APPLICATION No:	04/49292/REM

APPLICANT:	Higher Broughton (G.P) Ltd

LOCATION:	Land Bounded By Tully Street Bradshaw Street North Vincent Street And Devonshire Street Salford 7 

PROPOSAL:	Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 50 houses and 22 apartments with associated car parking and landscaping for Phase 1 of the above development on land at Northumberland Street/Rigby Street

WARD:	Broughton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This reserved matters application represents the first phase of the redevelopment of this part of Higher Broughton. Outline planning permission was granted in 2003 for residential development and the creation of a community hub and full planning permission was granted for the creation of sports pitches to replace the existing pitches at Northumberland Street.  A total of 50 houses and 22 apartments would be constructed as part of this phase, which comprises three blocks – A, B and D. The remainder of the site will be the subject of later reserved matters applications. A total of 76 car parking spaces would also be provided within the site. 

The application site is currently used as a playing field and is surrounded by residential properties of varying types, sizes and age. 

The proposed apartments consist of one and two bedroomed dwellings and the proposed houses consist of four, five, six and seven bedroomed properties. The buildings would be three and four storeys high. Private garden areas would provide amenity space for residents at first floor level, with residents’ parking areas below. These areas would be secure and would be surrounded by blocks of dwellings. The proposal also incorporates areas of landscaping, amenity space and ‘home zones’. An area of open space would be provided at the centre of the site. The majority of the site would be surrounded by a footpath which would ensure that the majority of the existing trees around the perimeter of the existing playing fields would be retained.

The application has been made by the Higher Broughton Partnership LP, a public/private sector collaboration comprising the City Council, Royal Bank of Scotland, Inpartnership and City Spirit.

SITE HISTORY

In December 2003, outline planning permission was granted for the creation of a community hub and for the means of access for residential development and full planning permission was granted for the construction of natural turf pitches and artificial mini pitches on land at Tully Street, Bradshaw Street North, Vincent Street and Devonshire Street (ref: 03/47158/OUT).

 
CONSULTATIONS

Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date

United Utilities – no objections provided that the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected to the foul sewer

The Director of Environmental Services – no objections but recommends a number of conditions. Some of the conditions recommended were attached to the outline permission and are not therefore necessary.

Environment Agency – no objections but recommends that a condition be attached relating to surface water drainage

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 15th November 2004

A press notice was published on 23rd November 2004

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	1 – 5 (O) Ashbourne Grove
	50 – 64 (E) Tully Street
	411 – 431 (O), Greek Church, Library, Bury New Road
	35, 23, Hampshire Street
	1 – 24, Jacks Public House, Newbury Place
Mandley Park School, Machzikei Hadass Synagogue, The Beenstock Home, 11, 60 – 64 (E) Northumberland Street
100 Rigby Street
2 – 6 (E) Welbeck Grove
1 – 23 (O), 2 – 12 (E), 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 14 – 36 (E), 27 – 31 (O), 1 – 8 Arley House, Wellington Street East 
37 Wiltshire Street
1 – 7 (O) Legh Street
Dalton Warner Davies

REPRESENTATIONS

I have not received any letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.  

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
		DEV2 – Good Design
		DEV4 – Design and Crime
		H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
		H3 – Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
		H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
		H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
		EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
		EN16 – Improving the Urban Environment
		T13 – Car Parking

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: H9/7 – Sites for New Housing (Northumberland Street Playing Fields (2.5ha)
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
		DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
		DES11 – Design and Crime
		DES13 – Design Statements
		H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
		H3 – Housing Improvement
		H8 – Open Space Provision associated with New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
		EN18 – Environmental Improvement Corridors

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed density and mix of dwellings is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on residential amenity; whether the design of the proposed dwellings is satisfactory; whether adequate provision would be made for open space; whether the proposed level of car parking is satisfactory; and whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.  I will deal with each in turn below. 

Density and Dwelling Mix

Adopted 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 by promoting a number of measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.

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

The density of the proposed development would be approximately 34.7 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this complies with Policy H9/7 summarised above, condition 6 attached to the outline permission requires the density across the whole site to be a minimum of 35 dwellings per hectare. However, the indicative details provided as part of the outline application indicate that the overall density of the development would be higher than this, as this first phase includes the majority of the open space. I am therefore satisfied that condition 6 of the outline permission can be complied with and will not be prejudiced by this phase of the development. 

The proposal includes a variety of dwelling types which would encourage families to live in the area. This is in accordance with policies H1.  

Impact on Amenity and Design

Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development. 

Adopted Policy DEV4 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.

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

Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.

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

In accordance with Policy DES13, the applicants have submitted a design statement providing details of the rationale behind the design and layout of the proposed scheme. The applicants envisage the whole area having the image of a traditional terraced community, and, whilst the majority of the dwellings proposed are relatively large, this is a concept which has been achieved through this phase of the development. The area is to be high density and the applicants aim to promote social inclusion and sustainability and encourage residents to move back into the area. The site is also intended to be permeable and pedestrian-orientated. This has been achieved through the use of ‘home zones’ and the relatively narrow streets running through the site. 

In the applicants’ design statement, it is claimed that rigid interface distances, such as the requirement to have a minimum of 21m between facing habitable room windows, can sometimes limit the ability to deliver high density development and that the quality of the external space can be enhanced through not applying such standards. The buildings have been pushed together in order to slow down traffic on the roads running through the site, to reduce the dominance of the car and to enable future residents to have a higher level of ownership over the spaces adjoining their properties. This in turn would have the added benefit of encouraging natural surveillance and thereby having the potential to reduce crime and the fear of crime. In some instances within this phase, there is a minimum of 9m between the front elevations of facing properties. It is acknowledged that this is below the distance ordinarily required. However, there would be 25m between the rears of properties, which are separated by the private internal garden areas. This would provide a much higher level of privacy and reduce overlooking between the rears of properties. In addition, in most instances in this phase of the development, not all of the windows on the front elevations of the proposed dwellings are to habitable rooms, as there are kitchens on the ground floors of many of the properties . Some screening would also be provided through the planting of trees within the home zones.

Although it is recognised that the distance between some facing habitable room windows of properties within the site is below the standards the Council ordinarily applied, I am of the opinion that this is acceptable in this instance. The proposal would have significant regenerative benefits and would result in improvements to the area. The design of the development is particularly innovative and the applicants have satisfactorily justified their approach to the layout of the site in their design statement. I am of the opinion that, in this instance, it would be detrimental to the scheme as a whole to apply the Council’s interface standards so rigidly. I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard. 

I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of all the materials to be used for the proposed buildings. This will ensure that the materials are of a suitably high quality. 

In light of the above, I consider that the regenerative benefits of the scheme and the innovative design outweigh the need for the development to accord with the Council’s privacy distances. I am satisfied that the application accords with the above policies. 

Open Space

Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for such provision. 

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

Condition 12 attached to the outline planning permission requires the development to comply with the above policies. Given the size of the site covered by the outline permission and the total number of units proposed, some open space will be provided on site, with the shortfall addressed through a financial contribution. The central area will constitute informal open space. At present, the plans submitted indicate only a path running through this area. In order to ensure that this area is used to its full potential and fulfils the role of informal open space, as outlined in SPG7, I have attached a condition requiring the submission of a scheme for seating and lighting in this area. A play area will also be provided within the site, in a similar location to the existing play area on Tully Street, although this will be the subject of a later application. 

The applicants will enter into a Section 106 agreement to secure the payment of £177,113 for the provision and maintenance of both informal and formal open space off site. As the contribution towards open space has been calculated on the basis of the total number of bedspaces proposed across the whole site, and not just this phase, the S106 agreement will be linked to the outline application which already has permission. Although the contribution has already been agreed, the agreement remains in draft form at present. 

In light of the on-site provision and the financial contribution to be made towards open space, I am satisfied that this application accords with the above policies. 

Parking

Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.

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.

A total of 76 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. Given the number of units proposed, and in light of the Council’s maximum parking standards, I consider the level of provision to be acceptable. The proposal does not however make any provision for disabled or cycle parking, as required by Draft Policy A10. I have therefore attached a condition requiring a scheme showing such provision to be submitted, approved and subsequently implemented in order to ensure that the application accords with this policy. Subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme, I have no objections to this aspect of the application. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that this proposal represents an innovative scheme which will have significant regenerative benefits for the area. It incorporates a mix of dwelling types and sizes, the design of which is of a high standard. The distances between properties has been adequately justified and I do not consider that residents would be detrimentally affected as a result. The application accords with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	The landscape scheme for the private roof garden areas for Blocks A, B and D hereby approved shall be carried out within 12 months of the subtantial completion of the associated block 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 Director of Development Services.

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Director of Development Services.

3.	Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, a scheme for the central area of open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development. The scheme shall include full details of lighting, including type, location, direction and luminance levels, seating and boundary treatment. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services within three months of the commencement of the development.

4.	Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, a scheme for the provision of a minimum of two disabled parking spaces and cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development. The scheme shall include a minimum of 2 disabled spaces and 4 cycle parking spaces. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Director of Development Services.

5.	Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer of soakaway system, all surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas and hardstanding for vehicles shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained

6.	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services, the finished floor levels of the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level. A scheme showing the finished floor levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development.

7.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscaping scheme for the roof garden of Block B shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 12 months of the commencement of the development, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Director of Development Services.

8.	Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the three car parking spaces on the Rigby Street frontage of the site shall be omitted and the linear walkway, comprising grass and trees, shall be extended into that area.

9.	Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Director of Development Services, the landscaping scheme shown on drawing no. O2653/2, excluding the private roof garden and central park areas, shall be carried out within 2 years 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 Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	In order to ensure that the area can be used as informal open space, in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance 7, Open Space associated with New Housing Developments

4.	In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for cylce storage and disabled parking, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan

5.	In order to prevent pollution of the water environment

6.	In order to reduce the risk of flooding

7.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

8.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

9.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

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's attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities

3.	The applicant is advised that the roof gardens require silt traps for drainage

4.	The applicant is advised that connections to the sewer require approval from United Utilities

5.	The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
	
	 DEV1 - Development Criteria; DEV2 - Good Design; DEV4 - Design and Crime; H1 - Meeting Housing Needs; H3 - Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing; H6 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments; H11 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments; EN15 - Environmental Improvement Corridors; EN16 - Improving the Urban Environment; T13 - Car Parking

APPLICATION No:	04/49132/FUL

APPLICANT:	Nigel Hall

LOCATION:	Units 1-4 Wynne Street Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of an extension to provide storage for gas cylinders together with new external exhaust stack

WARD:	Irwell Riverside

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Members will recall that this panel resolved to approve this scheme on 4th November 2004 subject to the addition of several conditions to safe guard residential amenity.  A 42 name petition of objection on the grounds of health and safety, blight to area and explosion has been received prior to the issue of the decision notice.

I am still of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in this location and subject to the attached conditions.  The additional conditions are as follows:- 

3.  Noise emitted from externally mounted equipment associated with this application (LAeq, t) shall not exceed the existing background level (LA90, t) as measured at the boundary of the site prior to the operation of the equipment. Reference should be made to BS4142:1999 when interpreting the meaning of this condition.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4.  The process hereby approved shall NOT be operated on Weekends and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY operate between the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5.  No emission of Particulate Matter shall be permitted at any time from any exhaust or local exhaust ventilation outlets.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.  No odours from any exhausts serving the process hereby permitted shall be detected at the site boundary.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

7.  No visible emission of fumes or vapours shall be permitted at any time from exhaust or local ventilation outlets. No Fumes or Vapours from any exhausts serving the process hereby permitted shall be detected at the site boundary as perceived by a local authority inspector at any time.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.  Following commissioning of the plant and associated equipment and prior to commercial production, a full chimney height assessment shall be completed and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval by the Environmental Protection Team. The assessment shall examine the emissions to air from the process and establish via assessment and calculation, the appropriate stack height to ensure that the existing Ground Level Concentrations are not increased by operation of the process. The assessment shall also account for future expansion and an increase in throughput as indicated by the applicant. Once approved, any changes to the stack height as indicated by the assessment shall be carried out before commercial production commences. Any assessment work shall be carried out by a MCERTS Qualified Professional previously approved by the Environmental Protection Section of Environmental Services.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

9.  Emissions to air from the process shall be tested fully as part of the commissioning of the plant. The testing protocols shall be submitted for written approval to the Environmental Protection section of the Environmental Services Directorate at least 7 days prior to the testing occurring and the results shall be submitted to the LPA for review within 8 weeks of the sampling occurring. The testing of emissions shall cover all aspects of the process which could allow airborne materials through the stacks or exhaust ventilation equipment. Monitoring shall include as a minimum concentrations of Nickel, Copper, Cobalt, Iron, Aluminium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide emitted to air from the process. The results shall indicate the throughput of the equipment at the time of the testing.

Any assessment work shall be carried out by a MCERTS Qualified Professional previously approved by the Environmental Protection Section of Environmental Services.

Emissions from the stack shall meet current guidelines on safe levels including current HSE requirements as well as Environmental Protection Limits. 

Subsequent emissions testing will be required should the throughput of the site increase beyond 15% of the tested capacity or otherwise at the discretion of the LPA. 

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

10.  The Applicant shall submit to the Environmental Protection Section of the Environmental Services Directorate a detailed breakdown of throughput of materials used in the process on an annual basis. This shall be based from 1st April to 31st March and shall be submitted no later than May 31st of the following period.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a vacant single storey light industrial unit within a mixed use area and seeks consent for the erection of an extension to provide storage for gas cylinders and an external exhaust stack.

To the north of the site is the Salford University Business Park.  Directly adjoining the premises are similar units for light industrial purposes.  To the west is of the site is a builders merchant.  To the south east are residential properties.  The site is bounded by semi mature trees along the south eastern elevation, between the application site and the closest residential properties.

Car parking and access is provided off Wynne Street to the north of the unit.  Vehicular access is restricted from Lissadel Street to Wynne Street by way of bollards outside the residential properties.  The site as a whole is secured by 2m fencing.  To the rear of the site, outside the fenced area, is a grassed area.

The proposed extension would project 1m from the rear elevation X 5.5m.  It would have a pitched roof 2m in height at its highest point.  The store would be 16.6m from the south eastern elevation, 35.1m from the closest residential property.

The proposed exhaust stack would also be mounted on the rear elevation.  The base of the stack would be protected by a protective cage.  The stack itself would measure 5.1m in height and would extend to ground level and 0.8m above the ridge of the building.  The main stack would be 12.7m from the south eastern elevation.

CONSULTATIONS

The Director of Environmental Services – consulted on the 16th September and suggested a number of conditions

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	Travis Perkins, Lissadel Street
	28 – 48 (e) Strawberry Hill
	Unit 9, 13 and 15, Wynne Street
	45, 51 and 53 Leslie Hough Way

REPRESENTATIONS

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

	Visual appearance
	Health and Safety
Asks questions regarding detail

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies:	none
Other policies:		none

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	EC14 Improvements Proposals, EN23 Croal Irwell Valley
Other policies:		DEV1 Development Criteria, EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Buildings

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	E2 Innovation Park
Other policies:		E5 Development within Established Employment Areas, DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the re-use of a vacant unit, whether the siting, detail and visual appearance of the proposal is acceptable, consideration of the emission of noise and fumes  and whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. 

Re-use of existing employment use
Adopted policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and non-retail commercial sites and/or premises become vacant, the city council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses, unless the premises could be used for other purposes without an unacceptable shortfall in supply.

This approach is continued in the Revised Deposit Draft UDP policy E5, Development within Established Employment Areas.

Policy EC14 seeks improvements to industrial and commercial estates within four areas of the city including Pendleton.

I am of the opinion that the alterations required by this proposal would facilitate the reuse of a vacant unit within an area identified as an industrial and commercial area.  Therefore, the re-use of the premises for employment purposes is supported by both the adopted and replacement plan policies.

Visual Impact
Adopted policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for planning permission.  These factors include the location of the proposed development and its relationship to existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual appearance of the development and the effect on trees.  

Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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 DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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 extension is modest in relation to the elevation and would project only 1m from the rear boundary.  The highest part of the pitched roof would tie into the existing rear elevation below the cladded roof.  I have attached a condition requiring the materials to be used for the construction of the storage compound to match those of the existing building.  

Turning to the stack, it would project 0.3m above the height of the ridge, I do not consider that it would be an intrusive feature upon the building or within this mixed use area and would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing rear elevation and pitched roof.  As such I am of the opinion that the proposal satisfies the requirements of policy DEV1 of the adopted plan and policies DES1 and DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP in this instance.

Health and Safety Implications
The proposed storage and external stack is necessary to facilitate the production of wire from metal powder.  The process involves compaction and heat treatment.  Statutory Instrument 1992 No.656, The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992, is also relevant in this instance.  The applicant has stated that the storage facility would accommodate less than one ton of hydrogen.  SI requires a license to be obtained should the amount of hydrogen exceed 2 tonnes. 

As the proposal would result in less than half of that which could be keep on site without obtaining a license, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a hazard to the surrounding properties.

Other Relevant Planning Issues 
I have no highway objection and I am of the opinion that the level of parking proposed across the site is acceptable.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable as it accords with the development plan policies highlighted above. I therefore recommend that the application be approved. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

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

2.	The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
	EC14 Improvements Proposals
	DEV1 Development Criteria
	EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Buildings

3.	The Environmental Protection Team may be contacted on 0161 737 0551 to discuss the requirements of this condition and to define the actual background levels.

4.	The applicant shall have regard to the above regulations which relate to the use and storage of certain materials above a set quantity. Should the applicant use or store materials at or above the limits indicated by the regulations, registration will be required with the HSE and the Environment Agency.

5.	The requirements of conditions 8 and 9 shall be carried out in conjunction

APPLICATION No:	04/49525/OUT

APPLICANT:	Si Si Investments Ltd

LOCATION:	Springfield Lane Business Centre Springfield Lane Salford 3 

PROPOSAL:	Outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and use of land for residential purposes (178 apartments) and commercial use (515 sq metres of office space) (re-submission of planning application 04/48916/OUT)

WARD:	Irwell Riverside

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a site north of Trinity Way that is currently in employment use as Springfield Business Centre.  It is bounded by Springfield Lane to the east, Reservoir Street and Dean Street to the south, the river Irwell to the north and the vacant Urban Splash site to the west. 

The business centre was developed some 14 years ago and only an initial phase at the southern end of the site was built with the remainder of the 0.6hectare site being undeveloped.  The units are either vacant or used for low value uses such as the housing of switching gears for telecommunications.  The surrounding area is one of mixed use but adjoining industrial sites benefit from outline consents for residential development.

The application is made in outline and all matters are reserved.  The applicant seeks to establish the principle of a high density mixed use development on the site.  Illustrative material shows a high density residential development (178 units) and 515sq.m of office floorspace with ancillary landscaping, open space and car parking.

SITE HISTORY

In 1990 consent was granted for the construction of 10 light industrial units in two rows with associated parking and access.  Consent was alternatively granted the same year for the construction of 15 units.

A previous application for purely residential development was withdrawn earlier this year. 
 
CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objections

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but do have concerns and provide advice.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is within walking distance of bus routes and just within walking distance of Victoria rail and metrolink stations.  Advice is provided on maximising pedestrian routes.

United Utilities – No objections but provide advice.

PUBLICITY

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

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	10 to 66 Bridgewater Street
	1 to 11 and 2 to 12 Dean Road
	1 to 6 East Philip Street
	1 to 33 and 2 to 32 Evans Street
	1 to 11, 17 to 17 and 2 to 28 Georgette Drive
	1 to 17 Poplin Drive
	1 to 11 and 2 to 12 Twillbrook Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 5 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.  The following issues have been raised:-

	Loss of light
	Loss of privacy/overshadowing
	Additional traffic
	Loss of flora and fauna
	Buildings would be too high and out of character
	Area needs more families and more affordable housing
	Not enough car parking proposed
	Overdevelopment of the site

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings, SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas, UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, DEV1 Development Criteria, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, CS2 Central Salford.

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application is the principle of the development of the site in the manner proposed.

The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted 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 by promoting a number of measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.

Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial sites become vacant, the Council will seek to redevelop them for similar uses unless they could be used for other purposes without an unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and premises available for economic development; alternative employment generating uses would be more appropriate; there is a strong environmental reason for rationalising land uses or creating open space.

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

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.

The site has previously been developed and is a brownfield site. I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation is acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.  The site lies close to the regional centre and in the opinion of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive lies within walking distance of multiple public transport choices.  I consider therefore that a high density residential development is appropriate on the site. 

The proposal complies with policy EC3 in that it includes provision for replacement employment uses within the redevelopment.

Other Issues
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 that sets out a sliding scale for such provision. 

Draft 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 has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity.  I am satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.  The applicant has agreed to contribute an additional £1000 per dwelling towards environmental improvements in accordance with the Council’s normal policy with regard to developments in the Chapel Street area.

With regard to the objections that have been received these relate principally to the illustrative material that does not form a part of this application. I consider that the issues raised by the objectors with regard to loss of light, loss of privacy and height of the proposed buildings would be considered under future reserbed matters applications. I have no objections on highway grounds to the likely levels of traffic generated by the development.  The site is previously developed land and I do not therefore consider the loss of the existing flora and fauna on the site to be significant.  Additional matters raised would be appropriately dealt with at reserved matters stage.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	
The application includes employment generating floorspace as a result of my concerns regarding the loss of existing commercial/industrial buildings.

CONCLUSION
This is a brownfield site close to the regional centre.  It is appropriate that it is developed to a high density commensurate with its location.  The development includes employment generating floorspace and compliments the likely future development of the immediate surrounding area.

I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the development plan and that there is no detrimental effect on any interest of acknowledged importance.  I recommend that permission is granted subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A02 Outline

2.	Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters

3.	Standard Condition M05 Site investigation

4.	No development shall commence until details of open space provision in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  Such details as are approved shall be implemented in full , should provision be on-site or, if off-site, via the payment of a commuted sum according to an agreed time table prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

5.	Any reserved matters application for the siting of development shall be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. The recommendations of any proposed migigation measures shall be incorporated into the siting and design of the development and shall  be implemented prior to first occupation of the development.

6.	The scheme hereby approved  relates to the construction of the following uses:  178 residential units and 515sq.m of B1/A2 office floorspace. No more than 50% of the residential units hereby approved shall be constructed until the B1, A2 office floorspace has been substantially completed.

7.	Prior to the commencement of development full details of the location and design of cycle stores and recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  Such approved cycle stores and recycling facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of any unit.

8.	Standard Condition B02A Exclusion of details

9.	Prior to the submission of any reserved matters application a flood risk assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Such assessment shall demonstrate that the 1 in 100 year flood risk can be adequately mitigated against.  Any works required shall be carried out in full in accordance with the approved details.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R001 Section 92

2.	Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

3.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

4.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

5.	To safeguard the amenity of future residents against the possibility of flood risk from the River Irwell in accordance with Policy DEV 11 of the City of Salford adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy EN16 of the deposit draft City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	To ensure a satisfactory relationship with surrounding uses in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

7.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

8.	Standard Reason R003 Sketch Layout/Details

9.	In order to reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

APPLICATION No:	04/49317/REM

APPLICANT:	Millenium Estates

LOCATION:	Harbour City, Dock 9 And Broadway Salford Quays Salford 5 

PROPOSAL:	Details of siting, design, external appearance and means of access to one 22 storey block and one 11 storey block comprising 210 apartments with enclosed car park at podium level and A3 (food and drink) use at ground and first floor level

WARD:	Ordsall

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This site comprises a portion of the larger Dock 9 site close to the junction of the Quays Road and Anchorage Quay and includes the dockside walkway. The site is bounded by the Anchorage Office building to the east, dockside walkway and Erie Basin to the south, the Alexandra office building to the west and the Quays Road/Metrolink and industrial units to the north. The site is currently used as open car parking. 

Approval is now being sought for reserved matters in respect of the siting, design and external appearance and access in respect of 210 apartments, 336m.sq of restaurants/bars and 195 car parking spaces. The proposal comprises one 10 storey residential block (Block A), one 22 storey residential block (Block B), a two-tier car park deck. Block A is 19m at its closest from the Anchorage. The blocks are proposed to be finished with glass and metal and have varying roof profiles, heights and angles. Details of landscaping are not sought at this stage. 

SITE HISTORY

In 2000, Outline permission was granted for a mixed use development including 600 residential units (97/36749/OUT).
In 2003, outline planning permission was granted for a mixed use development including 600 residential units, 90,473sq.m. of office space and 3716sq.m. of leisure space (03/46042/OUT). 
In March 2004, reserved matters were approved for the siting, design and external appearance of two residential blocks (one 20 storeys, one 9 storeys) comprising 194 apartments, one office block and a two storey enclosed car park (04/47617/REM).  
 
CONSULTATIONS

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological interest. 
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Explains that public transport links are good and that high density development such as this is supported by GMPTE. 
Environment Agency – No objections subject to the developer agreeing proposed floor levels with the Manchester Ship Canal Company. 
Lowry Development Company – No comments received
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received
United Utilities – No objections subject to the applicant agreeing drainage details with United Utilities and the Environment Agency and securing appropriate safeguarding or diversion of a water main. 

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 28th October 2004
A site notice was displayed on the 9th November 2004

The following neighbours were notified of the application:-

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	150 – 182 even The Quays Road 
The Victoria, The Quays Road 
Capstan House, The Quays Road  
5 and 37 Spinaker Court, Broadway
Units 1 & 2, 3, 5, 7 Washington Centre, Broadway
Batley, Broadway
Freshbake, Broadway 
112 – 116 even, 120, 126 – 130 even, 200 and 210 all Broadway
6 – 12 even Michigan Avenue
30 – 58 even Winnipeg Quay
60 – 97 even Vancouver Quay 
54 – 68 even & 43 – 53 odd St Lawrence Quay
15 – 137 odd Labrador Quay 
Geglec, Central Park and Batley all Ohio Avenue 
Bupa, Anchorage Quay
BUPA, Bloomsbury, London
Barclays Bank, Anchorage Quay 
1A, 1 – 4 Anchorage Quay
News Centre, Anchorage Quay
Unit 1 Anchorage Quay
Wright Health Group, Anchorage Quay
Securicor, Anchorage Quay
Youth Centre, Anchorage Quay
Food Mountain, Anchorage Quay
Venture Factors PLC, Anchorage Quay 
FM Insurance, Anchorage Quay
Trillium, Anchorage Quay
Allianz Cornhill, Anchorage Quay
AMEC, Anchorage Quay	
17 Lansdowne Road, Monton
GVA Grimey, Fountain Street, Manchester  

REPRESENTATIONS

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

	22 storey building excessively tall 
	Building traffic and dust generated by development  
	Impact upon office space at the Anchorage 

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP3 Quality in New Development 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  EC11/1 Sites for Office Development 
Other policies:	DEV 1 - Development Criteria, DEV2 - Good Design, H1 Housing, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments   

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT  REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies:	DES1 – Respecting Context, DES5 – Tall Buildings, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4 Relationship to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside Development, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments.     

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the height, scale and mass of the development, the appearance, proximity and interaction with public realm, access and servicing and also open space requirement.  

Policy EC11/1 seeks office development on this site whilst policy MX1/3 requires a mix of uses including housing, offices and retail and food and drink uses. MX1/3 also requires the necessity to have regard to regeneration of the wider area. Policy DEV1 seeks, inter alia, development that respects surrounding buildings and uses and DEV2 requires good quality design. Policy DES1 also requires regard to be had to the surrounding townscape, impact upon views and vistas and the areas horizontal and vertical rhythms as well as the quality and durability of proposed materials. Policy DES5 specifically refers to tall buildings and states they can contribute positively to an area given the efficient use of land but impact upon the surrounding area of the roofline, silhouette and materials needs to be carefully considered. DES6 requires development to respect the waterside setting.   

The principle of residential and food and drink development has been established through the outline consent for the broader Dock 9 site and the recent reserved matters application on the site. Such a mix of uses would be in accordance with mixed use policy for the area as well as regional and national planning guidance. The issues to be resolved are the visual impact of the additional development and impact upon surrounding land and uses, parking and traffic and open space. 

The siting of block A, which is ten storeys with internal mezzanine at tenth floor level is 33.6m at its tallest point and is 19m at its nearest point to the Anchorage office block (seven storeys). The proposed apartments are at a slight angle to the Anchorage. Objection was raised on the visual impact and sunlight/daylight impact to the Anchorage by occupiers within that office development and objection has been raised again to the impact of the proposal on the Anchorage. Block A cantilevers over the Dockside walkway which would remain open to the public.  Block B is 22 storeys, or 64 m high, and is slightly angled on its vertical axis with its glazing, balconies and cladding adding to the vertical emphasis. Both blocks sit on and adjacent to a two storey car park which is accessed from the Quays Loop Road. The A3 units front the Dockside walkway  

I consider that the scale and mass reflects the context of modern design and tall buildings and is very similar to the scheme previously approved on the site on Salford Quays and is therefore consistent with existing and proposed UDP policies. I have however added a condition to require the developer to submit more detailed elevations so that the quality of the external appearance can be assured. 

This current scheme is different from the previous reserved matters application that was approved in March 2004, only in its height being one storey higher on block A and two storeys higher on block B which is further away from the Anchorage. There are no adopted separation distances for office developments however I do not consider that the height or siting of the blocks would result in a significant loss of sunlight or daylight to surrounding commercial properties. I also consider that disturbance due to construction is not a significant enough reason to warrant refusal of the scheme. Much of the view of Erie Basin would remain from the Anchorage. 

The existing site is used as open commuter parking and an objection has been raised to the loss of this. I consider that the 195 spaces on site for the 210 apartments is appropriate at this accessible location, with Metrolink running past the site, and is in accordance with maximum parking standards of the revised UDP. I also consider that the accessible location for public transport with no parking provision is appropriate for the office development. I also consider that the present car park use on site detracts from the visual appearance of the area and that the redevelopment of this site with this proposal would contribute significantly to the on-going regeneration of this part of the City. The level of development proposed is in accordance with the outline and I have no objections to the level of traffic created. I am not fully satisfied with the position of the proposed servicing lay-by from the Quays Road and recommend this be moved further away from the Traffic Light Controlled junction with Metrolink, at this stage I am reasonably satisfied this can be dealt with by a Grampian condition. I have also added a condition to ensure that servicing of the A3 units is further controlled. The developer will be required to enter into a Section 278 for the development. 

The dockside walkway would be maintained by this proposal and I am satisfied that introduction of food and drink uses fronting the walkway would increase the usability of this presently underused part of the walkway. Each apartment has useable space on balconies that can be enclosed with glazing during inclement weather. The outline permission also requires the development of an area of open space within the remainder of Dock 9. The additional units over and above the 191 units previously approved on this site are subject to the requirements of policies H6, H11 and H8 and also SPG7. The applicant proposes to provide a commuted sum in lieu of the additional open space on site. The commuted sum is £51,628.00 and would go toward children's play-space, informal open-space and/or local environmental improvements.   

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

A section 106 Obligation has been negotiated for open space, children’s play space and local environmental improvements. Protection of the 8m dockside walkway and access around the building has been ensured the landscaping of such areas will be subject to a future reserved matters for landscaping. Servicing arrangements have been improved through negotiation and will be controlled via condition.  

CONCLUSION

I consider that the scheme would produce a good quality development that would sit comfortably within the existing high density area of The Quays. I am satisfied with the level of parking proposed at this accessible location. I also consider that there would not be a significant detrimental impact upon nearby commercial properties. I recommend the application be approved subject to the following legal obligation and conditions. 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the legal agreement has been signed.

i.	That the Director of Corporate services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:

•	a commuted sum payment of £51,628.00 for formal open space, children’s play space and local environmental improvements. 

ii.	That the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission on completion of such legal agreement

iii.	That authority is given for the decision notice relating to the application to be   issued, subject to the conditions and reasons stated below, on completion of such legal agreement. 

iv.	That authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106 agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aims and objectives of the area.

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the roofs, walls, windows and doors of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

2.	This permission does not include any roof plant or other structures on the roof other than those clearly shown on the submitted drawings.

3.	No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated provision for off street parking has been completed and made available for the use of that dwelling to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.  Such spaces shall be available at all times for the parking of a private motor vehicle.

4.	Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit for the approval of the Director of Development Services a lighting scheme for the development. Once approved such scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the devlopment.

5.	Notwithstanding that the submitted drawings are acceptable in terms of the design ethos, height, scale and massing of the building, no development shall commence on site until such time as the detailed design of the elevations has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

6.	Prior to the first occupation of the A3 use the developer shall submit a scheme for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to detail servicing and delivery times and methods for the functioning of the A3 unit(s). Once approved such scheme shall be implemented for deliveries and servicing of the A3 unit(s) hereby approved.

7.	Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the submitted plans the developer shall submit a scheme, for the approval of the Local Plannig Authority, detailing the servicing arangments for the development together with the re-positioning of the layby adjacent to the Quays Loop Road. Once approved such scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any residntial unit or commercial floorspace hereby approved. 

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason F04D Retention of Parking Spaces

4.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

5.	For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 and DEV2 of the City Of Salford Unitary Development Plan and MX1/3, DES1, DES3, DES4, DES5 and DES6 of the Revised Deposit Draft Salford City Council Unitary Development Plan and DP3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

6.	Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway

7.	Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	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.

2.	This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.

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

4.	The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
	
	REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
	
	DP3 Quality in New Development 
	
	UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
	
	Site specific policies:  EC11/1 Sites for Office Development 
	Other policies:	DEV 1 - Development Criteria, DEV2 - Good Design, H1 Housing, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments   
		
	FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT  REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
	
	Site specific policies: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas
	Other policies:	DES1 - Respecting Context, DES5 - Tall Buildings, MX1/3 Mixed Use Area, DES1, DES3, DES4, DES5 and DES6 of the Revised Deposit Draft Salford City Council Unitary Development Plan and DP3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments.     

5.	This permission shall relate to the amended plans

6.	The developer is reminded of the need to apply for and obtain approval of all reserved matters before development can commence.

7.	The developer is advised to consider the advice in teh attached letter from GMPTE dated 8th December 2004.

APPLICATION No:	04/49375/FUL

APPLICANT:	Hightop Developments Ltd

LOCATION:	257-285 Chapel Street Salford 3 

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of buildings, retention of Ye Old Nelson P.H. and erection of an 8 storey block comprising A1, A2, A3, B1 uses and 105 apartments, assoc. car parking, landscaping, new and amended vehicular access, and closure of rear footpath

WARD:	Ordsall

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of the Olde Nelson public house and the adjoining buildings in that block that stretches between East Ordsall Lane and Sidney Street.  The site is bounded to the rear by North Star Drive and by Islington Park.  The site lies opposite Bexley Square and the former Education offices.  The area is characterised by a mix of residential and offices uses and by development sites and listed buildings.

It is proposed to retain the Olde Nelson and demolish the other buildings on the site.  The building is mainly six storeys with the sixth storey set back from the front elevation.  The height of the six storeys would be very slightly lower than the adjacent four storey listed former bank building on the opposite side of East Ordsall Lane. The seventh storey would only occupy the corner part of the building and the eighth storey would comprise plant facility.

The Olde Nelson would retain its former A3 use at ground floor and as a result of discussions with the Director of Environmental Services the upper storeys have been changed from apartments to office accommodation.  The scheme would provide a total of 105 apartments with a mix of one and two bed dwellings.  The entire ground floor would provide 825sq.m of commercial floorspace.  A total of 40 car parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the site with access from North Star Drive.

The materials used for the building would be principally red brick to match the Olde Nelson with natural stone.  There would be glazing to the ground floor and metal cladding to the upper two storeys.

An existing footpath that runs to the rear of the site would be removed.  This is currently a poorly used and narrow path.  The applicant has stated that the public footpath through Islington Park provides a much safer alternative.

SITE HISTORY

There is no site history relevant to the application.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objections

Environment Agency – No objections

United Utilities – No objections but provide advice

English Heritage – No comments to date

Director of Environmental Services – Is concerned regarding noise from traffic and from any ground floor use and therefore suggests a number of conditions

Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No comments to date

Ramblers Association – Objects to the closure of the footpath unless the alternative route through the park providing that the park gates remain open at all times.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments to date

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No comments to date

PUBLICITY

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

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	1 to 11 and the Magistrates Court Bexley Square
St Johns Cathedral, Cathedral House, Victory Chapel, 196 to 210, 220, 230, 247 and 287 to 301 Chapel Street
	10 Ford Street
	32 to 44 and flats 1 to 24 Cornwall House Rodney Street
	1 St Stephen Street
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of representation in response to the planning application publicity.  The writer was happy with the principle of the redevelopment but was concerned about the lack of information regarding the retention of the Olde Nelson

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EC14/1 Improvement Proposals
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car Parking, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, CS7 Central Salford.

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: MX1/2 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Developments, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, MX2 Chapel Street Frontage.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development,  whether the design, form and layout of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and whether the proposal is acceptable in relation to the Listed Buildings on Chapel Street. 

The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted 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 by promoting a number of measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.

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

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.

The site has previously been developed and is a brownfield site, as such, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation is acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.

Design, Layout and Interface Distances
Adopted policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for planning permission.  These factors include the location of the proposed development and its relationship to existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual appearance of the development and the effect on neighbours.  

Adopted policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development and policy.

Adopted Policy DEV4 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.

Draft 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.

Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.

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

Policy MX2 requires development on the Chapel Street frontage to incorporate active uses at ground floor.

The site lies close to the regional centre and on the main Chapel Street Road frontage.  The scale and massing of the building is considered appropriate.  The scheme has been amended in order to reduce the impact on houses to the rear of the site.  Amendments have also been made in order to improve the design and detailing of the building.  I consider that the design of the building is of a high quality.  The scheme has been assessed by both the Council’s head of architecture and by Peter Hunter, the Council’s architectural consultant, and they are of the opinion that this is a well thought out and well executed scheme that will improve the environment of the local area.  There is no amenity space provided within the site but as Islington Park adjoins the scheme I consider that on site amenity space is not necessary.  The scheme does incorporate significant landscaping to the boundaries to the park and Sidney Street.

The Olde Nelson public house is retained and the A3 use is retained with offices proposed on the upper storeys.  The building continues to stand forward of the redeveloped site and so will continue to be prominent in the street scene.

Effect on Listed Buildings
Policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development that would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building or the environmental quality of the surrounding area.

Policy CH4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.

The reasoned justification to policy CH4 states that the setting of a listed building forms an integral part of its character, and may consist of adjoining open space or nearby buildings that form part of the street scene.  In this instance there are several Listed Buildings; on the opposite side of Chapel Street there is Salford Cathedral and Cathedral House, the former Victory Chapel and the former Education Offices, adjacent to the site is the former Williams and Glyns Bank building.

The proposal is deliberately designed so that its main elevation and massing of the building is of the same height as the adjacent listed building on Chapel Street.  It would be of a comparable height to the listed buildings on Chapel Street. 

I consider that the proposal has a positive effect on the setting of the Listed Buildings as it removes from the site the inappropriate and poorly designed buildings from the site as well as the undeveloped plots that detract from the street scene and replaces them with a well designed group of buildings.

Car Parking
Policy T13 of the adopted plan states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.

Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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 level of car parking for the scheme is well below 100% as would be expected in this city centre location.  I have no highway objections and I am of the opinion that the level of parking proposed across the site is acceptable.

Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 that sets out a sliding scale for such provision. 

Draft 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 has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity. In accordance with the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, the contribution in this regard would be £137,407.  I am satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.

Other Issues
The applicant has agreed to contribute an additional £111,000 towards environmental improvements in accordance with the Council’s normal policy with regard to developments in the Chapel Street area.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	
•	pre-application discussions were held that have resulted in improvements to the scheme and the need for a new road opening up the area to the east of Blackfriars Road
•	£111,000 will go towards environmental improvements in the local area and over £137,400 will go towards improvements to children’s play facilities and open space in the area.

CONCLUSION
This is a brownfield site within the heart of Chapel Street and close to the regional centre.  It is appropriate that it is developed to a high density commensurate with its location.  The scheme is well designed and is of high quality.  The building is designed so that the street frontage on the south side of Chapel Street complements the other buildings on that side that include the listed building.  At the same time it subtly marks the fourth side of Bexley Square and complements the listed buildings on the north side of Chapel Street.  The development introduces active uses at ground floor on the Chapel Street frontage and retains an old building of considerable charm and character

I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the development plan and that there is no detrimental effect on any interest of acknowledged importance.  I recommend that permission is granted subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

i.	that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a contribution to the provision of open space and children’s play equipment and a commuted sum for, and implementation of, environmental improvements in the local area to the value of £248,407; 

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

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

iv.	that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106 agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services 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 Director of Development Services.

3.	No development shall be started until samples of all facing materials to be used om the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

4.	Standard Condition F03X Surfacing

5.	Prior to the commencement of the 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 ont he 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 the risk to human health and controlled waters.  The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of the site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on the 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 the 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.

6.	No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of recycling facilities has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  Such scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupatiuon of any dwelling.

7.	The windows of all habitable rooms to the elevations facing Chapel Street, and the external windows to Ye Olde Nelson shall be acoustically dual glazed to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended).  An alternative would be to install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap.  The unit shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames.  Alternative means of mechanical ventilation, which must be sound attenuated should be provided.

8.	A scheme for  sound insulation of the A3 ground floor premise of Ye Olde Nelson public house to prevent the emissions of noise from music to the upstairs office accommodation, the adjacent ground floor new build commercial unit and the adjacent residential new build properties shall be submitted to the LPA for approval.  The scheme approved by the LPA shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details before the use commences.  The works and scheme shall thereafter by maintained in accordance with the approved details.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity

4.	Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas

5.	To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

6.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

7.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

8.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

Note(s) for Applicant

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

2.	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.

3.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the need to intercept surface water draining from the development prior to its entering the highway across a footway, to meet the requirements of Section 103 of the Highways Act 1980.

4.	The Development Services Directorate (Highways Section) should be consulted regarding the construction of a footway crossing, the cost of which will be the responsibility of the developer.

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 decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance.  There are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
	DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, CS7 Central Salford, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car Parking, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments.

7.	This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 22 and 25 November 2004

APPLICATION No:	04/49597/FUL

APPLICANT:	Amstone Homes (Salford Quays) Ltd

LOCATION:	Site At Junction Of Taylorson Street South And Ordsall Lane Salford 5 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of part 11 storey/part 13 storey block comprising 262 apartments together with associated undercroft car parking, creation of new and revised vehicular accesses and landscaping (Resubmission of planning application 03/47509/FUL)

WARD:	Ordsall

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a vacant brownfield site, triangular in shape, which is contained by Taylorson Street South, Ordsall Lane and the Metro line adjacent to Trafford Road.  The site is 0.512 hectares in size and originally formed part of the Taylorson Street South Industrial Estate, but all the buildings on the site were vacated and demolished prior to May 2003.  

The site is allocated as part of Policy MX1/3 in the Revised Draft Deposit City of Salford UDP which supports the development of vibrant mixed use areas.

To the east of the site, beyond Taylorson Street South, are industrial buildings behind a palisade fence.  To the south are tall modern office developments located on Exchange Quay.  To the west, beyond the Metro line, consent has recently been granted for an office development (02/43845/FUL) and to the north, beyond Ordsall Lane, consent has recently been granted for a number of residential buildings comprising 320 apartments on the Quays Campus site (03/46190/FUL).  

This application is a resubmission of a proposal which was approved in April 2004 (03/47509/FUL).  This application is a result of internal modifications to the building, which have changed the apartment mix and some sizes of apartments, which would in overall terms increase the number of apartments from 243 to 262 (an increase of 19).  The proposal also seeks approval for an additional 36 car parking spaces in a new low-level basement.  

The proposed amendments would not alter the footprint of the building and would not increase the number of storeys of accommodation (although the overall height of the proposal would increase by 2m due to the floor to ceiling heights of each storey being increased slightly).  The only other external alterations to the design of the building would relate to the window positions to reflect the new internal layout.  

The residential block would have undercroft parking which would make up the footprint of the building.  The residential element of the building would be L-shaped and would have its main frontages onto Ordsall Lane and Taylorson Street South with an inner surface car parking courtyard facing the Metro line.  The building would be 34m (10½ storeys including parking) stepping up to 40m (12½ storeys including parking) on the corner at the junction of Taylorson Street South and Ordsall Lane to create a landmark feature.    The building is designed with a flat roof with the top two floors being indented from the main elevations.  The walls are designed with contrasting coloured masonry and balconies are proposed both within the frame of the building and projecting from the main elevations.  

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date.

Environment Agency – no comments received to date.

United Utilities – no objection, recommendations made

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no comments received to date.

Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no comments received to date.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objection, recommendations made.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 9th December 2004.

A site notice was displayed on 7th December 2004.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	Units 2,4 & 6 Hagley Road
	37-57 (o) Craven Drive
	1-31 (o), 2-38 (e) Weedall Ave
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no representations in response to the planning application publicity.  

Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS13)

Policies:	DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Area
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings 
UR6 Existing Housing Stock and Housing Renewal

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: 	none 
Other policies:		DEV1 – Development Criteria
			DEV2 – Good Design
			DEV4 – Design and Crime
			DEV5 – Equality of Access
			EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises
H1 – Housing Supply
			H6/H11 – Open Space Provision
			T13 – Car Parking
		
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies:		DES1 – Respecting Context
			H1 – Supply of Housing
			H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing 
Development
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES5 – Tall Buildings
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New 
Developments. 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

This application considers whether the proposed amendments to the previous approval are acceptable, namely:

(i)	An increase in the mix and number of residential units from 243 to 262;
(ii)	The addition of a low level basement of undercroft parking to provide a further 36 car parking spaces.
(iii)	Modifications to the fenestration details of the proposal;
(iv)	An increase in the overall height of the building from 38m to 40m.

Policy MX1/3 seeks to promote development that contributes to a vibrant mix of uses in this area.  The increase in the number of units would make a positive contribution to the vibrancy of the area in accordance with policy MX1/3.  Therefore, I have no objection to this element of the proposal.

Policies T13 and A10 requires developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking and current government and council policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision within new developments and to encourage greener modes of travel.  The level of parking proposed equates to 103%.  I consider that this is acceptable for such a residential scheme in this location close to public transport links including buses and the Metro Station.  I have no objections on highway grounds.  

Policies DEV1 and DES1 require that the proposed development respects the context of the site and surroundings and does not unduly impinge upon local residential amenity.  They require developments to be of a good design that have their own identity.  Policy DES 5 seeks to prevent the erection of tall buildings that would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers, the microclimate and local character and looks to promote buildings that would have a positive impact on the skyline.  The external modifications proposed would not have a significant impact the overall design of the approved scheme.   I am satisfied that the increase in the height of the building would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers and that the scale and massing of the proposal is acceptable for what would be a flagship development in the area.  

Policies H6 & H11 and also H8 require appropriate formal and informal open space within developments.  These policies also require a contribution for open space provision which is outlined in Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development.  As such the applicant is required to make adequate provision for open space or contribute through a commuted sum payment to local environmental improvements. A total sum of £233, 780 is levied and the applicant has agreed to this payment. Local environmental improvements could be through any combination of street works, public art, art projects and community policing or other local environmental improvements.  

The proposed amendments would be in accordance with the provisions of the development plan and would not detract from the architectural qualities offered by the approved proposal.  The proposal would have minimal additional impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.  I am therefore satisfied with the amendments proposed and recommend the application for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

a	That the Director of Corporate services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:

•	a total sum of £233, 780 granted under this scheme for local environmental improvements..

b	That the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission on completion of such legal agreement

c	That authority is given for the decision notice relating to the application to be   issued, subject to the conditions and reasons stated below, on completion of such legal agreement. 

d	That authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106 agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and  objectives of the regional centre.

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

3.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services 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 Director of Development Services.

4.	Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking

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

6.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a  lighting scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started.  Such a scheme 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.  

7.	Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the noise control recommendations contained in the Acoustics Report prepared by SOL dated February 2004 shall be applied.  These measures, once implemented, shall be maintained to be effective at all times thereafter.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

5.	To prevent pollution of the water environment.

6.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

7.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

APPLICATION No:	04/49628/COU

APPLICANT:	Greater Manchester C.P. Society

LOCATION:	28 Ellesmere Street Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from shop with living accommodation to area offices for use of cerebral palsy society including charity shop, staff facilities and committee room on ground floor and offices/storage on first floor

WARD:	Swinton North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an end terrace property within a predominantly residential area.  Directly opposite the site is an educational training facility.  On the opposite corner, is a hairdressers with living accommodation above.  

The building is currently vacant with external roller shutters on the ground floor. The ground floor has been previously used as a shop. The retail element of the existing building is located to the front of the building only.  To the rear of the ground floor and first floor is residential.

The application seeks to change the use of the building to form a shop at ground floor, with a lounge, kitchen facility and amenities for the shop staff.  The first floor would be used as a stock room and  two offices.  The application states that the offices would also provide committee facilities on an infrequent basis.  The applicant is Greater Manchester Cerebal Palsy Society. 

The proposed hours of operation are 9.00am until 5.00pm six days a week.  The applicant has also indicated that the proposed committee would operate until 8.00pm on an infrequent basis.

There is no car parking provision associated to the site.  There are double yellow lines around the corners of the junction of Ellesmere Street and Arthur Street.

CONSULTATIONS

The Director of Environmental Services – No comments received

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	97 – 103 (o), 40 - 44, 42A Arthur Street
8 – 26, 30 – 32, 9 –31 (o), 37, 30A Ellesmere Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity and a request from Councillor Antrobus that the application be determined by the panel.  The following issues have been raised:-

	Parking problems
	Noise and disturbance

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:	None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:	DEV1 Development Criteria, T13 Car Parking

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT 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 Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the proposed use is acceptable within the residential context of the area; whether the proposed use would have a detrimental impact upon the adjoining neighbouring property, whether the proposed use would be adequately serviced and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn below.

Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.  

Draft 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 DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

The proposed hours of operation of the shop element would be 9.00am until 5.00pm six days a week.  The office provision would generally operate the same hours as the shop.  However, the applicant has indicated that between 6 and 8 evening meetings are held yearly which would continue until 8.00pm  Located on the opposite corners are a training facility and hairdressers, coupled with the historical use of the building, I am satisfied that the proposed use is acceptable.

I do not consider that the use of the building until 5.00pm and 8.00pm where evenings meetings would be taking place would result in a loss of amenity to the adjoining residential property and would therefore accord with the adopted and draft replacement plan policies highlighted above.

Turning to the issue of parking.  Adopted plan policy T13 seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing.  There are no records of an established use at this address, however, it is acknowledged that the building has operated as a shop historically and is a material consideration in this instance.  

The applicant has stated that the premises would be operated by two salaried staff and volunteers.  She has also indicated that the volunteers do not drive and are brought to the existing premises in the morning and are collected in the evening.  This arrangement would be continued should planning permission be granted in this instance.  Whilst there are double yellow lines to protect the corners of this junction, there are no parking restrictions on Arthur Street.  

I have undertaken several sites visits at various times to this site to establish the reported car parking problems.  I have on all occasions been able to park in Arthur Street and Ellesmere Street during the day.  Parking is more difficult during the early and late evening when the neighbouring residents have returned from work.

I have no highway objection.

I consider that the servicing arrangements by the applicant in this instance are somewhat unique and the proposed hours of operation do not conflict with the general residential comings and goings of the area.  I also acknowledge the personal circumstances of the charity in that the majority of the people working in the building on a day to day basis are volunteers who are unable to drive.  I have attached a personal condition ensure that this consent is specific to the Greater Manchester Cerebral Palsy Society having regard to the above.  Should another use or user be proposed in the future, further consideration would have to be given to the potential car parking arrangements.

In conclusion, I consider that the proposal accords with adopted plan policy T13 and draft replacement policy A10 in this instance.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the principle of the proposal within the predominately residential context is acceptable.  I consider proposed hours of operation would not result in a loss of residential amenity that the level of parking would not result in a loss of highway safety and that therefore the proposal would be in compliance with the development plan and should therefore be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	This permission shall be personal to the Greater Manchester Cerebral Palsy Society, shall not enure for the benefit of the land, and upon cessation of the use of the premises for the purposes herein permitted; the premises shall not be used for any purpose other than that approved by the Local Planning Authority

3.	The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8.00am and 8.00pm

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

3.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
	DEV1 Development Criteria
	T13 Car Parking

APPLICATION No:	04/49592/TEL56

APPLICANT:	Vodaphone Limited

LOCATION:	Land On Existing Grass Verge (opposite Texaco Petrol Station) On The West Side Of Lancaster Road Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Prior Notification of installation of 12.5m imitation telegraph pole housing a tri-sector antenna and the installation of one equipment cabin at ground level (re-submission of application 04/49038/TEL56)

WARD:	Weaste And Seedley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to land on an existing grass verge on the west side of Lancaster Road, Salford M6.  It is a re-submission of a previous application which was refused because all nearby alternative buildings and structures had not been fully considered (04/49038/TEL56).

To the west of the site are playing fields belonging to De La Salle Old Boys Club.  To the east, on the opposite side of Lancaster Road, is a Texaco petrol station and car sales/repairs business.  Surrounding the garages are predominantly residential properties.  

The proposal is for the erection of a 12.5m imitation telegraph pole housing a tri-sector antenna together with the installation of one equipment cabinet at ground floor level measuring 1.3m (width) X 1.9m (height) X 0.9m (depth).

SITE HISTORY

In October 2004, permission was refused for the installation of an 11.8m street works monopole with a shrouded tri-sector antenna, together with the installation of two equipment cabinets at ground level (04/49038/TEL56).
 
CONSULTATIONS

Civil Aviation Authority – no comments receieved
Salford Community Health Care NHS Trust – no comments received.  

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 1st December 2004

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	Hope High School
	Light Oaks County Primary/Junior School.
87-93, 98 Cholmondley Road
1, 1a, 1b, 14 Highfield Road
24, 122-136(e), Lancaster Road
De La Salle Old Boys Club, Lancaster Road
Light Oaks Car Sales, Lancaster Road
Light Oaks Petrol Station, Lancaster Road
1-6 Overdale House, Orient Road
Hope Hospital NHS Trust, Stott Lane
7 May Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity.  In addition, it has been verbally requested that a petition of approximately 120 names which was signed and submitted in objection to the previous application (04/49038/TEL56) be considered when determining this new proposal.    

The following issues have been raised:-

	The proposal would be an additional structure for local youths to vandalise. 

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None relevant

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: 	None
Other policies:		SC14 - Telecommunications

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:		DEV1 - Telecommunications

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area.

Policy SC14 of the Adopted UDP states that permission for telecommunications development will normally be granted where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity. In determining such applications, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the significance of the proposed development as part of a national telecommunications network, whether there are any suitable alternative sites and whether there would be an unacceptable visual impact in terms of siting and design.

Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposal for telecommunications development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met, including where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, where the operator has demonstrated compliance with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for the development, the rationale for site selection has been outlined and where pre-application discussions have taken place. 

In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP 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 applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites/proposals have been investigated in the surrounding area, but were either not feasible or not available.  These include:

•	Mast sharing with Orange on Lancaster Road
•	Mast sharing with T-Mobile at the junction of Eccles Old Road and Stott Lane.
•	Mast sharing with Hutchinson 3G at the junction of Eccles Old Road and Stott Lane.
•	Duncan Matthison Playing Fields, off Lancaster Road, Swinton.
•	Wentworth High School, Wentworth Road, Eccles.
•	Eccles college, Chatsworth Road, Eccles.
•	De La Salle Old Boys Club, Lancaster Road, Swinton.
•	The Hope PH, Lancaster Road, Swinton.
•	Monton Sports Club, Cavendish Road.
•	Texaco Petrol Station, Lancaster Road, Swinton.  
•	A Gibson’s Autos, Lancaster Road, Swinton.

The applicant has provided coverage plots which demonstrates what the existing coverage is and what the proposed coverage would be following the installation.  This information shows that there is a gap in the existing cell coverage for the area, and that the installation would fill that gap.  Some of the sites identified above would not have provided the necessary plot coverage.  

The previous application was refused because discussions did not reach a conclusion with Orange PCS and the owner of Gibson’s Auto’s who expressed an interest in having a telecommunications structure located on his land.  These discussions have now reached a conclusion and it was decided that it was impractical to locate a shared structure on the garage site as it would have been too large.  Orange PCS have agreed to continue talks with the owner of Gibson’s Autos and so I am satisfied that all available options have been considered by Vodafone Ltd.  I consider that this justification satisfies the relevant provisions of policies SC14 and DEV1.

The original proposal was for a slimline monople structure.  Following negotiation this structure was replaced by an imitation telegraph pole of similar height.  Given the nearby mature trees, I am satisfied that the proposal would be an improvement on the previous design and would not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area.  Furthermore, there are a number of lampposts and telegraph poles along Lancaster Road and so the proposal would not appear out of place.  The equipment cabinet would be colour treated prior to installation.  Such colour treatment would ensure that the proposed cabinet would blend in with the area.

With regard to the objectors’ comments, I do not consider that the proposal would result in an increase in vandalism in the area.

On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with policies SC14 and DEV1 and I therefore recommend approval.        

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	
•	The monopole structure was replaced by an imitation telegraph pole in order to blend in better with the area, in particular the trees which line Lancaster Road.
•	The number of equipment cabinets has been reduced from two to one in order to minimise the impact of the development.  

CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area.  The applicant has submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds.  I am satisfied that there is a need for an installation in this area and that the development proposed would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.    

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The equipment cabinet hereby approved shall be powder coated olive green prior to its installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.  .

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	04/49123/FUL

APPLICANT:	United Learning Trust

LOCATION:	Canon Williamson C Of E High School Northfleet Road Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing high school and erection of a replacement enlarged high school with associated car parking and landscaping

WARD:	Winton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The site is the Canon Williamson High School on Northfleet Road, Eccles. The school playing fields to the north and west of the existing school building is within the Green Belt as defined in the Adopted and Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan. The land to the north and west is fairly flat however the school playing fields are enclosed by a mature treescape and embankment of the Manchester to Liverpool railway line. The existing school buildings are a mix of one, two and three storeys. To the south and east of the site is two storey housing. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the school is from Northfleet Road.  

Planning permission is sought for erection of a replacement 900 place pupil school with the new school sited in the Green Belt. The application also includes plans for a smaller 750 place replacement high school and this scheme is on the same proposed site. Each of the proposed school buildings would comprise a main Academy building semi-circular in plan with four wings fanning out. The 900 place academy measures approximately 100m by 70m whilst the 750 pupil school would be slightly smaller at approximately 100m by 60m. Replacement sports pitches and hard play areas are proposed and these would be sited within the green belt and also on the site of the existing school building. The plans allow for the 750 pupil school to be built and then extended to a 900 pupil school. The boundary treatment of the school is proposed to be enclosed by palladin wire mesh type fencing.  

Vehicular and pedestrian access will not change from the existing situation. Parking spaces are proposed to comprise 75 spaces, 21 visitor spaces and 5 disabled spaces. The 750 place school has 65 spaces, 21 visitor spaces and 5 disabled spaces. 

The Academy would specialise in Sport and Business and Enterprise in its taught programmes, and the applicant advises that consultation has been undertaken with the local community in Eccles prior to drawing up a detailed planning application.  

The application has been submitted with the following reports submitted; Alternative Sites Assessment Report, Planning and Design Statement, Ecological and Pond Survey, Acoustics Design Report, Drainage Scheme, Security Report, Ground Investigation Factual Report, Transport Assessment, Green Travel Plan and Aviation Report. The application has also been amended to take into account comments from consultees. 
    
SITE HISTORY

In 1996, planning permission was approved for the erection of extensions to the sports centre, within the Green Belt. (96/34923/DEEM3). 
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two-storey classroom block (95/34609/DEEM3). 
 
CONSULTATIONS

Sport England – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the sports facilities being made available for community use, pitches to be constructed to Sport England standards and timings of construction of sports pitches to be agreed with Sport England.  
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions 
GMEU –  No objections subject to shrubs not being cut down in the birds breeding season. 
GMP Architectural Liaison – No objection in principle. Would like further consideration given to the pupil entrance. A condition is proposed to deal with this recessed area. 
Director of Education and Leisure – No objection to a 750 pupil school but concerns over a 900 place school due to the impact on Salford City Council Schools.  
English Nature – No objections 
Environment Agency – No objections 
Highways Agency – No objections 
United Utilities – No objections in principle, recommendations made regarding 
GMAU - No comments received

PUBLICITY

Site notices were displayed on 1st November 2004 
A Press Notice was published on the 28th October 2004 

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	1-51 o & 2 – 48 e Boddington Road
2- 16e & 1-23 odd Brereton Road
	2 – 116 even & 1-93 odd Brookhouse Avenue
	1 – 35 and Brookhouse Sports Centre, Buckthorn Lane
	1 – 39 odd and 2 – 36 e Cardwell Road
	1 – 36 Chatley Road
	1-89 odd and 2 – 56 even Foxhill Road
	2 – 80 even and 1 – 67 odd Hiley Road
	1 – 8 Hughes Way (Hiley Road)
	1 – 60 Lodgepole Close
2 – 96 even, 1-89 odd, St Gilbert Catholic Church and St Gilberts Church Presbytery, Northfleet Road
	1-24 Pyrus Close
	1-32 Robinia Close
	1-16 Rochford Road
	1-35 odd & 2-48 even Salteye Road
	2-66 even & 1-75 odd Senior Road
	2-72 even & 1-43 odd Stannard Road
	1-36 Trippier Road
	Barton Moss Primary School, Trippier Road
	Verdant House, Verdant Lane

REPRESENTATIONS

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

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1 	Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings 
DP2 	Enhancing the Quality of Life 
DP3 	Quality in New Development 
DP4 	Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social Inclusion 
SD5 	The Green Belts
EC10 	Sport 
UR2 	An Inclusive Social infrastructure 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: 	EN1 Green Belt, 
EN2 Development Within Green Belt, 
R12/5 Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities  
Other policies:		SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
			R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV1 Development Criteria 
DE2 Good Design 
DEV4 Design and Crime 

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: 	EN1 Development Affecting the Green Belt 
Other policies: 	EHC0A Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Heath and Community Facilities
			DES1 Respecting Context
			DES2 Circulation and Movement 
A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans 	
			DEV5 Planning Conditions and Obligations		
			ST11 Location of New Development 	

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are impact upon the Green Belt, special circumstances and site selection search, ecology, Education and Sports Facilities, Visual impact and design of the development, impact upon the highway and accessing the site, design and crime.    

Green Belt

The proposal is contrary to Green Belt policies listed above. Whilst built development in the Green Belt is not completely prohibited, paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 states that such development must be considered to be inappropriate unless it is for one of the following purposes;

v.	agriculture and forestry;
vi.	essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including it within; 
•	limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings;
•	limited infilling in existing villages;
•	limited infilling of major existing developed sites that are identified as such in adopted development plans.

The construction of a new school clearly does not fall within any of the above categories (the latter bullet point does not apply as the site is not identified as a major developed site in the Adopted UDP) and therefore it must be considered to be inappropriate development. Paragraph 3.1 of PPG2 clearly states that there is a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 

PPG2 does not provide specific advice in respect of school developments within the Green Belt, however Annex C of the PPG, which concerns the future of major developed sites in the Green Belt, does provide some guidance in paragraphs C15 to C17 in respect of higher and further education establishments. Whilst I would not consider the existing school complex to constitute a major developed site in the Green Belt (as the school buildings lie outside the Green Belt and the remainder of the site is not identified as a major developed site in the Adopted UDP) nevertheless, paragraph C15 clearly indicates that higher education and further education establishments are subject to the same controls as other development in the Green Belt. Thus the very special circumstances required to justify inappropriate development referred to in paragraph 3.1 would have to be clearly demonstrated.

Special Circumstances 
 
To provide evidence of these very special circumstances, the developer has submitted an alternative site search of other appropriate sites within the identified catchment area of the School.  This alternative site search is also relevant in the context of policy DP1 of RSS and ST11 of the Draft UDP in respect of the sequential approach to development. 

Alternative Site Search

Thirteen alternative sites have been considered by the developer as a possible substitute for the present proposals.

•	Sites 2,3, and 5 are considered too small to be suitable for the size of development required by DfES standards (paragraph 3.7 of the Turley Associates Alternative Sites Assessments Report). 

•	Sites 1 (Patricroft Recreation Ground), 6 and 8 comprise existing and well-used recreation areas. In addition;
o	The remaining part of site 6, not currently in use as a formal recreation facility, would be inaccessible and subject to motorway noise;
o	Site 8 comprises Eccles Rugby Club and playing fields. The remaining part of the site to the east of Worsley Brook lies adjacent to the motorway and again, is therefore subject to motorway noise and is difficult to access. 

•	Site 7 falls within the Green Belt and has a history of landfill and is therefore likely to be contaminated. In addition it lies adjacent to the motorway and is therefore subject to high levels of noise.

•	Site 9 has been identified as having ecological importance and potential for nature conservation enhancement as well as lying in the Green Belt. This conclusion has drawn upon the findings of the ecological report submitted with the application. 

•	Site 11 lies adjacent to Peel Green Cemetery, forming part of the future burial potential of the City. It is located close to Barton Aerodrome and is remote from the urban area. 

•	Site 12 is allocated in the Adopted UDP for employment development (Policy EC10/1: Barton) and in the Review UDP as a Regional Investment Site (Policy E1), to possibly include a sports stadium for Salford City Reds and a multi-modal freight interchange. 

•	Site 13 comprises land adjacent to the sewage treatment works and comprises existing allotment plots and playing fields, as well as previously tipped scrubland and informal open space. The site is constrained by motorway noise and odour from the sewage works site, as well as likely contamination issues. 

•	Further information has been supplied for site 4 (former Royal Ordnance Factory, Green Lane, Patricroft) and Site 10 (derelict Brookhouse Sport Centre and playing fields). Site 4 has only been considered as a 4ha site and I agree that this site could not be combined with the Mitchel Shackleton works to the north. I am satisfied that site 10 (Brookhouse sports centre) is too small to accommodate the required floorspace of the building, social areas, hard surface games areas, parking and access and circulation space in line with DfES guidelines. Site 10 is also identified within the aviation report as being within the risk contour.  

I am satisfied with the information submitted with the alternative site search that there are no alternative sites within the catchment area of the school. 

Temporary Class Rooms

The use of temporary school buildings and the phased redevelopment of the existing school site was considered as an alternative option. I agree with the applicants that temporary buildings and all the services (electric, water etc) that would be needed to support an entire school would be disruptive to the site but would more significantly detract from the education of the children. 

Green Belt Conclusion 

I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated there are no other alternative sites and that the replacement school can not be accommodated on the existing site outside of the green belt. As the school is sited just within the Green Belt and the existing school site will be protected from development under recreation policies, I am satisfied the balance of open land across the site will remain the same. Although the proposed is contrary to Green Belt policy I am satisfied that all other options for the siting of the school have been satisfied.   

Ecology and Landscape 

The landscape and ecological report details the retention of much of the trees and shrubery around the site. I have recommended, following advice from GMEU, a condition requiring a management plan be prepared for the wildlife resource area to ensure any conflicting uses can be managed. I have also recommended that the findings in the ecological report be undertaken.   

Education and Sports Facilities 

I am satisfied that the proposal would bring forward an improvement in teaching and sports facilities at the school, which is in accordance with policies R1, SC4, R12/5, EHC0A and EHC1. The Director of Education and Leisure has no objection to a 750 pupil school but concerns over a 900 place school due to the impact on Salford City Council Schools. I consider that as long as the school is of an appropriate size to the site and to the location within the green belt that the larger 900 place school is appropriate as it would provide a high quality, accessible, learning environment for the young people of Salford, in accordance with policy EHC0A. This policy also explains such a new school can aid an areas regeneration and the attractiveness of an area as a residential location. Sport England do not object to the amount and layout of the sports provision subject to the imposition of a condition requiring it be constructed to their standards. I consider that the proposed educational and sports facilities do play a considerable element in justifying special circumstances for the proposed Green Belt development.    

Residential Amenity & Community Use of School Buildings and Facilities

Sport England have requested sports facilities be opened up for use by the wider non-school community, but have stated they are satisfied with the level of facilities to be provided. A requirement of Policy EHCOA however, is that provision should be made, whenever possible, for community use of buildings and grounds. Policies EHC0A, DEV1 and DES7 require careful attention to issues such as impact on residential amenity, accessibility and traffic generation. I have attached conditions that relate to the direction of floodlighting and community use of the facilities. Subject to the imposition of these conditions Sport England have no objections to the scheme. 

Visual Impact and Design of Development 

Paragraph 3.15 of PPG2 and relevant policies in both the Adopted and Review UDP emphasises the importance of maintaining the visual amenity of the Green Belt. In this context, it is extremely important to ensure that any new development is sensitively designed. The existing school is two storeys high and is sited toward the front (Northfleet Road) end of the site and is scarcely visible from Northfleet Road. The proposed design utilises glazing on the south facing elevation and a mixture of render and brickwork and copper cladding on other elevations. The roof is sloping set behind parapet walls. I have secured improvements to the detailed design of the school and am satisfied that the scheme is properly deigned in accordance with advice from CABE in their manual ‘Being Involved in School Design’. I consider the design of the 900 and 750 school to be modern and of a good standard both externally and internally for future pupils and teachers. The dense landscape tract around the perimeter of the site to the north and west fronting the railway embankment will remain and together with the excellent design I am satisfied that the impact on the visual amenity of the green belt is minimised. I also consider that the replacement school allows for the safeguarding surrounding residential amenity. 

Impact Upon the Highway and Accessing the Site

The existing landscaping fronting Northfleet Road will remain as the existing vehicular access is to be retained. A bus drop off zone is proposed on Northfleet Road and cycle parking is proposed to be provided. The proposed parking layouts and size of car park for both school sizes are acceptable with regards current policies. Although a travel plan has been submitted the recommendations have not been completely agreed so I have attached a condition to ensure the school is accessed in a sustainable manner. I am satisfied that both school sizes do not cause an road safety issues.     

Design and Crime 

The GMP Architectural Liaison Unit initially strongly objected to the scheme as they considered the site to be too isolated and as a result to be susceptible to attack. However following the submission of a Security Statement and amended plans including the setting back of the railings at the front of the site and the increase in height and depth into the ground of railings the Police are happy with all but one aspect of the scheme, the recess to the pupils entrance. I am satisfied that the imposition of a condition can resolve this last item and the applicant is willing to install either gates or shutters at this recessed area.  

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

I have been involved in extensive pre-application discussions regarding this site and have requested the submitted information with the application. I have also achieved the improvement in design of the proposal. 

CONCLUSION

As discussed above the proposed school is contrary to Green Belt policy. I am however satisfied that the applicant has fully accounted for an alternative site search which has resulted in this proposal being the best fit for the development. Although contrary to green belt policy I consider the school to be of an appropriate design scale and mass to the site and that it has been designed together with landscaping to minimise the impact on the visual amenity of the green belt and nearby residential properties. I am satisfied that the proposal will improve educational opportunity in the area and will be a boost for regeneration of the area in line with UDP policies. Ecology on site will also be improved and I consider that all of these factors go together to justify a departure from green belt policy. I recommend that members be minded to grant this application subject to the conditions set out below.  

RECOMMENDATION

That the Secretary of State be informed that Salford City Council is minded to approve the application subject to the following conditions:

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within twelve 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 Director of Development Services.

3.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls, roofs, windows and doors of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

4.	Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme, detailing how the replacement sports facilities will be managed so that they are made accessible to members of the local community/local sports clubs and community groups, for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme once approved shall be implemented upon the opening of the replacment school and shall be thereafter mainated.

5.	The replacement sports pitches, multi-use games area, cricket facilities and changing facilities hereby approved, shall be constructed in accordance with Sport England's Adopted Performance Qulaity Standards and Design Guidance Notes on 'Natural Turf for Sport', 'Design Specification and Construction of Multi Use Games Areas', 'Sports Halls: Design' and 'Pavillions and Clubhouses' unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6.	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 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.  The investigation shall also address the implications 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) 737 0551).

7.	Noise from any fixed plant or equipment (LAeq,t) shall not exceed the background level (LA90,t) as measured at the boundary of the nearest residential properties at any time.

8.	Details of construction and noise mitigation measures as submitted with the acoustic assessment (ref AEC Report P1074-R1/AJT) with the planning application shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the school and shall be retained thereafter.

9.	Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a lighting scheme for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be designed, erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution). Once approved such scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the building hereby approved.

10.	The details and mitigation measures recommended with the submitted Preliminary Ecological Survey Report (project reference297.S-June 2004, Andrew McCarthy Associates Ltd) shall be implemented in full prior, during and post construction of the school. Ongoing mitigation shall be therafter maintained. 

11.	Trees and shrubs shall not be removed or pruned within the bird nesting season (March to July Inclusive).

12.	Prior to the commencement of development a Green Travel Plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Such travel plan shall detail sustainable travel methods and a timescale of operation. Once approved recommendations contained in such travel plan shall be adopted and adhered to.

13.	The development hereby approved shall be constructed according to the plans for a 750 pupil school or as extended to a 900 pupil school.

14.	Notwithstanding the submitted drawings the developer shall submit a scheme for the closure of the recess at the pupil entrance, for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Once approved such scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the school hereby approved and shall be thereafter maintained.

15.	The railings and gates hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Reason: To ensure the facilities are open to members of the public and community groups of the area in accordance with policy SC1 and SC6 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and EHC0A and EHC1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Uniatry Development Plan. 

5.	To ensure that the sports provision is satisfactorily installed in accordance with policies R1 of the Adopted UDP, and EHC0A and EHC1 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.

6.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

7.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

8.	Reason: To protect the amenity of future users of the school and to promote suitable conditions for educational purposesin accordance with policy DEV1. 

9.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

10.	Reason: To safeguard the landscape character tract and wildlife of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

11.	Reason: To safeguard the landscape character tract and wildlife of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

12.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

13.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

14.	Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime

15.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

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

2.	This permission shall relate to the amended application by letter and enclosures dated 10th December 2004 and plan SCA(0) 05-750/B received 13th December 2004 and revised plans (750) 001/F, 002/C, 003/C, (900) 001/F, 002/C, 003/C.

APPLICATION No:	04/49575/FUL

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs Kay

LOCATION:	Rear Garden Of 41 Portland Road Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a detached dwelling house including the cration of a new vehicular access between 32A and 34 Windmill Road Worsley (Re-submission of planning application 04/48752/FUL)

WARD:	Walkden North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an existing semi detached property, which fronts Portland Road, but has a rear garden that extends back to Windmill Road.  Windmill Road comprises of a mixture of house types and styles.  To the north of this site is a bungalow.  To the south is a detached two storey dwelling.  

The application seeks to provide a two storey detached dwelling within the rear garden of 41 Portland Road.  It would be sited between 32A and 34 Windmill Road.  It would front Windmill Road and would have a garden at the rear.

SITE HISTORY

An identical application was refused in August 2004 due to the relationship of the proposal to the habitable windows within the neighbouring property (04/49575/FUL).  The reason for refusal states: - 

“The proposed development would injure the amenity of the residents of No.34 Windmill Road by reason of its close proximity to habitable room windows within the side gable.  Therefore, contrary to policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan”
 
CONSULTATIONS

The Director of Environmental Services – no objection in principle subject to the conditions regarding site investigations

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	39 and 43 Portland Road
	32A, 34, 37 39 Windmill Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.  I have received a request from Councillor Pennington that this scheme be determined by the Panel.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:		None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:		DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking, H1 Meeting Housing Needs

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT 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, H1 Provision of New Housing Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the proposal is acceptable; whether the siting of the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring property and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn below.

The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted 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 by promoting a number of measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.

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

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.  

Therefore, the principle of a new dwelling within the infill garden plot would be considered acceptable when considered against the thrust of the above policy.

Design, Layout and Siting
Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.  

Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development. 

Draft 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 DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

The Council’s own Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions is also of relevance in this instance.  The SPG would specify a distance of thirteen metres to be provided between habitable windows and a proposed two storey blank gable.

The siting of this proposal would be to the rear of the 41 Portland Road and would be between 32A and 34 Windmill Road.  The proposal would be accessed off Windmill Road.  The footprint would measure 8.4m X 5.6m and would include a porch.  The ridge of the proposal would be 7.5m in height.  No habitable windows are proposed within either of the gable elevations.  It would maintain 21m to the property at the rear.

The neighbouring bungalow (34 Windmill Road) has habitable windows within its gable.  A dining room window and a bedroom window within the roof space face this site and are the only windows to these rooms.  The proposal would be 5m from these habitable windows.  The Councils minimum separation distances, as defined within the SPG for House Extensions, requires a distance of 13m from a two storey blank gable to ground floor habitable room window.

The resulting distance would be far less than that minimum standard as above.  I do not consider that the principle of this site for residential purposes would outweigh the impact upon the existing neighbouring property.  As such I am of the opinion that the close proximity of the proposed gable would be over bearing and dominant upon this neighbour and result in a loss amenity.  It would therefore be contrary to policy DES7 of the Revised Replacement Plan.

As mentioned previously, this application is identical to a previous scheme (04/49575/FUL) which was refused under delegated powers.  The applicant has not demonstrated any special circumstances which would warrant a relaxation of the Council’s normal standards of privacy in this case and there have been no material change in circumstances since the previous application was determined.
 
CONCLUSION

Therefore, I consider that the application be refused.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would injure the amenity of the residents of No.34 Windmill Road by reason of its close proximity to habitable room windows within the side gable.  Therefore, contrary to policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan

Note(s) for Applicant

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

APPLICATION No:	04/49560/DEEM3

APPLICANT:	Langworthy & Seedley Regeneration Team

LOCATION:	Passages Between 9/11 & 29/31 Brown St; And 28/30 & 48/50 Langworthy Road Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of 2.4m high lockable metal gates

WARD:	Langworthy

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application is for the erection of 2.4m high railings and lockable alley gates to improve security for residents. The gates would be located at the entrances to the passageways between 9 and 11 Brown Street, 29 and 31 Brown Street, 28 and 30 Langworthy Road and 48 and 50 Langworthy Road, Salford 6. The rear alley is not proposed to be closed however, and would remain a public right of way.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on the 30th of November 2004.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

26 to 32 (Even) and 46 to 52 (Even) Langworthy Road
1 to 8 Fiddick Court, Langworthy Road
5 to 7 and 17 to 19 Ailsa House, Langworthy Road
4 to 12 (Even), 7 to 13 (Odd) and 27 to 33 (Odd) Brown Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.  The basis of the objection will be confirmed in due course. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
		DEV4 – Design and Crime

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
		DES 11 – Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact the proposed railings and gates would have on the street scene and the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact the erection of the gates would have upon crime and the fear of crime.

Policies DEV1 and DES1 identify a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings. I am of the opinion that the that the design, siting and height of the proposed gates and railings would be in keeping with the character, scale and height of the terraced two storey residential properties in the area. Consequently the gates and railings would not form visually obtrusive features and therefore their introduction would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the street scene or the residential amenity that can reasonably expect to be enjoyed by the neighbouring residents. The proposed development would in fact improve the environmental quality of the area by contributing towards its regeneration.

Policies DEV4 and DES11 outline how the City Council will encourage crime prevention in order to promote personal and property security. The erection of the gates at the front of the passageways would create the illusion that the alleyway to the rear of Brown Street and Langworthy Road is closed. In fact, the rear alley would remain open to access from each end and would be retained as a public right of way. No stopping up order under the Highways Act 1980 has been applied for or is required. It would also reduce the number of escape routes available to burglars. I am therefore of the opinion that the erection of the gates would assist crime prevention by deterring vandalism, theft and other criminal activity, thereby helping to reduce the resident’s fear of crime. 

CONCLUSION

Overall, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the street scene or the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. In fact the proposed development would improve the quality of life currently enjoyed by residents in the surrounding area, as it would contribute to the regeneration of the area by improving the environment and eliminating vandalism, theft and other criminal activity. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies DEV1 and DEV4 the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies DES1 and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. I therefore recommend the application be approved. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The railings and gates hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development by the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area