ventilation requirements to enable compliance with the report shall be identified within the assessment.  The approved acoustic protection and additional ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any dwelling and shall be retained thereafter.

4.	Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces

5.	Within 12 months of the commencement of the development a lighting scheme for the building including the ground floor treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6.	The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following matters including; sustainable construction techniques;  natural ventilation techniques; sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

8.	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 and facilities to reduce the need for travel, monitoring and review mechanisms, travel plan coordination, and provision of travel information and marketing.  The initiatives and measures contained within the approved travel plan shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9.	Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.   The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters.  The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
		
	The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority.  All remedial works required by the approved report for any phase shall be implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of any unit in that phase unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
		
	Prior to discharge, a site completion report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  The site completion report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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

11.	Standard Condition B08A S 106

(Reasons)

1.	To prevent pollution of groundwater in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of salford Unitary Development Plan

2.	Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building

3.	Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

4.	Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage

5.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

6.	In order to address recycling and sustainability issues in accordance with policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

7.	In accordance with policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	To reduce car travel and increase accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling in accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

9.	Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

10.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

11.	Standard Reason R044 open space reason

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive

2.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency.

3.	The developer must advise all future occupants/purchasers of the residual flood risks associated with the site location.  The occupants should be made aware of the shortest route to high ground outside the flood risk area.  They must also be advised to register with the Environment Agency's flood warning arrangements for the River Irwell in Salford thereby giving advance warning of high river levels.

4.	This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.

APPLICATION No:	06/53286/FUL

APPLICANT:	Miller Homes NW - Inspired Developments

LOCATION:	Site Of Former Kersal High School Mesnefield Road Salford M7 3QD   

PROPOSAL:	New housing development comprising 71 apartments and 159 dwellings together with new access road and associated landscaped open space

WARD:	Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former Kersal High school.  The site of the former school comprises of a 5.9 hectare site which is currently vacant since the demolition of the school buildings. It is situated to the south of Moor Lane and west of Oaklands Road within Lower Kersal.  The existing access is from Mesnefield Road.  

The site includes an area of cleared land that was formerly occupied by the school buildings and associated built area (1.97 ha) and associated playing fields (3.93 ha).  The former school buildings stood on the elevated portion of the site with the playing fields at the lower level.  The playing fields suffered from poor drainage and were often waterlogged.  As a result, they were rarely used.  The playing fields are not now in any use and are not accessible to the public.

The woodland on the western and southern boundaries is a site of biological importance (SBI).  The surrounding area is predominantly residential with the immediate neighbours comprising a mix of semi and detached properties, both single and two storey.

The application seeks consent for a residential development comprising of 230 dwellings, open space, landscaping and means of access.  159 houses and 71 apartments would make up the 230 dwellings proposed.

The scheme would represent predominantly family housing to include 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties comprising a range of apartments, townhouses, semi-detached and detached dwellings.  149 of the total dwellings proposed would be provided on the former playing fields.

Throughout the scheme 28 affordable homes are proposed and would be secured through shared ownership, social renting and discounted market value.

The layout of the scheme would include a village green within the centre of the site with the apartments sited around the perimeter of the village green.  The housing provision would be provided on the remainder of the site.

Six separate blocks would provide the 71 apartments.  Three blocks of apartments would be provided to the south the village green and would be three storey in height.  These blocks would front the road network and village green.  Three further blocks would be provided to the north of the village green and would be positioned at right angles to the village green.  They would build above the escarpment and would range in height from 3 storey to 5 storey in two of the blocks and 4 storey in one of the blocks.  Car parking and private amenity space would be provided around each of the blocks of apartments.

Through the provision of a range of contemporary and traditional housing types 51 detached, 58 townhouses, 38 semi-detached and 12 coach houses would be provided.  Individual off street car parking is proposed for each of the houses.

All of the dwellings would be accessed off Oaklands Road with Mesnefield Road identified as an emergency access point only.

Specially designed ‘home zones’ would be provided throughout the scheme which would allow the surfaces to be shared between vehicular traffic and everyone else who uses the street including pedestrians, cyclists and pedestrians.  The home zones would be clearly defined through the use of a variety of materials other than black tarmac.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objection subject to conditions relating to noise and site investigations

Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no objection subject to the provision of a full site investigation condition.  Advice is provided.

Environment Agency – No response

Police Architectural Liaison Officer – “The latest drawings show a scheme that can meet Secured by Design standards and I can see no problem with it”

United Utilities – No objection.  Advice is provided.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objection but would expect a travel plan to be produced.

New Deal for Communities team – Supports the application referring to the regeneration benefits that this scheme would offer to.

Salford Central Urban Regeneration Company – “This scheme is being brought forward as part of a Development Agreement between Salford City Council and New Deal for Communities. I have no specific comments to make on this application”

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objection in principle.  Further advice is provided regarding the need for future long term management of the SBI and suggested conditions.

Sport England – No objection subject to the provision of compensatory measures.  They state “… compensatory measures aside, the proposals are positive in their approach to the provision of open space which can meet the needs of the residential scheme, through the provision of amenity open space, and a commuted  sum of value to accord with the provision of 0.65ha of sports pitches and their maintenance…

…Given the above, Sport England are satisfied that the proposals, whilst not meeting an individual exception, can be consistent with the exceptions to the playing fields policy, namely:

E1 A carefully quantified and documented assessment of current and future needs has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Sport England that there is an excess of playing field provision in the catchment, and the site has no special significance to the interests of sport.

E4 The playing field or playing fields which would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of the development.”

Bury MBC – No response

Councillor G Wilson – No response

Councillor P Connor – No response

Councillor A Humphreys – No response

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 21st August 2006 advertising the application as a departure from policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	137 – 157 (o) 220 – 226, 230 – 244, 274, Flats 1-8 (con) Kersal Vale Court, Moor Lane
	1 – 5 (o) Mesnefield Road
	2 – 8 (e) Matisse Way
	100 Kersal Road
	1 Heathland Road
	1 – 99 (o), 1A, 11A Castlewood Road
	2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2 – 21 (con), 23 – 31 (o) 56, 138 – 172 (e) - Oaklands Road
Community Training Services, Oaklands Road
Oaklands Day Nursery, Oaklands Road
1, 2 Wensley Road
2 – 8 (even) Sisley Close
1 – 6 (con) Oakmoor Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity from 14 households.  Some residents have written more than one letter in response to changes to the scheme.  The following issues have been raised:-

	Loss of light
	Impact of boundary Road
	Concern of construction traffic using Mesnefield Road
	Damage to Mesnefield Road
	Concern of future occupiers or occupiers of Moor Lane using Mesnefield Road (request for additional information about control measures)
	Impact of proposed properties to Mesnefield Road
	Concerns regarding construction time and security
	Letters refer to earlier schemes consulted upon by the applicant which do not feature within this application
	Phasing of the construction, site compounds and access points
	Mesnefield Road should not be used even for construction purposes
	Do not want seasonal football traffic to use Mesnefield Road
	Concerns regarding the stability of the slope adjacent to 5 Mesnefield Road
	Concerns regarding the apartments and impact upon view
	Loss of trees
	Native species should be used for trees lost to development
	Remaining trees should be maintained
	Loss / disturbance of wildlife
	Subsidence of future properties
	Objection to the access onto Oaklands Road – should be onto Moor Lane
	Too high
	Security fence should be retained to back of properties on Moor Lane
	Existing fencing problems to rear of Moor Lane
	Far too many properties
	No provision for bungalows and the elderly
	Too close to the rear boundaries of Moor Lane
	Loss of privacy
	Loss of privacy due to change in levels
	Over bearing
	Character of the area will be similar to New York with 5 storey apartments
	Inaccuracy of plans
	Impact of additional traffic on highway network
	Wheel washing condition should be imposed
	Views of the people’s panel not taken into account
	A ‘Housing Needs’ assessment has not been undertaken by the City Council to demonstrate that the scheme incorporates an appropriate mix of dwellings
	Impact of additional vehicles on residential amenity

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	EN8/8 Nature Conservation Sites of Local Importance
Other policies:	DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4 Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES9 Landscaping, DES10 Design and Crime, DES11 Design Statements, EN14 Pollution Control, A1 Transport Assessment, A10 Cars and Cycles etc, H1 Provision of New Housing, H4 Affordable Housing, H8 Open Space Provision, EHC2 Redevelopment of Redundant schools and colleges, ST10 Recreation Provision, ST11 Location of New Development, ST12 Development Density, 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable; whether the density, design, layout and mix of the proposal is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposal would have any impact upon highway safety; whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the local ecology; whether it would result in an unacceptable loss of trees and whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable.  I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.

The Principle of Residential Development
Policy EHC2 states that where schools and colleges become redundant to educational requirements, planning permission will be granted for the redevelopment of the site of the buildings for other uses.  The provision of built development on all, or a significant part, of the playing fields within such sites will only be permitted where:

•	The development of the playing fields accords with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11; where
•	Adequate alternative provision of playing fields will be secured in the area

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

National planning policy guidance is also relevant.  PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered.  PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.

“In identifying sites to be allocated for housing in local plans and UDPs, local planning authorities should follow a search sequence, starting with the re-use of previously-developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the urban housing capacity study, then urban extensions, and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors…” Paragraph 30  PPG3

“In deciding which sites to allocate for housing in local plans and UDPs, local planning authorities should assess their potential and suitability for development against each of the following criteria:
i.	the availability of previously-developed sites and empty or under-used buildings and their suitability for housing use; 
ii.	the location and accessibility of potential development sites to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car, and the potential for improving such accessibility; 
iii.	the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including public transport, water and sewerage, other utilities and social infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals) to absorb further development and the cost of adding further infrastructure; 
iv.	the ability to build communities to support new physical and social infrastructure and to provide sufficient demand to sustain appropriate local services and facilities; and 
v.	the physical and environmental constraints on development of land, including, for example, the level of contamination, stability and flood risk, taking into account that such risk may increase as a result of climate change.” (Paragraph 31)
Paragraph 38 ‘Determining planning applications’ of PPG3 states “In considering planning applications for housing development in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities should have regard to the policy contained in this PPG as material considerations which may supersede the policies in their plan” (as above).

Members will recall that in considering the draft replacement plan the Inspector removed the housing allocation from this site.

The applicant has submitted a regeneration statement which also remarks on the release of the draft RSS in January 2006, which in order to support the regeneration activities taking place in the urban areas of the North West, proposes to significantly increase the housing requirement in Salford with over a threefold increase in the annual requirement from 530 to 1600 units per annum. 

This proposed increase goes some way to addressing one of the UDP Inquiry Inspector’s prime concerns of an over provision of housing land in Salford over the plan period. It is considered that the higher figure could still be delivered without the greenfield element of the application site, but that figure is indicative of the increasing need for housing in Salford.

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

1B(i)	are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice of means of transport; and
1B(ii)	are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure

2	Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of accessibility and infrastructure provision could be provided

3	Green field locations

Therefore, the policy presumption is to develop greenfield locations following development of other more sustainable and previously-developed locations.

A proportion of this site that contained the former school buildings and playgrounds constitutes brownfield land as defined by PPG3.  Therefore, given the relationship of this brownfield element to the surrounding residential community, I consider that the principle of development on this previously developed element of the site is clearly acceptable. However, the proportion of the site where the former playing fields were provided is greenfield land and would fall within criteria 3 of adopted policy ST11.  Given that the major part of the site is defined as greenfield land the following element of the report assesses the proposal on the basis that the site is greenfield land.

Therefore, whilst policy ST11 does not preclude development on greenfield land, it is clear that the development of this site at present with an abundance of brownfield sites still available elsewhere in the City, would not satisfy the sequential release of development at present.  Therefore, I consider that the principle of this development would be contrary to the thrust of policy ST11, and subsequently, policy EHC2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Regeneration Case
The applicant agents have submitted a regeneration statement quantifying why the development of this site should come forward at this current time.  The Regeneration Statement includes a number of arguments in favour of development of the site as it will aid in the regeneration of the wider area. These arguments are as follows; 

•	It will contribute towards meeting citywide need for housing to support the regeneration of Salford,

-	It will meet a local need for housing, which is an important part of the NDC’s regeneration objectives,

-	It will increase the number of households in the area by assisting in retaining existing residents and attracting new families,

-	It will contribute to the diversification of the area’s housing stock, which will improve the quality and choice of homes within the area,

-	It will transform the image and profile of the area, which in turn will attract new investment,

-	It will encourage private sector investment as part of coordinated regeneration activity,

-	It will underpin housing market renewal within the NDC and support the objectives of the Central Salford URC, and

One of the key aims of regenerating the Kersal High School Site first is to raise the general profile of the area, to encourage new residents to move to the area and to act as a catalyst for the development of the wider NDC area. There are a number of other, brownfield sites within the NDC area, however many of these (e.g. Whit Lane) are currently not ready for delivery as a comprehensive masterplan for their redevelopment is yet to be produced, residents relocated and land secured under Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). Many areas in the NDC are also constrained by flood risk issues.

On balance, while the majority of this site is previously undeveloped, I am satisfied that a sufficient case is made for the wider need for regeneration in the area and the provision of some affordable family orientated accommodation, justifies its development. The development of the whole of the application site is considered necessary to “kick start” the area’s regeneration and to increase confidence in the area to sufficient levels for the brownfield sites to come forward.

Therefore, whilst I consider that the proposal would be contrary to the thrust of policy ST11 and policy EHC2 of the UDP, I consider that the regeneration benefits to the wider area which will also facilitate the development of existing brownfield sites, coupled with other mitigating measures outlined below, to be sufficient to outweigh the presumption not to develop this site at this time.  I will discuss policy EHC2 (part 2) later in this report.

Greenfield Directive
Under the Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Land) (England) Direction 2000, states that any Greenfield site of greater than 5ha or development of more than 150 units on Greenfield land has to be referred to the Secretary of State.  This proposal incorporates 149 dwellings on the site’s former playing fields which are ‘greenfield land’ and less than 5 ha and so this proposal will not fall within the powers of this Direction.

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

The density across the whole of the site would be 44 dwellings per hectare.  PPG 3 defines an appropriate density between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.  Higher densities can be considered appropriate in city centre location in close proximity to high frequency public transport infrastructure.

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

Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.

Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal. Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas where there is evidence of an “unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing”. At the current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important to take into consideration evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests that household growth is likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is proposing to significantly increase annual housing provision for Salford.  However, at present I consider that some weight, albeit little, should be afforded to the draft RSS.

Policy H4 requires an element of affordable housing to be provided where there is an identified need.  The provision should be agreed through negotiation with the City Council.

Prior to the submission of this planning application for the redevelopment of the former KHS, there have been extensive discussions between Miller / Inspired Developments, NDC and the city council. These discussions have included consideration in more detail of the most appropriate dwelling mix on the site. In these discussions it has been made clear to the developer that this site should deliver a good mix of units (in terms of size, type, and tenure) and a large proportion of units suitable for families, in order to diversify the existing mix in the area.

NDC produced a Development Brief for the site, which amongst other things outlined the most appropriate mix of dwellings. The Brief stated that the site should accommodate a “range of housing types including terraced, semi-detached, detached and flatted properties”. This supports Theme 1 of the NDC Regeneration Framework, which is to make the Charlestown and Lower Kersal area one that is attractive to a wide range of existing and new residents and visitors with a vibrant mix of housing, community, employment and other communities.

The submitted scheme includes a range of predominantly family homes, of which the surrounding area has a deficiency. The current housing stock across the NDC area is generally poor. There is a predominance of pre-1919 terraced housing (60%), few semi detached houses in the private sector, extremely few detached properties (2%) and evidence of high demand for larger homes. 

The dwelling mix as proposed will help diversify the housing, and increase the number of households in the area by attracting new families. It will contribute to the diversification of the area’s housing stock, which will improve the quality and choice of homes in the area. Diversifying housing stock and creating neighborhoods of choice is a key element of the Manchester Salford Housing Market Renewal Initiative and the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company.

One of the objections received in response to the application publicity relates to the issue of ‘housing need’ and that in the opinion of the objector there is need in the area for bungalows.  Given that the proposal does not include the provision of any bungalows and that a housing needs assessment has not yet been undertaken by the Local Planning Authority, this scheme cannot provide an appropriate mix for the area and should not be considered at this time.

Policy H1 requires that new housing schemes satisfy a number of criteria including “contributing towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability.” Criterion C of the policy goes on to state that in determining the appropriate mix, one of the factors that should be taken into consideration is the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area.  However, there is no prescribed formula or ideal mix in considering any application for residential development.  Moreover, whilst the proposal does not include any bungalows, it is clear that it would provide a significant contribution to improving the mix of accommodation in the Kersal area as identified above.  As such I am satisfied that the proposal accords with policy H1 of the adopted plan.  I do not consider that there are any other material considerations which outweigh this view.

Furthermore, the applicant have agreed to provide an amount of affordable housing in accordance with policy H1 and H4, 28 affordable dwellings would be provided on site.  As outlined above these would be secured through the provision of a S106 agreement.

Therefore, I consider that the proposal accords with the requirements of the above policies with regard to the provision of housing.

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

Adopted DES5 relates to tall buildings and identifies a number of criteria in the assessment of tall buildings.  Paragraph 6.16 of the reasoned justification states “This policy applies to tall buildings and other structures that are significantly higher that surrounding buildings, or which could have a significant impact on their surrounding by virtue of their height.”

Given that the proposal includes apartments which would step up to 5 storey in height, I consider that it is appropriate to consider the scheme against this policy.

Adopted Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of the need for good design. In accordance with the requirements of this policy a written statement has been submitted which explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.

The layout and design principles of the proposal utilise the natural slope of the site to create some elevated apartment buildings blended with lower density dwellings.  The are a range and diversity of house types which seek to create a place with variety and a choice to allow for adaptability to meet changing family patterns.  These include ‘escarpment homes’ which utilise the topography of the site.  The overall housing mix aims to achieve a blend of contemporary styles with more traditional housing designs.

Generally, the layout proposed provides for taller properties which overlook the village green which is the focus of the site.  The design of the apartments includes buildings that ‘turn the corner’ in order to maintain natural surveillance.  Each dwelling has a private garden area.  The public and private amenity spaces associated to the apartments are clearly defined.

The proposal includes 77 apartments.  The apartments would be provided in six blocks.  All the apartment provision are located within the vicinity of the village green.  The design of the apartments is contemporary with materials which would include render, timber cladding, grey PVCu windows, steel and glass.

The dwellings proposed would provide a range of design styles of varying appearance and character.  Similar to the proposal of apartments some of the dwellings have been positioned over the natural escarpment to provide split level accommodation.  The dwellings proposed include a number of three storey and two storey accommodation.  Architecturally, the style of dwellings proposed are mixed between contemporary and traditional in appearance.  The contemporary dwellings would utilise many of the materials proposed for the apartments.  The traditional dwellings would utilise traditional materials such as roof tiles and brickwork.

The home zone and landscape principles will ensure that the development provides a unique sense of place and a high quality public realm to match the design qualities of the proposed dwellings.

As such I consider that the proposal would represent an appropriate balance of design style to ensure that the proposal results in a unique sense of place whilst integrating with the surrounding neighbouring properties.

Two of the three block of apartments located to the north of the village green would rise to 5 storey in height.  These two blocks would utilise the existing relief of the site by building over the natural escarpment.

I am of the opinion that the scale (criteria i), albeit 5 storey, is acceptable within the context of the site due in part to its position within the site.  As discussed later in this report there are no habitable windows contained within the elevations facing those properties on Moor Lane and the apartments would maintain a significant distance (68m) from these properties and therefore, significantly more than the Councils normal separation distances.

Given that the highest elements of the proposal would be located towards the centre of the site and away from the existing neighbouring properties which bound the site and given that they are located above one of the escarpments, I do not consider that they would detract from any important views (criteria vi).  I am also satisfied that the tall building element of the proposal satisfies the requirements of all of the criteria defined by policy DES5.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of design, scale and massing.

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 policies of the SPD and UDP are concerned with the design of development and spaces around them.  

Whilst the village green provides a focal point to the scheme and help define a sense of place the siting of the scheme ensures that maximum natural surveillance would be provided to this public space.  

I have received an objection to the application publicity on the ground of crime with particular reference to the criminal activities which currently take place within the SBI.  This proposal would introduce a footpath along the perimeter of the SBI.  Whilst the proposal does not include development within the SBI the properties proposed to the west of the scheme would front the SBI and thus provide surveillance where there has been none previously.  I consider that this increased surveillance would help improve the quality of the SBI and protect it from further inappropriate activities.

The Police Architectural Liaison advisor has been involved at a pre-application stage and is happy with the submitted scheme in respect of crime reduction.  He states “I have been involved with this development since October last year. The latest drawings show a scheme that can meet Secured by Design standards and I can see no problem with it”.  

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

Amenity – Existing neighbouring residents
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.

As discussed previously a significant amount of the existing boundary of the site comprises of the woodland SBI.  Given the position of the woodland to the scheme and those properties on Castlewood Road, I do not consider that the proposal would have any detrimental impact upon the existing residents of Castlewood Road.

There are a number of properties of varying types and sizes which bound the northern boundary of the site on Moor Lane.  A number of trees in close proximity to this boundary would be removed and are discussed later in this report.  Plots 48 to 68 would bound properties 230 to 244 Moor Lane.  The existing properties on Moor Lane have large gardens and whilst they are elevated above Moor Lane itself the rear gardens are generally flat.  However, the existing rear gardens are approximately 1.2m lower (measured from the closest part of the garden to the existing houses) than the proposed ground level.

The applicants agent has amended the scheme to enlarge the depth/length amount of rear gardens within the proposed dwellings.  As such the rear gardens of the proposed dwellings plot 48 to 68 would be on average 11.3m.  The smallest garden length would be plot 51 which would measure 8.5m and would be located to the rear of 236 Moor Lane.  Plot 51 would be a two storey dwelling with its gable orientated to the rear of Moor Lane.  Accommodation would be provided within the roof space of this house type.  Aspect to the bedroom contained within the roof space would be through a dormer contained within the left hand plane of roof.  The window at second floor level would be obscurely glazed.

The Councils normal privacy standards are set out in the recently adopted SPD for House Extensions.  Whilst I accept that this proposal is not a house extension I consider that the principles set out within this document are appropriate to ensure that existing and future residents in this part of the scheme are afforded an appropriate level of amenity in accordance with policy DES7.

The closest relationship between the proposal and the rear of these properties on Moor Lane would be 31.5m.  The Councils normal separation distances would require 21m.  Therefore, even though the proposed dwellings would be 1.2m above the existing ground level of the neighbouring dwellings, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity as it constitute more than the Councils normal separation distances.

However, the SPD for House Extensions does require that an appropriate distance is maintained within each garden to ensure that residents are afforded amenity when in their gardens.  Given the relationship of plots 48 to 68 to the common boundary and the design types of some of the proposed dwellings, I consider it appropriate to remove certain permitted development rights as defined by the General Permitted Development Order.  I consider that it is appropriate to remove permitted development rights regarding rear extensions and outbuildings and to ensure that the house types with bedrooms within the roof space which have obscurely glazed 2nd floor windows to be maintained in the future and to equally remove the right for the remainder of the proposal dwellings to insert any additional windows within the rear elevation.  I consider that these amendments will ensure that the amenity and privacy to these existing gardens is protected.

With the inclusion of conditions highlighted above I am satisfied that the proposal will not result in a detrimental loss of privacy to the existing residents on Moor Lane and identified above.

Plots 40 to 45 have also been amended since the submission of the application.  Plots 40, 42 and 44 are house types ‘T’ as described above which have bedroom accommodation within the roofspace.  Kersal Vale Court is located to the rear of these plots.  The applicants agent has supplied a section through the proposed dwellings and Kersal Vale Court.  It demonstrates that the proposed dwelling would be no higher than Kersal Vale.  At its closest the proposal would be 21.51m from Kersal Vale.  As such, and with the inclusion of similar restrictive conditions outlines above, I do not consider that the proposal would result in a detrimental loss of privacy to these existing residents.

Moreover, the gable of plot 40 would be 19.63m from the front elevation of number 1 Mesnefield Road.  The Councils normal separation distance to a two storey gable would be 13m.  Therefore, I consider that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact upon these residents.

The remainder of the proposed dwellings would also maintain more than the Councils normal separation distances to the common boundaries and existing neighbouring residents.

I do not consider that the amenity of the surrounding neighbouring residents would be unduly affected by future occupiers access the site from the existing road network.  Moreover, the access to the site on Oaklands Road would be opposite the existing day nursery, as such I do not consider that the proposed access would result in an detrimental impact upon residential amenity.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of safeguarding existing residential amenity.

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

The section above details the relationship of the proposed dwellings to the common boundaries with existing residents.  I consider that the amendments made and conditions imposed will also ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of those particular plots is also safeguarded.

Within the site the scheme maintains the Councils normal separation distances.

As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of safeguarding future residential amenity.

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

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

The proposal would seek to provide access to the development as a whole off Oaklands Road.  The proposal seeks to utilise Mesnefield Road as an emergency access only and bollards are proposed in the position of the existing gate into the site.  

The Councils consultant highway engineer has considered the information provided within the TA and is satisfied that the level of development proposed would not have an unacceptable impact upon the highway network.  He is satisfied that sufficient visibility would be provided at the entrance to the site off Oaklands Road to safeguard highway safety.

Moreover, he is of the opinion that the development of this site without the inclusion of an emergency access the scheme would represent an overlong cul-de-sac.  I am advised that an emergency access is necessary to ensure appropriate access due to the number of dwellings which would otherwise be served off a cul-de-sac.  Therefore, I have attached a  condition relating to the emergency access.  The condition requires the access to be maintained for emergency purposes and requires the details of the scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  However, at this stage I accept that the emergency access is likely to be provided by the use of telescopic bollards.

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

Moreover, given the sites location to this existing community, public transport and other local facilities, I consider that the 100% car parking provision across the site to be appropriate for this part of the City.

Given the likely time period to construct the proposal I have attached a condition requiring a wheel washing facility on site at all times during the constriction period to safeguard highway safety in the locality.  I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.

Subject to the above conditions I have no highway objection.

Therefore, in conclusion I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the requirements of the policies highlighted above with regard to car parking and access.

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

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

The Council’s draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) identifies the threshold for when the requirements of H8 are applicable.  Development over 10 units would be required to contribute to formal and informal open space by this supplementary document.  Therefore, I consider that to satisfy the adopted development plan there is a need for this scheme to contribute towards open space.  I have assessed the relevant elements below:

The development would result in 895 bedspaces. In accordance with the adopted UDP policies H8/R2 this generates an open space requirement equal to:

•	0.22ha equipped children’s play space
•	0.36ha amenity/informal open space
•	0.65ha of quality sports pitch provision

This is agreed in para. 6.2.5 of the Open Space Statement submitted with the planning application.

Proposed  On-Site Provision
The Open Space statement suggests the development will provide a proportion of this on-site through a mix of formal and informal open space areas. This is stated to be provided in the following way:

Equipped Play:
Village Green: 			0.1773ha
LAPs:					0.0170ha

Total suggested on-site:		0.1940ha

Amenity Space:
Community Area:			0.0131ha
Footpath:				0.0170ha
Nodal Points in Home Zones:		0.0597ha
	
Total suggested on-site:		0.898ha

Proportion of Home Zone shared surface is also intended to contribute towards the amenity/informal open space on-site provision. 

Total Home Zone shared space:	0.5053ha

Sports Pitch Provision
There will be no on-site sports pitch provision.

A financial contribution of £220,000 has already been confirmed to off-set the loss of the school playing fields, which is to be directed towards improvements in community sports provision in the locality of the development, at the Sports Village, Littleton Road. This provision has been agreed through pre application consultation with Sport England and would be secured through the provision of a section 106 agreement.

Therefore, I consider that this financial contribution satisfies the requirements of policy EHC2 part 2 as detailed above.

Village Green Assessment
The Open Space Statement considered the whole of the Village Green (0.1773ha) as equivalent to Equipped Children’s Play area. This is not considered acceptable to provide all of the necessary equipped children’s play provision.

The Village Green would be laid out as a mix of formal and informal open space, with an area for equipped children’s play (confirmed in the Landscape Statement as Local Area for Play [LAP] provision), an area proposed as a Trim Trail plus seating and sculptural elements within a central lawn area. 

The LAP and Trim Trail within the Village Green are proposed to cater for children up to 6 years old. Section 5.4.1 of the Landscape Statement confirms the equipped area within the village green will be at least 100m2. Section 5.5.1 of the Landscape Statement refers to the provision of playground equipment, with some examples of the type of equipment that would be incorporated within the village green. The illustrations within this report show climbing facilities with slides, seesaws and springers.  The detailed plan of LAP1 in Section 5.4.1 (Village Green LAP), shows hopscotch and mushroom style seating as forming the equipped element for this LAP. The detail of what will be provided will therefore be controlled by condition.

Home Zones Assessment
The Home Zone areas are distinguished in the Open Space Statement as either Nodal Points or Shared Surfaces. They also contain some small areas of equipped play (LAP).

The Nodal Points are proposed to be traffic-free areas, including areas that are designed to encourage play by incorporating surface treatment and areas for children to play games, some of which will include play equipment for young children. These are stated in the Open Space Statement as 597msq. The Landscape Masterplan shows these as 576msq.

The Open Space Statement states the LAPs within the Home Zones will total 170m2. It is not clear from the plans which of the sites combine to make up this total. It would appear from the Landscape Masterplan that there are 3 sites identified as equipped play within Home Zones (one to the north west (31msq), one to the north east (72msq) and one to the south of the site (88msq). These would actually result in a total area of LAP play space of 191m2. It is presumed that there are no other area(s) proposed for equipped play space (other than as part of the Village Green). 

An area located to the south of the Village Green is identified as a ‘Community Area’ and would have a total area of 131m2 for amenity/informal open space.  

A footpath, running adjacent to the site boundary with the SBI, links two of the Home Zone areas, and provides an additional 170m2 informal open space provision.

The remaining area of Home Zone provision provides shared surface where neither the vehicles nor pedestrians have right of way. A maximum speed limit of 10mph is proposed and the streets are designed to increase social activity and reduce driving speeds. The Home Zones are 5053msq.  

It is considered that the Home Zone area to the southeast of the site (HZ1) could be subject to substantial levels of traffic movement, and therefore its availability for informal recreation use would be limited. However, for the remaining Home Zones within the development, it is accepted that there will be some degree of informal recreation benefit from them. 

Sports Pitch Provision
The whole of the sports pitch element of the open space requirement is intended to be provided for in the form of a financial contribution. The total contribution for this would be (based on the figures in the draft Planning Obligations SPD):
•	895 bedspaces X £123 [£50 Capital + £73 Maintenance] = £110,085

The applicants have agreed to a financial contribution of £220,000 as a compensatory measure for the loss of the former playing fields. This is in addition to satisfying Department of Education and Skills through a general consent ‘exchange’ for the Kersal Playing Fields. 

Appendix 4 of the Open Space Statement provides details of potential projects to benefit from the s106 agreement. These include mini pitch provision, tennis and cricket, at Littleton Road Playing Fields; equipped play area in Littleton Road Neighbourhood Park; securing the Playing Fields boundaries at Littleton Road; constructing the Phase 2 Sports Village, including changing rooms and a sports hall; and art work within the Sports Village.

It is considered that this compensation for playing fields fully satisfies the sports pitch element of the financial requirement. No further financial contribution (above the existing s106 contribution of £220,000) would be required for sports pitch provision.

Therefore, whilst the amount of formal and informal provision within the site is not considered to provide the necessary amount as defined within policies H8 and R2 of the adopted plan the developers have agreed to contribute a further financial contribution of £166,530.  In total, I am satisfied that the amount of on site provision and the additional financial contribution to existing provision in the area and the further contribution of £220,000 to mitigate the loss of the sports pitches, to be of an appropriate level.

As such, I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted Policy H8 and R2 of the adopted plan and the requirements of Sport England.  

Air Quality
The applicant has undertaken an air quality assessment in accordance with policy EN14 of the adopted plan.

The Director of Environmental Services has assessed this report and is satisfied that the impacts of the development on air quality are negligible and does not recommend any further restrictions on air quality grounds.

Therefore, in conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the requirements of the policies highlighted above with regard to air quality.

Trees
Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.

Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has assessed the trees and the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement, Arboricultural Implication Assessment and Woodland Management Plan.

Outside of the defined SBI woodland there are a number of trees which would be removed to facilitate this development.  The majority of the trees to be removed are located on the section of Oaklands Road to facilitate the access point, within the vicinity of the former caretakers house (off Mesnefield Road) and to the rear of Moor Lane.

However, a number of trees along the common boundary of Moor Lane would be retained.  A number of the objections received refer to the loss of trees on the site.  One of the objections specifically refers to the plans which identifies the trees on site.  The objection states that the tree canopy is not a true reflection of the actual tree on site and the proposed dwellings to the rear of Moor Lane would be visible.  

Whilst the submitted plan does not demonstrate the definitive tree canopy it does provide a clear representation of the position of the trees and should be read in conjunction with the Arboricultural Method Statement, Arboricultural Implication Assessment and Woodland Management Plan.  However, it is clear that the remaining trees will not screen the proposal from the existing residents.  Moreover, I do not consider that the relationship of both the proposed and existing dwellings requires mature trees to provide screening for the scheme to be considered to be in accordance with policies contained within the plan.

Policy EN10 of the plan as outlined above seeks to protect against unacceptable loss of trees.  The consultant arborist is satisfied that the trees identified for removal are not worthy of protection and that the majority of the trees within the site would be retained and maintained by this proposal.  Moreover, he states “The recommendations outlined within the method statements mentioned above, are sympathetic to the local neighbourhood and appropriate for this site and should therefore be accepted for their part in the planning permission process.”

To mitigate the loss of trees on site and incorporated into the landscaping scheme a total of 153 trees would be planted across the site.  This would represent significantly more than the Councils normal two for one replacement principle.  As such, I have attached a condition requiring not less than 153 trees to be planted as part of the landscaping scheme in order to mitigate the loss of the existing trees and to enhance the amenity of the area.

Therefore, in conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.

Site of Biological Interest (SBI)
In terms of the SBI, details of the methodology of woodland/translocation works (Ecological and Arboricultural Method Statements).  The woodland management plan identifies that the applicant is willing to undertake some initial management of the SBI which would include the selective thinning of trees and the opening of green wedges.  These green wedges would aid the establishment of translocated acid grass from the main site.

The Ecological Method Statement (April 2006 by TEP) and Woodland Management Plan (April 2006 by TEP) recommend that a number measures are implemented to safeguard the SBI. In summary these items are;

·	Prior to construction works including any earth moving a secure fence line along the SBI boundary is established.
·	Selected lopping and clearance of branches along the line of the fence and subsequent protection of the trees and their canopies by temporary fencing.
·	Prior to any construction works including earth moving the areas to be translocated should be marked out and translocated to their new prepared locations. To be carried out under ecological supervision.
·	Woodland management to open up the flush communities (identified by an ecologist) and selective felling of invasive species (rhododendron) and thinning of non-native trees.
·	Ecological works should avoid the bird breeding season (March - July inclusive).
·	Tree planting of locally native tree species in identified areas.
·	Control of other invasive species - Himalayan balsam.
·	Control and eradication programme to be initiated as soon as possible for Japanese knotweed. This highly invasive species occurs on the development platform and it is essential that this programme is started as soon as possible.
·	Erection of bat boxes.
·	Clearance and litter picking.
·	Long term management arrangements established and reviewed after 5 years with appropriate funding arrangements.  

In accordance with this translocation and the requirements of policy EN8 of UDP the applicant has agreed to contribute £12,500 towards the management of the SBI over a period of 5 years to ensure that the translocated acid grass has the opportunity to establish. Furthermore, as part of the application a fence would be erected along the boundary of the SBI and the proposed footpath.  

Therefore, in conclusion and subject to a number of conditions attached below, the provision of £12,500 towards maintenance and management and the initial management work, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding the Site of Biological Interest.

Other issues
In response to the advice set out in the response from the Director of Environmental Services I have attached two conditions requiring a full site and noise investigation to be undertaken prior to the commencement of development.

Prior to the submission of the application the applicant had engaged with the local community regarding the future of this site.  Open days were held and a peoples panel was established.  I am informed by the applicant that many of the views made by local residents and the peoples panel have been incorporated into the final design.  Therefore, whilst pre application consultation is encouraged through the production of planning policy statements, it is clearly not a material consideration if the submitted scheme does not include elements which the developer may have portrayed to the community prior to the submission of a planning application

I do not consider that the use of the exiting football pitch to the north east to be relevant in the consideration of this scheme.

Loss of view and impact upon the commercial value of property is not a material planning consideration.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £166,530. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity. 

Further to the requirements of policy H8 of the UDP and in accordance with the advice of Sport England the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £220,000.  This would contribute to the provision of sports pitches in the vicinity.

In accordance with Policy EN8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £12,500. This would contribute to the translocation of acid grass and maintenance of the SBI

In accordance with policy H4 of the adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the provision of 28 affordable houses through the site.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the scheme accords with the policies of the development and that subject to the following conditions and legal agreement the application should be approved.  I do not consider that there are any other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play equipment, replacement sports provision and the maintenance of the neighbouring Site of Biological Interest (SBI) and affordable housing provision.

The heads of terms of the agreement are as follows:

1.	The provision of £166,530 for the provision of open space in the vicinity in accordance with policy H8 and R2 of the adopted UDP.

2.	The provision of £220,000 for the provision of sports pitches in the vicinity in accordance with policies H8, R2 of the adopted UDP and the advice of Sport England.

3.	The provision of £12,500 for the translocation and management of acid grass into the neighbouring SBI in accordance with policy EN8 of the adopted UDP.

4.	The provision of 28 affordable houses throughout the site in accordance with policy H4 of the adopted UDP.

Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the all external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.	Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters.  The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
	
	The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site investigation survey.  Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
	
	Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
	
	For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 793 2046).

4.	No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments contained within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any apartment.

5.	Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores

6.	Standard Condition F03X Surfacing

7.	No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any apartment.

8.	Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there shall be no development within the curtilage of plots 40 to 58 hereby approved as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.

9.	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.

10.	The windows within the second floor rear elevations of house type 'T' of plots 40, 42, 44, 51, 53 and 55 shall be obscurely glazed prior to first occupation and shall be retained at all times

11.	Notwithstanding the details contained within the supporting documentation a scheme detailing the LAP equipment for the Village Green and Home Zones shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.  The scheme shall also include phasing details for the implementation of these equipped play areas.  The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and phased provision.

12.	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.  The scheme shall include full details of not less than 153 replacement trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall incorporate the principles set out in the landscaping strategy which accompanied the application.  The scheme shall also include phasing details for the implementation of the landscaping.  The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and phased provision.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

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

14.	This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 15th September  which shows amendments to the types and positions of plots 40 to 55.

15.	The construction of the development hereby approved shall incorporate the implications and recommendations of the Ecological Method Statement (April 2006 by TEP), Arboricultural Method Statement (April 2006 by TEP), Arboricultural Implication Assessment (April 2006 by TEP) and Woodland Management Plan (April 2006 by TEP) which accompanied the application

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

3.	Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

4.	Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

5.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

6.	Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas

7.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

8.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

9.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

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

11.	Standard Reason R044 open space reason

12.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

13.	Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety

14.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

16.	To safeguard the Site of Biological Interest and to ensure good arboricultural practice

Note(s) for 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.

APPLICATION No:	06/53303/FUL

APPLICANT:	Miss Lea Done

LOCATION:	19 - 21 Mill Brow Worsley M28 2WL    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of two existing dwellings and erection of one new dwelling

WARD:	Worsley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The applications site consists of two existing dwellings within the Worsley Village Conservation Area.  The application site is located on Mill Brow and surrounded by residential properties.  

The application seeks permission for the demolition of two existing dwellings and the erection of a part single / part two storey single dwelling with integral garage and a detached single storey garden room.

A conservation area consent application is on this agenda for determination for the demolition of the two existing dwellings on this site (06/53335/FUL).

SITE HISTORY

In November 2003  a planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey front extension, two storey rear extension and alterations to the existing windows to No.18 Mill Brow (03/47069/HH).

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections, recommends conditions relating to noise, dust and contamination.

Worsley Village Community Association – no comments received to date

Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society – no comments received to date

PUBLICITY

A site notice and press notice have been published.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	110A, 110 – 117 , Clover Cottage, Highfield Mill Brow
	Old Warke Dam, The Lodge Woodstock Drive
	3 – 5 (all) Waterbridge
	15 Bay Tree Avenue 

REPRESENTATIONS

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

	Demolition and erection of properties within a conservation area
	Access for construction vehicles
	Out of character with conservation area
	Loss of light
	Overbearing
	Construction noise and disturbance
	Loss of view

Councillor MacDonald has requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to the application site being within the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
	
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

ER3 – Built Heritage

DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

EM1 – Integrated Land Management

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
		DES1 – Respecting Context
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping
CH3 – Works Within Conservation Areas
EN13 – Protected Trees

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the demolition of the existing buildings is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed new building is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the character of the conservation area; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of existing or future residents; whether the proposed level of car parking is sufficient and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each in turn below.

Principle of the Development 

Adopted Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.

The existing site has two dwellings upon it.  The proposed single dwelling would have five bedrooms.  I would consider the proposed principle of a residential dwelling to be acceptable on this site.

Design and Impact on Conservation Area

Adopted Policy ER3 states that proposal and schemes should where possible, enhance natural, man-made and historic features that contribute to the character and culture of landscapes, places and local distinctiveness.  Draft Policy EM1 re-iterates this.

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

Adopted Policy CH3 states that development within conservation areas will only be acceptable where they would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area

The demolition of the dwellings with regards to the impact on the Worsley Village Conservation Area are dealt with by the conservation area consent application also before the panel for determination today.

Mill Brow consists mainly of two-storey terrace cottage properties with rendered white elevations and slate roofs.  The application site has a 3m high boundary hedge approximately 1.5m wide.

The proposed dwelling would be part single part two storeys in height, the proposal includes an integral garage and detached single storey garden room.  

The garden room would be located close to the rear boundary of the site currently known as 19 Mill Brow.  The proposed garden room would measure 12m X 3.9m with a height of 2.7m to the eaves.  The front elevation of the garden room would consist mainly of glazing with a hipped roof.

The main house would measure 27.8m X 22.5m with a height to the first floor eaves of 5.5m and a total height of 7.7m.  The main house has been designed to ensure the proposed eaves height is similar to that of the existing cottages on Mill Brow and the properties to the rear of the application site on Waterbridge.  This has been achieved by reducing the levels within the site, in excess of 1m at certain points.  The proposed windows are a similar proportion and style of those found on the cottages facing the cottages facing the application site.  The proposed materials include white rendering and slates to ensure the proposal fits in with the existing cottages along Mill Brow  Due to the proposed change in levels and the retention and improvement of the existing boundary hedge only the eaves and roof would be seen on the approach from Worsley Road. .

The Council’s Conservation Officer has been consulted on this application and is of the opinion that the design of the proposed building would enhance the character of the Conservation Area.  He considers the design of the proposal to have a “greater respect” to the surrounding dwellings than the existing properties.  It is recommended that conditions are attached regarding materials to ensure the highest quality of design.

Given the reduction in levels and the high quality design of the proposal I would consider the proposed design of the development to be acceptable.  I would consider the proposal to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  I have attached conditions requesting samples of the proposed materials to ensure quality. 

Impact on Amenity

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

The proposed single storey garden room would be in excess of 9m from No.3 Waterbridge and in excess of 12m from No.4 Waterbridge.  The proposal has no habitable room windows on the rear elevations.  The proposed front elevation would be 21m from the properties facing on Mill Brow.  The existing front boundary of the application site has a substantial hedge along it, this would be retained and improved.  I would not consider the single storey garden room to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The single storey element of the proposed main house would be 9.2m from the closest ground floor habitable room window of No.4 Waterbridge.  The proposed two-storey rear elevation would be 13.6m from the closest ground floor habitable room window of No.4 Waterbridge.  There would be no proposed habitable room windows on either the ground or first floor directly overlooking No.4 Waterbridge.  The proposed two-storey rear elevation would be in excess of 21m from No.5 Waterbridge.  The proposal would have a similar ground level to that of No.4 Waterbridge.  I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the residents of the properties on Waterbridge.

The proposed front elevation of the main house would not be directly to the front of 113 Mill Brow.  The proposed single storey front elevation would be in excess of 9m from the corner of 113 Mill Brow, the two-storey element would be 14m from this corner.  There would be no habitable room windows directly facing each other.  The proposal would be in excess of 23m from the existing row of terraces,114-117 Mill Brow.  I would not consider the proposed development to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents on Mill Brow.

The proposed development would have an ample amount of amenity space located to the front and side of the main house.

I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the privacy or outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of the proposal in accordance with Adopted Policy DES 7.

Trees

Adopted Policy EN10 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.  Where the loss of trees is considered acceptable, adequate replacement provision will be required.

There are a number of protected trees within the site.  None of the protected trees would be removed as part of the development.  There are a number of trees located along the boundary between the existing properties that are proposed to be removed.  The Consultant Arboriculturalist has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that none of the trees are worthy of protection due to their position within the site and limited visibility or the condition of the tree. I have attached a condition requiring root protection zones to ensure the trees to be retained would not be affected during the construction period.  I would consider the proposal to be in accordance with Adopted Policy EN10

I have attached a condition requiring details of landscaping. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Adopted Policy DES9 and replacement trees are planted.

Car Parking

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

The integral garage would provide parking for three vehicles with an ample driveway.  I would consider the proposed level of parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Adopted Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway grounds.

Other Issues

The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has recommended a condition relating to the potential impact of dust on the existing neighbouring occupiers during the construction period.  A condition relating to noise from the surrounding road network and a condition relating to contaminated land has also been recommended.  All the conditions have been attached.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

The applicant has been seeking advice from the Local Planning Authority and the Council’s Conservation Officer in excess of 18 months.  This has resulted in a high quality design that would enhance the character and appearance of the Worsley Village Conservation Area.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that the principle development to be acceptable and the design is acceptable given the location within the Conservation Area.  I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the building 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.

3.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.  Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4.	No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences in accordance with the root protection areas a shown on the submitted plan Drawing No.L40000.06.  Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the 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.

5.	Prior to the commencement of any building works on site and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the applicant shall submit for written approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road & rail network including Worsley Road and M60, and any other local noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels.

6.	Prior to the commencement of the development, a Dust Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.   All identified measures included in the approved plan shall be implemented and maintained at all times.

7.	Prior to the commencement of development  a desk study shall be been submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The study shall investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential contamination, prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters.  The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
	
	The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.  Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
	
	Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

8.	Standard Condition G14A Considerate contractor

9.	The proposed development and reduction of site levels shall be carried out in accordance with submitted Drawing Nos. MIL/102 REV A, MIL/207 REV A and MIL/206 REV B prior to first occupation.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R006B Character-conservation area

3.	Standard Reason R006B Character-conservation area

4.	Standard Reason R010B Protect TPO trees

5.	Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

6.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

7.	Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

8.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

9.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted for further discussions concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at this site. on 0161-737-0551 to discuss the measurement methodology and monitoring position.

2.	For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551

3.	Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
	        Monday to Friday    08:00 to 18:00
	        Saturdays               08:00 to 13:00
	Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
	
	Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated above.

4.	Please note this permission realtes to the following drawings
	
	Drawing No.       Revision
	MIL/101             B
	MIL/102             A
	MIL/103             C
	MIL/104             C
	MIL/201             C
	MIL/202             B
	MIL/203             C
	MIL/204             B
	MIL/206             B
	MIL/207             A
	MIL/002             B
	MIL/003             A
	MIL/004             B
	MIL/005             B
	MIL/006             B

5.	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.

6.	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.  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.

APPLICATION No:	06/53335/CON

APPLICANT:	Miss L Done

LOCATION:	19-21 Mill Brow Worsley M28 2WL    

PROPOSAL:	Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of two existing dwellings and erection of one dwelling

WARD:	Worsley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site consists of two existing dwellings within the Worsley Village Conservation Area.  The application site is located on Mill Brow and surrounded by residential properties.

The application seeks permission for the demolition of two existing dwellings and the erection of a two storey single dwelling with integral garage and an integral single storey garden room.

A full planning application is on this agenda for the determination of the demolition of the two existing dwellings and the erection of one dwelling on this site (06/53303/CON)

SITE HISTORY

In November 2003  a planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey front extension, two storey rear extension and alterations to the existing windows (03/47069/HH).

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections, recommends conditions relating to noise, dust and contamination.

Worsley Village Community Association – no comments received to date

Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society – no comments received to date

PUBLICITY

A site notice and press notice have been published.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	110A, 110 – 117 , Clover Cottage, Highfield Mill Brow
	Old Warke Dam, The Lodge Woodstock Drive
	3 – 5 (all) Waterbridge
	15 Bay Tree Avenue 

REPRESENTATIONS

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

	Demolition and erection of properties within a conservation area
	Access for construction vehicles
	Out of character with conservation area
	Loss of light
	Overbearing
	Construction noise and disturbance
	Loss of view

Councillor MacDonald Has requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to the application site being within the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
	
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: CH3 – Works Within Conservation Areas
		CH4 – Demoiltion of Buildings Within Conservation Areas

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the demolition of the existing buildings is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed new building is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the character of the conservation area; and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each in turn below.

Design and Impact on Conservation Area

Adopted Policy CH3 States that development within conservation areas will only be acceptable where they would preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area

Adopted Policy CH4 states that the demolition of existing buildings within conservation areas will only be acceptable where they make no positive contribution to the character and appearance of a conservation area.

Paragraph 4.27 of PPG15 states that there should be a general presumption against the demolition of buildings that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area.  It also states that consent for demolition should be not be given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment.

With regards to the last point, a planning application for the erection of a new dwelling is also on the agenda for consideration today (06/53303/FUL)

The Council’s Conservation Officer has been consulted and is of the opinion that neither of the existing buildings relate to the original use of the area in relation to the working and winning of below ground minerals unlike the cottages on the opposite side of Mill Brow.  No’s 19 and 21 Mill Brow were built much later than the properties opposite and are speculative modern properties relatively concealed from the general view due to the existing hedgerow along the front boundaries of the properties.  The external finish of the properties are render and they have no architectural or historic value. For these reasons it is considered that the existing properties do not make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area in accordance with Policy CH4 and PPG15.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

The applicant has been seeking the advice of the Local Planning Authority and the Council’s Conservation Officer in excess of 18 months.  This has resulted in a high quality design that would enhance the character of the Worsley Village Conservation Area.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that the principle development to be acceptable and the design is acceptable given the location within the Conservation Area.  I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2.	No demolition shall commence until a development contract has been signed for the construction of the replacement building as approved under planning permission reference 06/53303/FUL and submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R038 Section 18

2.	Standard Reason R006B Character-conservation area

APPLICATION No:	06/53343/COU

APPLICANT:	S A Al Zia

LOCATION:	44 Parrin Lane Eccles M30 8BD    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use of ground floor from shop to shop for the sale of hot food

WARD:	Winton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a shop on 44 Parrin Lane, Eccles. The application is to change the use of the premises to a shop for the sale of hot food. The previous use of the application property was as a newsagents. The ground floor of no.44 Parrin Lane is currently vacant. The first floor of no.44 Parrin Lane is currently in residential use, as is the first floor of no. 46. No. 42 is currently in use as a residential property. The proposed hours of opening of the hot food takeaway are from 5.00pm till 10.30pm Monday – Sunday. The applicant originally applied to open between 5.00pm – 11.00 pm Friday and Saturday, but has recently altered this.

SITE HISTORY

There have been two previous applications on this site .In March 2005 an application  (05/50021/COU) for a hot food takeway at 44 Parrin Lane was refused under delegated powers on the grounds that the proposed change of use would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbours by reason of smell and fumes.

In November 2004 permission was refused for the use of 44 Parrin Lane as hot food takeaway due to issues of noise and disturbance from late night opening and the operations of a hot food takeaway and fumes and odours, (ref no. 04/47917/COU). The applicant subsequently appealed against the Council’s refusal of permission, but his appeal was dismissed in November 2004 due to insufficient details as to how fumes and cooking smells would be extracted from the premises. The Inspector therefore considered that it was difficult to assess whether the extraction could take place without any undue effect on adjoining residents.

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Objections have been received with regards to noise and odour associated with cooking processes, which would be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding residents.
 
PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified:
38, 40, 42, 46( ground floor and flat above), 47, 48 (ground floor and flat above), 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59 A, 59, Parrin Lane. 
180, 182, 184 and 186 Anson Street.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received eight letters of objection:

Noise and disturbance
Car parking/traffic problems
Attract anti-social youths
Increase in litter
Increase in smells

A petition has been received supporting the proposal. Although residents at no. 42 and 46 Parrin Lane have signed the petition, the majority of signatures are from properties at some distance away from the application site. 

Councillor Lancaster has requested that the application be considered by Panel as he believes that the fume extraction issues have been addressed and that it is for the planning department to disprove that that the fume extraction system is not sufficient.

ADOPTED UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

Site specific policies: 	None
Other policies: 	S4 Amusement Centres, Restaurants and Cafes, Drinking 
                  Establishments, and Hot Food Takeaways.
                  DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                                    EN17 – Pollution Control

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.

Site specific policies  - none

Other policies  - none

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether there will be any impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes and litter and whether there would be sufficient car parking. 

 Impact on Amenity

Policy S4 states that proposals for hot food shop uses will not be permitted by the Council where the use would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic; the vitality and viability of a town centre; visual amenity; or the drainage system.

 Policy DES7states that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.

Policy EN17 states that development proposals will not be permitted where they would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant increase in pollution to the air, water or soil, or by reason of noise or odour, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development. When assessing such proposals, particular regard will be had to the proximity of the development and its effect upon environmentally sensitive uses, buildings, features, areas and considerations such as housing.

The site is located on Parrin Lane, Eccles which is a mainly residential area. Other businesses along the street include a hairdressers at 46 and 48 Parrin Lane, a bakery at no. 52 and a convenience store at no.’s 54 and 56 Parrin Lane. These properties are located on the same side of the road as the proposed hot food takeaway. Opposite the applicant’s property is a takeaway at no. 53. At  no.49 is a pet shop. Parrin Lane is a relatively busy road during the day and in the evenings.  The hot food takeaway opposite and the convenience store at no.’s 54 and 56 Parrin Lane are both open in the evening. I therefore consider that this proposal would not result in a significant or unacceptable increase in noise or distrubance from customers visiting the premises either by car or on foot, given the proposed hours of opening.

Directly above the application site is a residential unit. At no. 42 is a residential property, and the first floor of no. 46 Parrin Lane is a residential unit. To the rear of the property are a number of residential properties, the nearest being 10m away. The applicant has not submitted full details of the fume extraction system. The plans submitted show that the vent of the fume extraction system would not be located 1m above the ridge as is required by the Strategic Director of Environmental Services. The position of the flue and its proximity to residential properties as it is currently proposed would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Both no. 42 and 40 at ground and first floor are currently in residential use. These dwellings have habitable room windows in the main rear elevations and non-habitable room windows in the out-riggers. The upper floor of the applicant’s property is currently in residential use. It has a two-storey rear out-rigger that contains one habitable room window.  The upper floor of no.’s 46 & 48 is also occupied as a residential use. There is a habitable room window in the upper floor of the main rear elevation of no .46 adjoining where the applicant proposes to locate the fume extraction system is a habitable room window. 

Objections have been received regarding smells and fumes that would result from the proposed change of use to a shop for the sale of hot food. The nearest residential properties are above the proposed takeaway, and to either side of the proposed takeaway.  Despite previous refusals and the dismissal of his appeal, the applicant has still failed to provide sufficient details of a fume extraction system. The system currently proposed would involve the flue terminating below the ridge of the roof of the property, which on advice from the Strategic Director of Environmental Services would be inadequate to extract fumes and odours from the property and away from neighbouring residential properties. This is particularly problematic given the fact that there are residential properties above and on either side of the proposed hot food takeaway. The fume extraction system currently proposed would, in my opinion, result in the proposed use having an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents due to fumes and odours.

I note that the residents of no.’s 42 and 46 Parrin Lane have signed a letter in support of the proposal. The Council does however have a duty to protect the amenity of future as well as existing residents. I do not therefore consider that this outweighs my concerns regarding the detrimental impact on amenity.

I consider that the proposed hot food takeaway would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residents of these properties by reason of  odour related to the operation of a hot food takeaway. There has been no material change in circumstances since the issue of the previous decisions.

Other Issues

Objections have been received regarding the problems of anti-social behaviour in the Parrin Lane area and that the application for a hot food takeaway could increase this problem. I do not consider it reasonable to assume that a hot food shop would result in an increase of anti-social youths and I do not consider that this should constitute a reason for refusal.

Objections have also been received regarding the issue of  increased litter. I do not consider that litter would cause a significant impact. If the application was to be approved a condition could be attached that a litter bin would be provided outside the proposed takeaway.

Also issues of problems regarding increased traffic and parking have been raised. I do not consider that the proposed hot food takeaway would cause issues of increased traffic and parking as the area along Parrin Lane outside the proposed takeaway already benefits from parking restrictions in the form of double yellow lines, and the nearby side streets Duke Street and May Street also have restricted parking in the form of double yellow lines. This would prevent any increase in traffic stopping outside the proposed takeaway.

CONCLUSION

I am of the opinion that the introduction of a hot food takeaway would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents by the reason of fumes and odours created from the operations of a hot food takeaway. The application does therefore not comply with policy S4 of the Adopted UDP and DES7 and EN17 of the Adopted UDP. I therefore recommend the application for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties by reason of odours and fumes and would therefore be contrary to Policy S4 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:	06/53375/FUL

APPLICANT:	Chancerygate (Irlam) Ltd

LOCATION:	Land To East Of Soapstone Way Irlam    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of 34 - two storey units to provide B1(c), B2 and B8 uses with ancillary trade sales and associated car parking

WARD:	Cadishead

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The rectangular site measuring 240 metres by 110 metres is situated on land to the east of Soapstone Way.  The site is a former soap production factory bounded to the east by Kingsland Wines and Spirits Bottling and Distribution Plant, to the south is a railway embankment and linear walkway, to the north there are residential bungalows and a fire station.  Industrial development bounds the site to the west.  The site has an area of approximately 2.48 hectares and is currently vacant and has been cleared of vegetation.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 34 two-storey units with ancillary trade sales and associated car parking.  The proposal would provide a total of 11,620 square metres of B1(c), B2 and B8 floorspace.  The buildings range in height from 9 to 11 metres.  The applicant has submitted a design statement which considers the design principles of the development.  161 car parking spaces are proposed throughout the site, in addition to cycle parking and motorcycle facilities.  It is proposed that there be two main access points to the site.  The first, to serve blocks A and B, will be located approximately 70 metres from Fairhills Road.  The second access will be located off the mini-roundabout junction at the end of Soapstone Way and it will serve Blocks C, D, E and F.  The application is supported by a traffic assessment.   This is a speculative development hence employee numbers are not known.  Permission is sought for 24 hour use.

The applicant has submitted a number of supporting documents including a Flood Risk Assessment, a Tree Survey and landscaping proposals, Crime Prevention Plan, Noise Assessment, Environmental Site Assessment and a Green Travel Plan Framework.

SITE HISTORY

Outline permission was granted in 1998 for distribution / industrial units with ancillary offices (use classes B1, B2 & B8), application reference 97/37294/OUT.  This incorporated the land occupied by the former Soap factory and includes land to the west of Soapstone Way which has already been developed and is known as Phase I, this scheme represents Phase II.   

05/51060/OUT – Outline planning application for development of land for employment uses (Classes B1, B2 and B8) – Withdrawn. 

CONSULTATIONS

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no comments received to date.

Environment Agency – no comments received to date.

Barton Aerodrome – No objections.  Request to be informed should cranes exceeding 10 metres or that of surrounding structures or trees.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection in principle, would like to see the parking areas capable of being closed off.

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 7th September 2006.

A site notice was displayed on 8th September 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	Units 1 – 4, Fairhills Road Industrial Estate, Tallow Way
	Units 1, 2, 4, 5 Fairhills Road Industrial Estate, Woodrow Way
	Units 1 and 2, Thames Trading Centre, Woodrow Way
Akzo Nobel Inks Ltd, Soapstone Way
	Bamford Roofing Limited, Fairhills Industrial Estate, Woodrow Way
	Tesco Stores Ltd, Fairhills Industrial Estate, Woodrow Way
	Fire Station, Fairhills Road
	Beta Generators Limited, Theta Works, Woodrow Way
	Kingsland Wine And Spirits, Fairhills Road
	21 – 39 (odds) Fairhills Road
Barton Aerodrome Operations Ltd
	
REPRESENTATIONS

No letters of representation/objection have been received in response to the planning application publicity.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies:	None.
Other policies:		DP3:	Quality in New Developments.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: 	E4/5 – Sites for Employment Development.
Other policies:		DES1 – Respecting Context.
			DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
			DES9 – Landscaping.
			DES10 – Design and Crime.
			DES11 – Design Statements.
A1 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments.
			EN9 – Wildlife Corridors.
			ST3 - Employment Supply
ST11 - Location of New Development.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this planning application are: whether the principle of development is acceptable, whether the design and appearance is acceptable, whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residents and whether adequate access and parking would be provided.

Principle

The site is allocated in the recently adopted UDP under policy E4/5 for offices, light industry, general industry, storage and distribution.  This policy states that lying between established and recent employment developments along the southern side of Fairhills Road, this site is suitable for a range of employment uses.  Any development will be required to safeguard the amenity of existing residential properties to the north side of Fairhills Road and the linear park to the south of the site.

All the sites considered within Policy E4 are considered to accord with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11 (Location of new development) and be in accordance with Policy ST3 which relates to employment supply.  I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in land use terms.  Further consideration is given to residential amenity and the relationship to the linear park below.

Design and appearance

Policy DES1 considers that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.

Amended plans show Block A set in 1.5 metres from the western boundary, this allows the provision of a landscaping strip softening the impact of the proposal when viewed from the footpath alongside Soapstone Way.  At its closest point, Block A would be set back 11 metres from Fairhills Road.  A landscaping buffer is proposed along the northern boundary fronting Fairhills Road which again softens the visual impact of the development.

The design of the front (north) elevation of Block A and the side (north) elevation of Block B have been amended to show increased levels of glazing and variation of colour.  These elevations are particularly prominent fronting Fairhills Road and are visible to the wider public realm and from the residential bungalows situated on the northern side of Fairhills Road.  The design of each Block varies slightly whilst respecting the same theme, the blocks would be constructed of colour treated metal cladding in grey and silver supplemented with blue and green.  Overall, I am of the opinion that the design of the proposed development would be acceptable and in keeping with the existing industrial units to the west of the site.  

A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.  I am satisfied that this will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality.

The southern boundary of the site and the eastern and western boundaries furthest from Fairhills Road would maintain their existing boundary treatment of Palisade fencing, this is existing fencing and would not be widely visible from the wider public realm.  The front, north boundary of the site and eastern and western boundaries towards the front of the site would be bounded using 2m high paladin, weld mesh fencing.  The applicants have indicated that this would be painted black or green, a condition would be attached to any planning consent ensuring that the colour be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The proposed fencing is in accordance with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document  ‘Design and Crime’ and is of  an appropriate design and height in this location.

Policy DES10 seeks to encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity.   This is supplemented by Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ which provides detailed guidance on designing out crime for new developments.  

Comments from the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer advise that they would like to see the parking areas capable of being closed off.  The applicants have been investigating the possibility of a gatehouse to provide access not only for Phase II but also for the existing Phase I development (to the west of Soapstone Way).  An amended plan has been submitted showing the location of a possible future gatehouse and barriers.  Further comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer advise that the provision of a manned gatehouse would certainly improve the security of these sites.

At this stage, the provision of a gatehouse is indicative in form and full details will be submitted as a separate application.  An informative would be attached to any planning consent advising the applicant that approval is not given within this consent for a gatehouse building.

Amenity

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

A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the application, this concludes that a BS4142 assessment shows that the predicted noise is not even of marginal significance and the proposed operation will not detrimentally impact upon those dwellings.

The outline consent (97/37294/OUT) required the applicant to enter into a S106 agreement to provide double glazing to existing residential properties along Fairhills Road.   This mitigation work has been completed as part of Phase I, the existing development to the west of Soapstone Way.

Whilst comments from the Director of Environmental Services are yet to be received, it is considered that the main source of noise disturbance would result from the manoeuvring of delivery vehicles and these are situated to the rear (south) of Block A.  Subsequently, the orientation of the building itself provides protection for the occupiers of nearby residential properties.

Block A is set back 11 metres from the boundary with Fairhills Road and would have an eaves height of 8.6 metres with a maximum height of 10.2 metres.  At its closest point unit would be situated some 21 metres from the closest residential bungalow.   A landscape buffer is proposed to the northern boundary of the site ranging in depth from 1.0 to 3.0 metres.  For comparative purposes, within Phase I the northernmost block is situated some 13 metres from residential bungalows within Fairhills Road.

Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or the occupiers of other developments.

Landscaping

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

The railway embankment to the south of the site is designated as a wildlife corridor and policy EN9 therefore applies, this considers that development that would affect any land that functions as a wildlife corridor will not be permitted where it would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna.  The proposed development will provide a narrow landscape buffer alongside the wildlife corridor and will also incorporate the use of some locally native plant species in its landscaping scheme.  I am satisfied that there will be no detrimental impacts on the wildlife corridor and that the proposal will not impair the movement of flora and fauna.

A tree survey has been submitted in support of the application, this recommends that all but one of the trees on site is a category C, all others are category D.  Category D trees are trees for removal, dead, diseased or structurally unstable.  Category C trees are trees that could be retained.  The trees have however since been felled.  The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant undertook a site visit and concluded that there were no trees that would have been worthy of retention.

I have considered the submitted landscape proposals and have a number of concerns relating to the landscaping adjacent to Block D, the native shrub mix and the proximity of car spaces to landscaping. These are a matter of detail and I have attached a landscaping condition which will require an amended scheme to be submitted for approval.

Access and parking

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.  

There would be 33 disabled spaces provided on site which is in line with the Council’s standards.  161 car parking spaces would be provided, this equates to 1 space per 75 square metres.  Maximum car parking standards are 1 space per 40 square metres for B1, 1 space per 60 square metres for B2 and 1 space per 45 square metres for B8.  The proposal therefore complies with maximum car parking standards.  The site is within reasonable walking distance of both Liverpool Road and Cadishead Way both of which are major public transport routes.  A framework for a green travel plan has been submitted in support of the application.  I have recommended that a condition be attached requiring the applicant to provide a Green Travel Plan, in order to promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with Policy A1 and PPG13.
 
I am therefore satisfied that this will encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport in accordance with local and national policies.  For security, cycle parking would be provided internally within the units, motorcycle parking and cycle parking provision for visitors is proposed externally for each block.

Policy A7 requires planning applications for development likely to give rise to significant transport implications to be accompanied by a transport assessment.

A transport assessment has been submitted in support of the application.  This concludes that even in 2017 with the development in place there will not be any capacity problems at either the Fairhills Road / Soapstone Way, Fairhills Road / Cadishead Way or Fairhills Road with Liverpool Road and Roscoe Road junction.  

It is not considered that the proposal would result in material harm to highway safety or a significant increase in traffic in the locality and as such I have no objections on highway grounds.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

Amended plans have been submitted showing block A set in 1.5 metres from the west boundary of the site and amendments have also been made to the design.  The scheme has also been the subject of pre-application discussions through the Development Team Approach.

CONCLUSION

The proposed scheme would provide a suitable employment use in accordance with the land use allocation in the UDP.   The proposal would not cause significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the design is appropriate.  The proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety.  The proposal would not compromise the aims and objectives of the relevant policies contained within the development plan and there are no other material planning considerations that would justify a refusal of consent.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

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

3.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.  Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the colour of the weld mesh fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The weld mesh fencing shall be painted with the approved colour within 3 months of its erection and maintained thereafter.

6.	The car parking and servicing area shall be laid out in accordance with drawing numbers 041.44.10 F, 041.44.12 C and 041.44.13 C prior to first occupation of the unit hereby approved and shall be available at all times the premises is in use.

7.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme detailing safe pedestrian access within the site and to include a secure pedestiran entrance into the site from Fairhills Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the units hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained.

8.	No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters.  The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.  The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
	
	The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
	
	The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.
	
	Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.   

9.	No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques; sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of each unit, the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.

10.	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 the 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 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.

(Reasons)

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

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

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

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

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

6.	Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage of the site in accordance with policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

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

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

9.	In the interests of sustainable development.

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

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from Barton Aerodrome.

2.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached comments from Architectural and Landscape Design Services in relation to the landscape proposals.  These comments shall be incorporated into the landscape scheme required to be submitted by condition 3.

3.	The applicant is advised that notwithstanding the details shown on drawing number 041.44.13 C showing 'possible future gatehouse and barriers', this application does not represent consent for these indicative details and a separate application will be required.

APPLICATION No:	06/53361/FUL

APPLICANT:	Nuttall Construction Ltd

LOCATION:	Former McArty And Heaton Works Stablefold Worsley    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of one three storey building comprising 18 apartments together with associated car parking and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses

WARD:	Winton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is currently a vacant industrial building.  The site is surrounded on the north, east and west by residential properties, to the east is a commercial property.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of one three storey building, comprising f 18 apartments with associated car parking and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular access and landscaping.
 
SITE HISTORY

In July 2006 planning permission was refused for the erection of one three storey building, comprising f 18 apartments with associated car parking and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular access and landscaping.  The reason for refusal related to the introduction of habitable room windows close to the properties at the rear and the outlook for future residents of one of the ground floor apartments (06/52817/FUL)

In December 2004 planning permission was granted for the erection of one part two / part three storey and one three storey buildings comprising 17 apartments together with associated car parking and alteration to vehicular access. (04/49284/FUL)
 
CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – No objections but recommends a number of conditions relating to contamination

United Utilities – No objections

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions relating to contamination and noise

Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections

Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objections

Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society – No comments to date

Worsley Village Community Association –No comments to date

National Grid Company – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice and press notice have been displayed.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	11 - 33 (odds) Northbank House, 2 24 (evens) Chandlers Row
	2 – 24 (evens) , M & A Brown Engravers, 1, 3 and 5 The Gatehouse Stablefold
	14 – 19 Stirrup Gate
	23 – 33 (odds) Riding Fold Lane
	
REPRESENTATIONS

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

	No details of the number of car parking spaces has been given
	Out of character with Worsley Village
	Noise pollution
	Lack of car parking
	Existing three storey building is only 20 feet away
	Impact of other developments approved in the area

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and   Surrounding Areas
	 	 DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings     

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
		 H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
 A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 _ Landscaping
DES10 – Design and Crime 
DES11 – Design Statements
E5 – Development Within Established Employment Areas

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford.  The development would see the re-use of brownfield land thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing (PPG3), which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over land that has not been previously developed (greenfield land).  

Adopted Policy E5 states that development within established employment areas will not be permitted unless it complies with a number of criteria (a business with a continuous site area of less than 0.5 ha with a floor area less than 5,000 sq m).  The site is currently an employment use however due to its size it is not considered to be an established employment area and therefore ned not comply with this policy.

Adopted Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, provide a high quality residential environment and make adequate provision for open space.

The site has extant permissions for the erection of 17 apartments.  The current proposal seeks permission for 14 two bedroom apartments and 4 one bedroom apartments.  I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the policies above and I am therefore satisfied that the principle of the proposal is acceptable.

Design

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

Policy DES10 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of new development.  Regard will be had to a number of factors including the provision of security features.

Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of the need for good design.  A written statement should be submitted which explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.  

In accordance with Policy DES11, the applicant has submitted a design statement which outlines design concepts. 

The proposal includes windows along the west elevation to ensure natural surveillance of the entrance in accordance with Policy DES10.

The proposal would be three storey in height similarly to properties to the north of the application site.  Bedroom windows on the north elevation are splayed to overcome privacy issues.  The proposed materials include brick and timber boarding.  I would consider the proposed design to be acceptable in this location and have attached a condition requesting samples of materials to be submitted to ensure a high quality design in accordance with Adopted Policy DES 1.

Amenity

Adopted 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.

Adopted Policy DES9 states that landscaping should be of a high quality, reflect the character of the area and the development, not detract from safety and security and form an integral part of the development.

The north elevation of the proposal would face an existing three storey apartment block.  The proposal would be approximately 19m from this apartment block.  Due to the proximity being slightly less than the normal standard, habitable room windows have been formed in a shielded angular bay to avoid any direct overlooking and loss of privacy.

There would be no habitable room windows on the east elevation and secondary habitable room windows on the west elevation.

The south elevation would be in excess of 21m from the properties to the rear located on Stirrup Gate.

I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of  occupiers of existing neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DES7.

The north elevation would be 7m from the boundary of the site and the south elevation would be 14m from the south boundary.  Amenity space would be located at the south east corner of the site.  I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the site in accordance with Policy DES7. 

I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the privacy or outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of the proposal in accordance with Adopted Policy DES 7.

I have attached a condition requiring details of landscaping within the site. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Adopted Policy DES9.

Car Parking

Adopted 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.

There would be a total of 18 car parking spaces including 2 disabled spaces.  There would also be cycle spaces provided.  In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards and the need to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport I would consider the proposed level of parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Adopted Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway grounds.

Open Space

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

The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area, in accordance with the above policy.  The existing Section 106 agreement would be amended to reflect the current application.  This is in accordance with Adopted policy H8 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on open space.

Other Issues

A number of objections relate to inconvenience and disturbance during the construction phase and in conjunction with other developments within the vicinity.  Each planning application is assessed and determined based on its merits. It would not be appropriate to consider refusal due to other developments taking place or recently approved in the area.  With regards to the construction phase, some developments can cause inconvenience and disruption for neighbouring properties during this period.  However this is for a temporary period only and would not be considered to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

The applicants will enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure contributions towards the provision and maintenance of open space and in the area. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is acceptable and. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play equipment.

Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2.	Prior to commencement of the development; the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels from the adjacent electrical pylons and adjacent commercial business that the proposed residential elements will be subjected to (day time and night time).  The developer shall detail what steps have to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise, achieving BS8233: 1999 in all habitable rooms. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report.  The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.  Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter retained.
	
	Prior to discharge of this condition, a Completion Report shall be submitted to the LPA for approval.  The Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

3.	Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new

4.	Prior to the commencement of the development, a Dust Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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. All identified measures included in the approved plan 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.

5.	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 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

6.	Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision site shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No. 2005.09.04.002 Revision J  prior to first occupation of any of the residential units.

7.	Prior to first occupation the bin storage and recycling facilities shall be constructed and made available for use in accordance with submitted plan Drawing No. 2005.09.04.003 Revision C and retained thereafter.

8.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location and design of cycle storage within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such approved cycle shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of any unit and retained thereafter.

9.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the building 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.

10.	No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

11.	Standard Condition B08A S 106

12.	Standard Condition G14A Considerate contractor

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

3.	Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

4.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

5.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

6.	Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage

7.	In order o encourage waste recycling.

8.	In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes in accordance with Policy A10 of the Adopted UDP.

9.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

10.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

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

12.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The existing warehouse on the site has corrugated roof covering which is likely to be asbestos, removal of which is controlled under the Licensing Regulations and as such any work to remove these must be carried out by a contractor licensed by the Health & Safety Executive.

2.	Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
	        Monday to Friday    08:00 to 18:00
	        Saturdays               08:00 to 13:00
	Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
	
	Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated above.

3.	For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551

4.	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.

5.	The contractor who demolishes the building shall contact Salford City Council's Building Control Unit to discuss demolition prior to work commencing.

6.	Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a scheme highlighting details of the likely resultant noise levels from activities during the construction & demolition phases at the nearest noise sensitive premises.

7.	The applicants attention drawn to the attached letters from the Environment Agency and Greater Manchester Police

8.	Please note this permisison relates to the following plans
	
	Drawing No.          Revision
	2005.09.04.002     J
	2005.09.04.003     C
	2005.09.04.004     C

APPLICATION No:	06/53359/FUL

APPLICANT:	Tashbar School

LOCATION:	Levi House Bury Old Road Salford M7 4QX   

PROPOSAL:	Siting of temporary classrooms

WARD:	Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Levi House which is located on the corner of Bury Old Road and Leicester Road in Salford 7.  The building accommodates offices and a nursery.  The Tashbar School at 20 Upper Park Road owns the land adjacent to Levi House.  It is proposed that in the near future a new school will be built on the site on Upper Park Road (subject to planning permission), as the existing one is old and dilapidated, therefore these temporary classrooms are required for the children during construction. 

The proposed temporary building would be sited to the east of the playground near the rear of the site.  It would accommodate three classrooms, and each would be occupied by a maximum of twenty children 4-5 years of age.  There would also be associated teaching spaces and toilets and there would be an access ramp at the entrance.  The building would be single storey and 10.5m in width by 21.5m in length and the applicant has confirmed that consent is sought for a period of two years.

SITE HISTORY

There have not been any recent planning applications that relate to this site.
 
CONSULTATIONS

The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Recommends a condition for a desk study to investigate on-site contamination.

Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No objections.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 15th September 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	Flats 1 to 12 Leicester Court, Upper Park Road
	Flats 1 to 15 Langley Court, Upper Park Road
	Broadhurst, Bury Old Road
	4 Upper Park Road
	Casel Fox Primary School, Upper Park Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received four letters objection in response to the planning application publicity.  More than one person has signed these; therefore seven dwellings in total have objected.  Councillor Merry and Councillor Connor attended a meeting with these neighbours and have requested to be kept informed of the progress of the application. The following issues have been raised:

	Increase in noise 
	Increase in traffic and congestion
	Increase in litter

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

There are no policies that are relevant in the determination of this planning application.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:  DES1 - Respecting Context
		DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments

DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

There are no policies that are relevant in the determination of this planning application.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be: whether the principle of the proposal is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; and whether the application accords with the policies of the UDP. 

Principle

The temporary classrooms would be for children of the Tashbar School that own the application land; the school is to the south west of the application site.  I consider the proposed building to be acceptable in principle as it is a use that is compatible with the site and will support the existing school on Upper Park Road.  Due to being single storey in height and located at the rear of the site, and also for a temporary period of two years, I do not consider the building would have any unacceptable impact on Levi House or the surrounding area. 

Amenity

Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity.  Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.  To the rear of the site are Langley Court and Leicester Court which comprise residential accommodation.  There would be windows in the rear elevation of the temporary classroom building, however the building would be single storey in height and there is screening between the flats and the application site by way of a wall and trees/shrubs.  I therefore do not consider that there would be any loss of privacy or overlooking between the future users of the building or the existing neighbouring residents.  I also do not consider there would be any loss of light, given that the building is single storey and is located in excess of 15 metres from Langley Court and Leicester Court.

Bury Old Road is a busy road which runs through Bury, Manchester and Salford and Leicester Road is also a busy road.  The surrounding area is mainly residential but there are other uses such as schools, synagogues, a public house and a garage nearby.  I am of the opinion that this relatively small temporary classroom building would not result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to nearby residents.  I also do not consider that the temporary building on this site would result in a significant increase in litter as the classrooms are not due to an increase in the number of children attending the school but as a place to teach when the new school is being  built.

Design

Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and 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.  I am of the opinion that the temporary classroom building which is approximately 226m2 in size and located to the rear of the site would not have any unacceptable impact on the character of the area.  

Car parking 

Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists and that maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.  The temporary building would be located in the car park of Levi House.  The car park is not marked out but could accommodate in the region of 15 to 20 vehicles.  No more than 8 vehicles presently park in the car park and the siting of the temporary building would still mean there would be sufficient parking provision.  As previously mentioned building being applied for would not result in an increase in the number of children attending the school and therefore parents dropping them off and collecting them; the classrooms would be used during construction of a new school.  The parents would still be dropping off/collecting the children from Upper Park Road.  A footpath exists between the Levi House site and the Tashbar School and would be used to access the temporary classrooms.  The nearby roads are already busy throughout the day and this building would not have any significant impact on this situation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion I do not consider the temporary classroom building would have any unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or the level of traffic and congestion and that it accords with the mentioned policies of the UDP.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	The building hereby permitted shall be removed on or before two years from the date of this planning permission; when the site shall be restored to its condition immediately prior to the commencement of development, unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R043 Application for temporary consent

APPLICATION No:	06/53381/FUL

APPLICANT:	Boothstown Junior Football Club

LOCATION:	Boothstown Junior Football Club Bridgewater Park Amberhill Way Worsley M28 1UP  

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a 2.4m high security fence and gates around the perimeter of the pavillion

WARD:	Boothstown And Ellenbrook

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to the erection of 2.4m high weld mesh green fencing and gates around the perimeter of the existing sports pavilion which is located 50m from houses on Amber Hill Way, Boothstown.

SITE HISTORY

The application site has been subject to previous applications to erect a sports facility (00/46644/FUL); Enlargement of car parking spaces (01/42235/FUL); and the erection of changing facilities (03/45423/FUL).
 
PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	1, 3, 5 Godmond Hall Drive
7 – 19 Godmond Hall Drive 
	1, 3 Cringlebarrow Drive
	32, 34 and 36 Amberhill Way
	41 Amberhill Way

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 20 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.  The following issues have been raised:-

	Loss of visual amenity
	Loss of parking spaces
Proposed development will attract youth and increase instances of anti social behaviour
Loss of green areas for sports and amenity uses
Loss of open spaces

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: R6 – New and Improved Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the visual impact of the proposed fencing on the street scene. 

Policy R6 of the Unitary Development Plan indicates the Land adjacent to Bridgewater Canal, Boothstown and Ellenbrook as being the focus of landscape and wildlife improvement to increase informal leisure activity. 

Policy DC 16 of the Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document states that boundary treatments that mark out public area and semi-public private areas should maintain visual permeability to avoid fortress style development and reduce fear of crime.

The applicant seeks to erect 2.4 metre high fencing and gates around the pavilion of the Boothstown Junior Football Club. The application is sought to reduce potential vandalism, illegal entry and guard against graffiti.

The fence would be located a maximum of 6m away from the pavilion and would surround the perimeter of the building. The pavilion itself is located 53m from the closest residential properties. The proposed fencing would be of a weld mesh design and would be colour treated green.

The proposed fencing complies with policy DC16 of the Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document as it maintains visual permeability between the pavilion and the surrounding area, and would not be visually dominant from the nearby residential area. 

Policy DES1 states that new development should be in keeping with the surrounding area. The proposed fencing and gates are considered to be of a design that is in keeping with the surrounding area. As the proposed fencing would be over 50m distant from nearby residential areas, I am satisfied that impact on visual amenity would not be significant.

To the northwest of the pavilion there is a section of ground which is currently used for parking during training or on match days. Objections have been received on the grounds that the proposed fence will cause a loss of parking spaces. The proposed fence would be located 6m away from the existing building at the furthest point. Previous permissions have included consent for parking space, although none of the permissions had parking as a condition of the approval. The existing parking area is gravel and does not have marked bays, therefore a definite loss of parking space is difficult to quantify. However, the proposed fencing would overlap the existing car park. The demand of parking in this area can be high, especially at weekends. I am conscious that the loss of the area currently used to park cars could have an impact with parking occurring on neighbouring residential roads.  However I have imposed a condition to ensure that no less than 90 spaces can still be accommodated on the unmarked parking area.  This must be demonstrated by the submission of a plan to show the 90 spaces before the fence can be erected.

Concerns have been raised about the fences attracting anti social behaviour to the area. The design of the fencing would maintain visual permeability and would not create areas that are screened from natural surveillance. Neither does the fencing provide any additional areas where youths may congregate.

Concerns have been raised regarding loss of open spaces, sports pitches and amenity uses. I am satisfied that the area that would be fenced off is not of a size that would have a significant impact on the amenity of users of this site. 

CONCLUSION
The proposed fencing complies with policies DES1 of the Unitary Development Plan and DC16 of the Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document. I am satisfied that the design of fencing is acceptable in this location. Due to the distance that would be maintained between the residential area on Amber Hill Way, and the proposed boundary treatment, I am satisfied that visual amenity would not be significantly affected. The application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

2.	The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Local Planning Authority.

3.	The fence hereby approved shall not be erected unless and until a plan demonstrating the continued accommodation of 90 spaces on the existing car park has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reasons)

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

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

3.	To ensure the fence hereby approved does not result in the loss of parking spaces on the site.

APPLICATION No:	06/53428/FUL

APPLICANT:	B.B.S. Developments

LOCATION:	Site Of The Former Weaste United Reformed Church Weaste Lane Salford    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a part three/part four storey building comprising 19 apartments together with associated car parking and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses

WARD:	Weaste And Seedley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former site of the United Reformed Church, which has recently been demolished.  The site is triangular in shape and is located at the junction of Weaste Lane and Weaste Road which is where Tootal Road and Liverpool Street meet.  The site is open to long views from Tootal Road, Liverpool Street and Weaste Lane. Surrounding uses are mainly two/three storey residential houses. All Souls Church is located on the opposite side of Liverpool Street.  

Planning permission is sought for the erection of an apartment block containing nineteen two-bedroom apartments. The proposed apartment block would wrap around the corner of the site, with the four-storey element forming a strong visual feature at the junction.  Going south down both Weaste Road and Weaste Lane the building drops in height to three storeys, providing a mass that reflects the ridge height of the existing dwellings that border the site. The proposed building has a modern design and would be constructed out of brick with areas of white render and silver cladding. The applicant has submitted a design statement in support of the application.

Vehicular access to the site would be off Weaste Road. 16 off road parking spaces including two that are suitable for use by disabled persons would be provided.  A secure cycle lock-up area is also proposed.  

It is proposed to provide an area of amenity space 12.5m by 5.5m in the form of a roof garden, which would be located at the southern end of the wing that runs along Weaste Road. The occupiers of two of the apartments located on the fourth floor would also be provided with private balconies. 

SITE HISTORY

In October 2003 an application for the erection of 17 apartments was submitted (Ref - 03/47216/FUL). This application was withdrawn in January 2004.

 In June 2004 an application for the erection of 17 apartments was submitted (ref 04/48454/FUL). This application was approved in October 2004.  

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on the 14th of September 2006.

A site notice was posted on the 22nd of September 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

37 to 63 (odd) Weaste Road
30 to 34 (even) Weaste Road
1 to 11 (odd) Calvert Street
250 to 274 (even) Weaste Lane
619 Liverpool Street
4 to 8 (even) Park Bank
All Souls Church and All Souls Presbytery
2 and 4 Tootal Road

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – no comments to date
Director of Environmental Services – No objections, subject to conditions
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections

REPRESENTATIONS

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

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 Quality in New Development 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

Principle – 

Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land.  

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

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

The Draft SPD on Housing states that in this area, the regional centre, new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types. It goes on to say that apartments should only be the most prominent form of provision in the most accessible locations within central Salford. 

Until recently the Weaste United Reform Church had occupied the site. The site is therefore previously developed and consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.

The site is located within a predominantly residential area and therefore I do not have any principled objections to the use of the land for residential purposes. With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Draft SPD on Housing substantial weight must be given to the extant permission for 17 apartments approved in 2004. Regard must also be had to the fact that the application site is somewhat constrained in shape and it would be very difficult to achieve an economically viable residential scheme comprising predominantly of houses. In addition the opportunity that is important to note, is that the development offers an opportunity to create a landmark building, replacing the church that previously occupied the site and it would also provides regeneration benefits to the area. In the light of these local circumstances and the fact that only limited weight can be given to the Draft SPD I do not have any concerns over the erection of a scheme consisting solely of apartments.  

Design –

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

The proposed building would be a modern structure with a flat roof. It would respect the established building lines on Weaste Road and Weaste Lane, wrapping around the site in order to make the most of the triangular nature of the site. In doing so the building would create a focal point at the junction of Weaste Road and Weaste Lane appearing as a landmark building. The building would be four stories in height at the junction of Weaste Road and Weaste Lane (13.5m). The four-storey element of the building would run down Weaste Road for 18.7m and Weaste Lane for 23.5m before dropping down to three stories going south down both Weaste Road and Weaste Lane (9.5m).  There are a mix of two and three storey units in the vicinity of the site and given the modern, flat roofed, design of the building its scale and massing is comparable to that of the neighbouring three storey units. I am therefore satisfied that the building would not be at odds with the massing of the street scene.

The brick elements proposed, which would form the majority of the building, would match the materials of the houses in the immediate area, and the white render and silver cladding contribute to the modern design and distinctiveness of the proposal, which would add interest to the street-scene.  

I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development and I am satisfied that this will ensure that they will be of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area as well as ensuring that the proposed building makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.  

Amenity -

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

The properties on Park Bank are set at an angle to the proposed development site and consequently I am of the opinion that the residential amenity currently enjoyed by occupants of these properties would not be adversely affected by the proposed development as the proposed building would be located at least 13m from this properties. 

The proposal increases the length for which the building runs along Weaste Road by 4.5m, on that previously approved under application 04/48454/FUL and it introduces an additional apartment at third floor level. The new apartment at third floor level would front Weaste Road. There would be facing habitable room window-to-window separation distances of between 18.2m and 18.6m to the properties at 49 to 61 Weaste Road. The application site is somewhat constrained in shape and it would be very difficult to achieve a suitable residential scheme which would achieve greater separation distances. Given the regeneration benefits of this development and the fact that an 18m separation between the two sets of properties was deemed to be acceptable under the previous application 04/48454/FUL I am of the opinion that despite being short of the 21m separation normally required the proposed separation between the two sets of buildings would be sufficient to ensure that existing and future occupants enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity.  

There would be 15.6m between the blank, three-storey gable end of the proposed apartment block and the habitable room windows contained within the gable end of 34 Weaste Road. I am of the opinion that this level of separation is sufficient to ensure that the proposed apartment block would not form an overbearing structure nor would its presence result in the occupants of 24 Weaste Road experiencing a reduction in the light received in their habitable rooms. 

The property at 250 Weaste Lane does not have any habitable room windows in the gable end and consequently the occupants of this property would not experience a reduction in the residential amenity they can reasonably expect to enjoy. 

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

Future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity space as a lawned roof garden of approx.12.5m by 5.5m would be provided. The roof garden would be located on the roof of the wing fronting Weaste Road, set back 1.5m from the edge of the building. The occupiers of two of the apartments located on the fourth floor would also be provided with private balconies, one running flush with the edge of the building fronting onto Weaste Road the other fronting Weaste Lane, set back 1m from the edge of the building. Given that the garden would be set back from the edges of the building, I am satisfied that the introduction of these amenity areas does not raise any issues with regards to overlooking of neighbouring properties. I have attached a condition requiring details of the boundary treatment to the proposed roof garden and balconies to be submitted prior to the commencement of development.

Car Parking - 

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

Sixteen car parking spaces would be provided including two that are suitable for disabled persons. This equates to 84% provision. The application site is well located in terms of public transport and therefore I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable. The proposed car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds.

Open Space

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

In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a £30,780 contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required. I have attached a condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore accords with Policy H8. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is acceptable.  I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved and that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a planning obligation under Section 106 for the provision of open space. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.  Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4.	Prior to the commencement of the development an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network including including Liverpool Street, Tootal Road and Weaste Lane. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures and alternative methods of ventilation to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and retained thereafter.

5.	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary risk assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.  If the preliminary risk assessment identifies potential contamination a detailed intrusive site investigation then prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of contamination and ground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons, building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.  A site completion report including details of post remediation ground conditions for the site shall be completed and submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the site.

6.	No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

7.	The finished floor levels shall be 300mm above adjacent road level unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8.	Standard Condition B08A S 106

9.	No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing recycling of waste from the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the commercial and residential units hereby approved

10.	Prior to the first occupation of the apartment buildings hereby permitted the 16 car parking spaces shown in the approved plan 5118/SK1 shall be provided within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available at all times whilst the premises are in use.

11.	Prior to the first occupation of the apartments hereby permitted, the new vehicular access to the development, as shown in drawing 5118/SK1, shall be provided.

12.	No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of the cycle stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the development is brought into use.

13.	No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to provision of street sweeping, permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment and the provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.

14.	Prior to the commencement of development details of the position, height and design of the proposed boundary treatments to the roof garden and third floor balconies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

3.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

4.	Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

5.	Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

6.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

7.	In order to reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with Policy EN17 of the adopted UDP.

8.	Standard Reason R044 open space reason

9.	In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

10.	Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety

11.	Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety

12.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

13.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

14.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	This permission relates to the following drawings 5118/SLP, 5118/SK1, 5118/SK2, 5118/SK3, 5118/SK4, 118/SK5, 5118/SK6 and 5118/SK7 recived on the 16th of October 2006.

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.	A separate drainage system is required to United Utilities approval.

4.	In order to satisfy condition 3 details of the trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment to the proposed roof garden and third floor balconies needs to be provided.

APPLICATION No:	06/53498/COU

APPLICANT:	P M O'Toole

LOCATION:	102 - 104 Liverpool Road Eccles M30 0WZ    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from shop/showroom/servicing to restaurant (A3)

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an end terraced property on Liverpool Road in Eccles, which is currently used as a Motorcycle shop. The ground floor of the adjoining unit, 100 Liverpool Road, is currently used as a hairdressers and a self contained flat is located at first floor level. 

The site is located in a mixed-use area with residential properties occupying the land to the north and west of the site and a mix of residential and commercial units occupying the land to the south and east.

The remainder of the terrace comprises of a hot food takeaway at 98 Liverpool Road, a café on the ground floor of 96 Liverpool Road with residential accommodation above, a restaurant on the ground floor of 92-94 Liverpool Road and a hairdressers/beauty salon on the ground floor of 88-90 Liverpool Road, both with residential accommodation above.  

It is proposed to change the use of the unit to a restaurant, which would be open between 5.30pm and 11.30pm Monday to Sunday. No on site car parking would be provided for staff or patrons of the proposed use.

SITE HISTORY

In September 2005 an application for the change of use of the premises to a restaurant/bistro was submitted (ref 05/53194/COU). This application was withdrawn.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified: 

1 Byron Street
1 to 6 George Terrace
8 Shakespeare Crescent
1, 2, 3,5, 7 and 16 Lynwood Aveneue
84 to 114 (even) Liverpool Rd
Flats above 84 to 100 Liverpool Road
Flats above 108 to 114 (even) Liverpool Road
105 to 133 (odd) Liverpool Road
Flats above 105, 107 and 111 Liverpool Road

CONSULTATIONS – 

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No comments to date

REPRESENTATIONS

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

No on site parking
Fumes and odours
Another restaurant/takeaway is not needed in this area
Noise and disturbance 

Councillor Lancaster has requested that this application goes to panel, as he is supportive of the proposal believing that the use would be a valuable community facility.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: 	DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
S3 – Loss of shops
S4 – Amusement centres, Restaurants and Cafes, Drink Establishments and Hot Food Takeaways

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the level of amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents, whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable and whether the scheme accords with the provisions of the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.

Policy S4 states that restaurants will not be permitted where the use would have an unacceptable impact, either in itself or cumulatively, on the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic and visual amenity. 

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

Policy S3 states that outside town and neighbourhood centres permission will be given for the change of use of shops where it can be demonstrated that there is no demand for the existing retail use or the alternative use being proposed is more appropriate. 

With regards to policy S4 and DES7 the preparation of food at 102-104 Liverpool Road would generate fumes and odours, which would have the potential to migrate and impact upon residential amenity. I am however satisfied that the installation of a fume extraction system would prevent neighbouring residents experiencing a reduction in the residential amenity they currently enjoy by means of fumes and odours. 

The operation of a restaurant at 102-104 Liverpool Road and the comings and goings of patrons will generate noise and disturbance. The absence of any on site parking and the restrictions on Liverpool Road means that visitors to the restaurant are likely to park in the on street car parking area at the head of Byron Road which can accommodate 5 cars, also overspilling onto neighbouring residential side streets. The residents of Shakespeare Crescent and George Terrace will therefore be subjected to noise and disturbance into the evening created by the slamming of car doors, the movement of vehicles and the general noise created as patrons travel to and from the restaurant after parking their cars. The noise created by the general comings and goings of patrons of the proposed restaurant would have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the properties on Shakespeare Crescent and George Terrace currently enjoy. 
The operation of a restaurant at 102-104 Liverpool Road would also create internal noise, which has the potential to radiate and have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. Those at 1 and 2 George Terrace would experience a reduction in the residential amenity they currently enjoy as a result of noise created during the cooking process, as according to the indicative layout plans submitted with the application the kitchen would be located at ground floor level, running along the boundary with the properties at 1 and 2 George Terrace.  The service area for the property would also be located adjacent to these properties. The residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of the first floor flat above 100 Liverpool Road would also be affected by the operation of a restaurant at 102-104 Liverpool Road. This property has a habitable room that shares a boundary wall with the proposed restaurant. The indicative layout plans submitted with the application show that there would be an active use on the first floor of the restaurant, as opposed to a storage area or a less noisy use such as a toilet area, and therefore it is likely that the occupants of the flat at 100 Liverpool Road would experience an increase in the level of noise and disturbance they currently enjoy should a restaurant be established at 102-104 Liverpool Road. In the absence of any sound attenuation along this boundary wall I am concerned whether the transmission of noise can be adequately mitigated.

The impact that the general disturbance created by the proposed restaurant would be amplified by the long opening hours proposed as well as being intensified in the summer months when it can be expected that the windows and doors of surrounding dwellings would be open.

With regards to the loss of the shop and the requirements of policy S3 the unit is still in use as a motorcycle sales and repair shop and therefore it cannot be concluded that there is no demand for the retail unit. Similarly it cannot be concluded that the proposed use of the unit as a restaurant is more appropriate given the reduction in amenity that neighbouring residents on George Terrace, Shakespeare Crescent and the flat above 100 Liverpool Road would experience should a restaurant be introduced in this location.  

The applicant has questioned why it was deemed acceptable to allow a restaurant to operate at 92-94 Liverpool Road but it is not deemed acceptable for a restaurant to open at 102-104 Liverpool Road. While I acknowledge the presence of the Balti Brassiere at 92 to 94 Liverpool Road I note that the Council did not deem this to be an appropriate use, refusing planning application E/25908 for the change of use of the premises from a DIY shop to a hot food takeaway in February 1990 on the basis that “The proposed development would conflict with the City Council’s approved development control policy number 2 “Shops for the sale of hot food, cafes and snack bars” in that the use would detract from the amenity of local residents causing noise and disturbance late at night”. Permission for the establishment was granted at appeal on the 4th of September 1990. 

There is also a hot food takeaway at 98 Liverpool Road, although there is no record of planning permission being granted for a takeaway at this address. Similarly there is a café in operation from the ground floor of 96 Liverpool Road. In August 2003 permission was granted for the change of use of 96 Liverpool Road from shop to form extension to existing restaurant at 92/94 (ref 03/46350/COU). However, this permission was not implemented and therefore this use is unlawful and as such colleagues in enforcement are currently investigating. 

The presence of these establishments has a limited impact upon the residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of Shakespeare Crescent, George Terrace and the occupants of the first floor flat at 100 Liverpool Road. All of the establishments have fume extraction systems which eliminate fumes and odours. With regards to noise and disturbance created by general comings and goings of patrons the nature of a hot food takeaway/cafe is such that the majority of patrons will arrive on foot, particularly in this mixed use area, and the siting of the Balti Brassiere is such that the closest side streets are Cannon street and Gladstone Road, both of which are more likely to be used for parking than Shakespeare Crescent given their proximity and their ease of use compared to Shakespeare Crescent and George Terrace, the access to which is blocked from Liverpool Road. There is no parking on Liverpool Road. The proposed development would introduce vehicular activity and noise and disturbance late in the evening on Byron Road and Shakesphere Crescent, residential streets where presently activity in the evening is low. In relation to noise and disturbance created as a result of internal activities the restaurant at 92/94 Liverpool Road and the café at 96 Liverpool Road only occupy the ground floor and the takeaway at 100 Liverpool Road only has active uses at ground floor, the first floor is used for storage, unlike the proposed development which would introduce an active use directly adjoining a habitable room. 

CONCLUSION

It is acknowledged that there is an existing level of activity associated with the Balti Brassiere and the takeaway and consequently the area cannot be described as a quiet residential area. However, given what has been described above and the fact that in terms of floorspace the proposed restaurant would be a significant establishment that which is likely to attract a reasonable number of patrons by car it is considered that the proposed change of use of 102-104 Liverpool Road to a restaurant would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents and would injure the character and amenity of the area by reason of noise, disturbance and general activity contrary to Policy S4 of the adopted UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be refused. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents and would injure the character and amenity of the area by reason of noise, disturbance and general activity, and thus would be contrary to policies S4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:	06/53511/COU

APPLICANT:	A Pendlebury

LOCATION:	2 Osborne Road Salford M6 8JE    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from a dwelling to an office (B1).

WARD:	Weaste And Seedley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is currently a two storey end semi –detached property located within a residential area. The parking in the immediate area is restricted to parking permits due to the proximity of the site to Hope Hospital.

The application proposes the change of use from a dwelling to an office.  The property is approximately 130m2 over two floors. The proposal does not include any off street parking. 

CONSULTATION

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no comments to date

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:
	
	29 -31 (odds) Trafalgar Road
	1, 3 , 5 4-12 (evens) Osborne Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 32 letters of objection from individual residents and one letter of objections from the local residents association in response to the planning application publicity.  In addition Councillor Ainsworth and Councillor Heywood have both requested that the application be determined by the Panel.  The following issues have been raised:-

	Lack of Parking
	Loss of a family dwelling
	Out of character with residential area
	The depiction of the local area is not as described by the applicant
	Loss of value of property

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site Specific – none
Other – EC8 – Town Centres, Retail, Office and Leisure development

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
		EN17	Pollution Control
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the change of use is acceptable; whether there would be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway network, and whether there would be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents

Principle of development

PPS6 states that the sequential approach to site selection should be applied to all development proposals for town centre uses on sites that are not in an existing centre or allocated in an up-to-date development plan document.  The level of detail and type of evidence necessary to support an application should be proportionate to the scale and nature of the development. 

EC8 states that office developments that generate a significant number of trips should be directed to suitable locations within or adjoining main city and town centres.

Policy EN17 states that development which would result in a significant increase in pollution, including noise, should not be permitted unless the impacts can be mitigated against.

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

The proposed development is of a scale that would not generate a significant amount of traffic.  I would therefore not consider Policy EC8 to be apply to this proposal with regards to the sequential approach.

The proposed use would accommodate a B1 office use.  The application site is located within 250m of a local neighbourhood centre, which is  located on  Eccles Old Road.  The applicant operates a business for the manufacture of street furniture and playground equipment, the application site would house the office element of the business.  The proposed hours of work would be 8.30 to 6pm Monday until Friday with no working on weekends.  I have attached a condition to ensure these hours are adhered to.  There would be no material changes to the external appearance of the building.  The proposed ground floor would remain the same and be used by the employees with the offices and a WC on the first floor.  The proposed development is of a small scale and with the hours of use restricted I would consider the principle of the change of use to be acceptable and would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy EN17 and DES7 of the Adopted UDP.

The proposed development would not generate a significant amount of traffic.  I would therefore not consider Policy EC8 to be relevant

Car Parking

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

The proposal does not include any off street car parking.  The maximum car parking standards would be four spaces for an office of this size.  Due to the size, location and hours of use I would consider this level of parking to b acceptable and have no objections on highway safety grounds.

However there is a Traffic Regulation Order operating within the vicinity and including the application site.  The Traffic Regulation Order permits households with car parking permits, to park on the road adjacent to their properties.  The change to a commercial use may not meet the criteria to qualify for any parking permits due to the restriction of the Traffic Regulation Order to households. 

Other Issues

I would not consider the loss of one residential dwelling to have an unacceptable impact on housing availability and mix within the area.

A number of personal issues have been raised between one objector and the applicant.  Although the submitted letter of objection is for public perusal I would not consider the content of the letter relevant to the planning application for the change of use.  In this case the planning permission would be granted on the premises and is not restricted to the specific applicant.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable.  I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of noise, I am satisfied that the application accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2.	The use hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 08.30 - 18.00 Monday - Friday.

3.	Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, B1 use within the site shall be restricted to Class B1(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

3.	Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

APPLICATION No:	06/53550/OUT

APPLICANT:	Mr Rustage

LOCATION:	Riverside Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton M27 8SJ  

PROPOSAL:	Outline planning application for residential development comprising 72 houses and eight apartments and alterations to existing vehicular access

WARD:	Pendlebury

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

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 application is in outline and seeks consent for the principle of the site to be used for residential purposes and access only.  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.

No details other than means of access are sought at this stage although the applicant’s agent has provided indicative layouts as to how a residential scheme could be brought forward.  However, the application seeks consent for the principle of 72 house and 8 apartments.  An indicative scheme is provided which demonstrates how this mix could be brought forward.

HISTORY

In 2005, a similar scheme for the principle of residential development was refused by this Panel (05/51365/OU).  The scheme sought consent for 86 apartments and 46 houses.  This proposal represented a density of 50 dwelling per hectare.

The reason for refusal stated:

“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.”

CONSULTATIONS

The Director of Environmental Services – No objection in principle subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to air quality and site investigations.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive –  In considering the previous application GMPTE considered that the site is 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.  Since the refusal of planning permission the applicant’s agent has negotiated the funding of section 106 monies to improve a number of bus routes over a period of 5 years.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections in principle and recommends that the applicant enter into early discussions prior to the submission of any reserved matters

United Utilities – No objection in principle

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council – No objections

Environment Agency – No objection

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objection in principle

PUBLICITY

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

I have not received any objections in response to the application publicity.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:	H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, ST3 Employment Land, ST11 Location of New Development, EN7C Nature Conservation Sites of Local Importance, A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact of Development on the Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development, CH2 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, E5 Development Within Established Employment Areas, EN14 Pollution Control, R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, R2 Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities, R3 Regional Park, R4 Key Recreational Areas, R5 Countryside Access Network.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of residential development on the site, the loss of employment land and whether this would result in a material shortfall, the impact of the proposal upon the neighbouring Slack Brook Country Park, the impact upon the highway network and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the Adopted UDP. However, given that a similar scheme has previously been considered by this panel it is necessary to compare the changes to the proposal against the states reason for refusal.  These issues will be discussed in turn below.

Loss of Employment Land
Strategic Policy ST3 seeks to ensure the supply of a good range of local employment opportunities.

The Council’s commissioned Employment Land Study indicates that the city has a relatively constrained supply of employment land/premises. The Council therefore holds a presumption against the loss of further employment land and premises. 

Adopted policy E5 allows for a number of exceptions to this presumption against the loss of employment land. In this instance I consider criteria ‘a’ and ‘b’ to be relevant.

Criteria ‘a’ states that “The developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for the site or building for employment purposes”
Criteria ‘b’ states that “There is a strong environmental case for rationalising land uses or creating open space”

To demonstrate compliance with the criteria, the applicant has supplied an employment land assessment together with a letter from “Gerald Eve” (chartered surveyors and property consultants) indicating that the premises were marketed from the summer of 2001 to the date of purchase by the current applicant (27th September 2004) and a further letter from the site owner describing his marketing attempts. 

Moreover, the applicant has also provided additional information on the history of marketing for the site.  I have summarised the marketing efforts below:

•	The sending of mail-shots to all northwest (including Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire and Lancashire) commercial property agents.  Marketing particulars were redistributed to all property agents on a six monthly basis.  At no time was the site advertised as a residential redevelopment opportunity.

•	Property details were posted on the Gerald Eve and Estates Gazette website.

•	The property was advertised in the commercial property section of the Manchester Evening News in March 2002, on two separate subsequent occasions thereafter, and on one occasion in the Estates Gazette.

•	Gerald Eve describe that they received very few enquiries from commercial operators and that during the first eighteen months of the marketing period only three offers were forthcoming, all well below the asking price, and all of which were subsequently withdrawn.

In addition, the current owner has confirmed that since purchasing the property, To Let boards have been located on the main road outside the premises and the details were advertised in various trade magazines and the Manchester Evening News on numerous occasions without success.

I consider that the marketing which has taken place over the last 3 years clearly demonstrates that there is no current or likely future demand for this site for employment purposes.

In terms of criterion ‘b’, I consider that the development of this site does provide an opportunity to develop a more effective “green gateway” into Slack Brook Country Park, which could bring with it environmental improvements.  These improvements are discussed in more detail later in this report.

I do not consider that there have been any material changes with regard to employment provision since Members last considered the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes.  

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

Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order.  Existing buildings being most preferable (1A) followed by previously-developed land in locations that (1B):

1B(i)	are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice of means of transport; and
1B(ii)	are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure

2	Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of accessibility and infrastructure provision could be provided

3	Green field locations

National planning policy guidance is also relevant.  PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered.  PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.

“In identifying sites to be allocated for housing in local plans and UDPs, local planning authorities should follow a search sequence, starting with the re-use of previously-developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the urban housing capacity study, then urban extensions, and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors…” Paragraph 30  PPG3

“In deciding which sites to allocate for housing in local plans and UDPs, local planning authorities should assess their potential and suitability for development against each of the following criteria:
•	the availability of previously-developed sites and empty or under-used buildings and their suitability for housing use; 
•	the location and accessibility of potential development sites to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car, and the potential for improving such accessibility; 
•	the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including public transport, water and sewerage, other utilities and social infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals) to absorb further development and the cost of adding further infrastructure; 
•	the ability to build communities to support new physical and social infrastructure and to provide sufficient demand to sustain appropriate local services and facilities; and 
•	the physical and environmental constraints on development of land, including, for example, the level of contamination, stability and flood risk, taking into account that such risk may increase as a result of climate change.” (Paragraph 31)

Paragraph 38 ‘Determining planning applications’ of PPG3 states “In considering planning applications for housing development in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities should have regard to the policy contained in this PPG as material considerations which may supersede the policies in their plan” (as above).

As the site is not allocated within adopted Unitary Development Plan, it would represent a windfall residential site given that the applicant has satisfactory demonstrated that there is no current or likely future demand for employment uses.  I consider that the principles identified within PPG3 and the advice contained within paragraph 38 of PPG3 is relevant in considering the principle of bringing this site forward for residential purposes.   

The site is somewhat isolated in comparison to the surrounding existing residential areas and communities.  To the rear of the site are H M P Forest Bank and the Slack Brook Country Park.  Opposite the site is Agecroft Cemetery.  

Moreover, the site is located within the Irwell Valley with a significant change in levels on the opposite side of the road within Bury.  I consider that the topography and historical development of the surrounding area provides little permeability.  The River Irwell and railway to the north of the Westbury Homes site result in significant barriers that separate this site from the closest surrounding residential areas.  Given the policy framework outlined below relating to the protection and enhancement of the Slack Brook Country Park, I do not consider that country park is likely to be developed in the future.  Furthermore, I also consider that the neighbouring uses are unlikely to be developed for residential purposes and that it is reasonable to conclude that this site would therefore continue to be relatively isolated in the future.

The Westbury Homes site on Agecroft Road and residential scheme on Lumns Lane are historical decisions granted on appeal in the late 1990’s.  I consider that the policy framework has changed significantly in this time and that these developments could not reasonably expect to formulate a sustainable community with this current site given the barriers that dissect them and the distance between them. 

Moreover the previous reason for refusal states “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.”

In reaching this view consideration was given to the criteria set out in policy ST11 which details the relationship of the site to existing communities, services and the public transport infrastructure as identified above.

In response to the previous application, The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive consider “the site to be very poorly served by public transport with just an hourly Monday – Saturday local bus service serving the bus stops on Agecroft Road.”  The bus service on Langley Road operates on the same frequency as those along Agecroft Road.  The bus stops on Littleton Road offer a more frequent service but are located over 600m from the site.  The GMPTE consider that 400m is a distance that people using public transport would be prepared to walk.  The GMPTE believe that access to the site would be larger car borne as they will not have access to a convenient alternative.

The Agecroft Commerce Park is within walking distance of the site and could provide future residents employment opportunities.  The site is not local within or adjacent to Town Centre or Neighbourhood Centre.  The closest convenience store is located on Littleton Road approximately 10 minutes walk from the site.

Therefore, whilst the site is identified as a brown field site within PPG3 and one which should be developed in preference to undeveloped Greenfield sites, I still consider as a starting point that the location of the site on a what is at present a poorly served public transport link would result in an isolated residential development and one which would not be integrated within existing neighbourhoods and would not result in a development in a sustainable location.

However, since the refusal of planning permission previously the applicant has worked closely with GMPTE and officers regarding measures to improve public transport in the area and thus improve the accessibility and sustainability of its location.

Specifically, the package of improvements would mean:

•	Doubling the frequency of the 484 service to half hourly, Monday to Saturday daytime, on the section between Prestwich and Swinton  

•	Extending Salford Local Link to include Agecroft Road, the Agecroft Commerce Park and Forest Bank prison and the New Deal for Communities area of Lower Kersal and Charlestown, - which was specifically requested by Salford planners

These improvements would provide:

•	A half hourly scheduled daytime bus service between the residential development and Agecroft Commerce Park, the administrative and retail centre at Swinton and the retail centre at Prestwich (with connections to Metrolink)

•	Evening and Sunday public transport cover by Local Link

•	Access by Local Link for all the developments in the Agecroft area to a wider range of Salford destinations, including Salford Quays, Pendleton Precinct, Salford University and Salford Crescent station

•	Links between the Kersal & Charlestown New Deal Area and job opportunities at Agecroft Commerce Park  & Salford Quays

At present the site is still considered to fall within category 2b of Policy ST11 and there is still an argument that there is no shortage of sequentially preferable sites in the city. 

However, the proposed improvements to public transport have the potential to facilitate greater levels of access to housing, employment, services and infrastructure, to some extent improving the schemes relationship with them. The improvements could also bring with them wider community benefits. Furthermore, the riverside site is reasonably prominent, and securing a high quality redevelopment scheme could benefit the appearance of the area and the River Irwell Environmental Improvement Corridor. 

Therefore, whilst concerns in respect of the sequential approach remain, given the proposed public transport improvements and the environmental benefits referred to above, it is considered that the scheme could be supported from a policy perspective.  As such, I consider that the benefits which would be evident by the improvement of the public transport system, 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.

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

The density across the whole of the site would be 30 dwellings per hectare.  PPG 3 defines an appropriate density between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.  Higher densities can be considered appropriate in city centre location in close proximity to high frequency public transport infrastructure.  The previous refused scheme provided for density of 50 dwellings per hectare

Given that this site is located on the edge of the regional centre and having regard to the measures proposed to improve the public transport infrastructure, I am satisfied that the density proposed is appropriate for this location.

Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.

Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal. Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas where there is evidence of an “unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing”. At the current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important to take into consideration evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests that household growth is likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is proposing to significantly increase annual housing provision for Salford.  However, at present I consider that some weight, albeit little, should be afforded to the draft RSS.

The proposed housing mix is considered to be appropriate and, given the ‘sequential’ concerns, it would not be appropriate to secure a denser scheme.

Car Parking and Access
Adopted 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.

Given that the application is in outline only I consider that the level of parking provision would be considered at the detailed stage.  The applicant has indicated that the provision is likely to be 100%.

The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of the revised plan.  In summary the assessment states that “the proposed development would provide access by a choice of travel modes, and as such would accord with local and national planning policy guidance.”  Moreover, the improvements to the local public transport infrastructure would further improve the site’s accessibility.

Therefore, I am still of the opinion that the proposed access to the would is acceptable in highway terms, as such, I do not consider that the proposed access to constitute a reasonable reason to refuse planning permission in this instance.

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

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

In accordance with the above policies, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space either on site or within the vicinity. Given that the application is in outline only a figure cannot be calculated at the stage.  

Air Quality
The applicant has undertaken an air quality assessment in accordance with policy EN14 of the revised replacement plan.

The Director of Environmental Services has assessed this report and is satisfied that the impacts of the development on air quality are negligible and does not recommend any further restrictions on air quality grounds.

Linkages to the Slack Brook Valley Country Park
Policy R1 of the Adopted UDP seeks the protection of recreational land and facilities.

Policy R4 states that planning permission will only be granted development within, adjoining or directly affecting a Key Recreation Area (Slack Brook  Country Park is identified as a Key Recreation Area) where it would be consistent to a number of specified criteria.  Those include protection and enhancement of existing recreational, amenity areas and trees and where it would improve access.

Policy R5 states that planning permission will not be granted where is would obstruct or close any part of the Countryside Access Network.

The applicant has provided an ecological assessment and bat survey.  I have not received any objection from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit.

Adjacent to the site is a public footpath which runs alongside the River Irwell.  Whilst the proposal would not affect this public footpath the applicant has agreed to contribute to the wider investment in the Slack Brook Country Park.  The improvements seek to improve access, signage and use of this recreational resource.  Moreover, the accompanying landscape strategy identifies part of the site adjacent to the existing public footpath as a gateway entrance to the country park.

The Red Rose Forest are currently preparing a master plan for the development and enhancement of the country park.  I have liased with Red Rose Forest regarding costs to implement improvements to the land adjacent to the site.  A figure of £54,411 has been agreed with the developer and would fund footpath improvements and access along the section of footpath adjacent to the northern boundary.  The contribution includes appropriate maintenance provision and an entrance feature.  These works would require a separate application and would have to consider the setting of the adjacent listed building.

Subject to the requirement of a Section 106 agreement and detailed matters I am still satisfied that the application would accord with the policies highlighted above and do not consider that there are any material considerations which would constitute a reasonable reason to refuse planning permission in this instance from that view taken previously.

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

The Council’s listed building and conservation officer has no objection to the principle of the scheme and suggests that any section 106 monies could be used to improve the landscaping and setting of the listed building.

As stated earlier in this report any works to secure improvements to the riverside walkway would require a separate planning and listed building application.

In conclusion, I am still satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding the effect on the listed building and do not consider that there are any material considerations which would constitute a justifiable reason to refuse planning permission in this instance from that view taken previously.

Trees
Policy EN10 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.

No trees are proposed to be removed at this stage given that the application seeks only the principle of a residential scheme and means of access, however, the applicant has submitted a full arboricultural assessment.  Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has previously assessed the trees and the submitted tree assessment.  

He has recommended that the trees along the Agecroft Road and River Irwell frontage are worthy of protection.  Moreover, I consider that these trees offer a significant contribution to the amenity of the area and gateway into the City.  I am still satisfied that a scheme could be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for trees.

In conclusion, I am still satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.  Moreover, I do not consider that this scheme represents sufficient changes to warrant a different view in this particular instance.

Other Issues
The applicant has provided a flood risk assessment.  I have no objections in principle to the proposal from the Environment Agency.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  However, until such time as the number of bed spaces is determined, the contribution required cannot be calculated. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity. 

Further to the requirements of policy ST11 of the UDP and in accordance with the advice of GMPTE the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £535,000.  This would contribute to enhancement of public transport within the vicinity and would be paid in 5 equal instalments over five years.  The first payment would be payable upon commencement of development with four equal payments following 12 month periods. 

In accordance with Policies R1 and R5 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £54,411. This would contribute towards the provision of a public footpath alongside the river Irwell adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the scheme as now negotiated and subject to the conditions and legal agreement below accords with the policies of the development plan and should be approved.  I do not consider that there are any other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.

RECOMMENDATION

I therefore recommend that the application be approved, and that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The agreement shall include 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)

Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A02 Outline

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
	
	a) appearance
	
	b) landscaping
	
	c) layout
	
	d) scale
	
3.	No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters.  The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
	The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.  
	The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.
	Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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.

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

6.	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of the existing and proposed floor levels have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.

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.

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), 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.

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.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

2.	Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

3.	Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety

4.	Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents

5.	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.	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.	To protect the river corridor in accordance with policy R7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development

8.	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.	To prevent the spread of invasive Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed and ensure with existing wildlife legislation.

Note(s) for 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 is advised to contact the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer to discuss designing out crime

3.	The applicants attention is drawn to the advice of the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit

4.	Further to the requirements of condition 9 should a delay of more than one year occur between the date of approval of the management scheme and either the date of implementation of the management scheme or the date of development commencing, a further site survey must be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval to ensure that the agreed scheme is still acceptable.

APPLICATION No:	06/53567/TEL56

APPLICANT:	Hutchison 3G

LOCATION:	Hanlon Fencing Langley Road Pendlebury Swinton   

PROPOSAL:	Prior Notification for the installation of a radio base station comprising a 15m high telegraph pole acommodating three antennae contained within a GRP shroud, one 300mm dish antenna, radio equipment housing and ancillary development

WARD:	Irwell Riverside

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of  Hanlon Fencing on Langley Road Pendlebury Swinton. The proposed 15m pole mast would be located in the corner of  Hanlon Fencings small industrial yard.

The proposal is for the installation of radio base station comprising the erection of a 15m telegraph pole accommodating 3 antennae contained within a GRP shroud, one 300mm dish antenna, radio equipment housing and ancillary development.

The proposed radio base station would be located in a mainly industrial area. To the North-West of the site are residential properties located on Langley Road and Regatta Street. To the East of the site is derelict land comprising of abandoned sheds and also the River Irwell. To the South East, South and South West of the site are mainly industrial properties. The proposed radio base station would be located 55m from the main road, Langley Road. It would be located 55m from no. 2 Langley Road. 63m to no.4, 65m to no.6 70m to no.8, and 70m to no.10. It would also maintain a distance of 75m to properties 1 & 3 Regatta Street.

Fencing surrounding the site of the proposed radio base station would be 3m high palisade fencing with a 1.5m wide access gate. Surrounding the site would be the existing 3m high concrete post and panel fence with 3 strands barbed wire.

SITE HISTORY

None

CONSULTATIONS

The Head of Engineering and Highways – No objections have been received.

Councillor D Antrobus – requests it be determined by panel as in residential area.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 13.10.06

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

2, 4, 6, 8 10, 12, Langley Road, Pendlebury, Swinton.
300 Langley Road South, Salford.
1 & 3 Regatta Street, Pendlebury, Swinton.

All the properties that would be directly affected have been notified.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 19 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:-

Health Grounds
Proximity to residential properties
Creation of an eyesore
Reduction of house prices
Discourage people to live in the area
Issues of increased vehicle access

I have also received a petition rejecting the proposed radio base station, 50 signatures have been received, many of which however are not from residents who would be directly affected by the proposed radio base station, such as those living on Greenstone Drive.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:  DEV 1 – Telecommunications
                         DES 1  - Respecting Context

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

Site specific policies  - none

Other policies  - none

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the health issues resulting from the installation and the proximity to residential properties. Also the visual amenity of the proposed radio base station and its location adjacent to a community park ,(at the closest point around 33m), from the proposed radio base station.

Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP states that proposals for telecommunications developments will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met, the proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, the operator should demonstrate compliance with all relevant ICNRP standards, there is a need for the development, the rationale for site selection has been outlined and where pre-application discussions have taken place.

The applicant has provided coverage plots that demonstrate what the existing coverage is and what the proposed coverage would be following the installation. The information shows that there is a gap in the existing cell coverage for the area, and that the installation would fill that gap.

In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health implications as a result of this proposal.

The application is in accordance with PPG8.
-The proposed mast is not in an area of particular environmental importance. It is situated in a mainly industrial area and would not create an inappropriate visual impact and the design is to be sympathetic to the area;
-The proposed mast is not near to a school or college;
-It would meet the ICNIRP guidelines;
•	The applicant has demonstrated the need for the development.

The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites/proposals have been investigated in the surrounding area, but were not acceptable as either an agreement on mutually acceptable terms could not be reached with the sites owners, the site would be too far from the cell search area to provide the required level of coverage. The option of a mast share was also not feasible as the surrounding ‘clutter’ in this area would prevent effective propagation of radio signals. These include:

1.	A mast share at Swinton Town FC, Agecroft Road;
2.	Alternative location for a radio base station at 
3.	PZ Cussons, Kersal Vale, 
4.	Langley Mill, Langley Road, Salford;
5.	Hercules Limited, Langley Road, Pendlebury;
6.	Manchester Depot, Langley Road, Pendlebury;
7.	SMF Ltd Electroplating, Whit Lane, Pendlebury;
8.	Ashalls Coaches. 70 Langley Road, Pendlebury;
9.	Riverdale Complex, Kersal Way.

The proposed development therefore complies with Policy DEV1 and PPG8.

Policy DES1 states that a 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 radio base station complies with policy DES 1 and PPG8 as it would not cause a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area particularly as the site is located in a mainly industrial area.

The proposed mast would be situated in a mainly industrial area and would not create an inappropriate visual impact. The applicant has provided evidence that the proposed radio base station is to be designed sympathetically in accordance with Policy DES1 of the Adopted UDP.

In terms of concerns raised regarding access and parking, access to the site would be gained off Regatta Street and through the existing access to Hanlon Fencing. Any vehicles visiting the site would be parked on Hanlon Fencing’s land shown hatched in blue on the plans.

In terms of increased traffic, once built the proposed mast should be visited infrequently, for maintenance purposes only.

Finally the residents have also raised an objection regarding the close proximity of the proposed radio base station to a community park. This should not present a problem however as the applicant has provided evidence that the proposed radio base station will meet the public exposure guidelines, also there will be little increase in traffic visiting the site to cause a danger in terms of increased traffic. 

CONCLUSION

The main planning issues relating to this application are the health issues resulting from the installation and the proximity to surrounding residential properties. The applicant has submitted a declaration, which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNRP public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds. I am satisfied that the installation area maintains a sufficient distance from surrounding residential properties so as not to cause an unacceptable detrimental impact. The proposal therefore complies with DEV1 of the Adopted UDP and PPG8.

The proposed radio base station complies with policy DES 1 as it would not cause a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area particularly as the site is located in a mainly industrial area.

The proposal therefore complies with DEV1 and DES1 of the Adopted UDP and PPG8.  I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91