REPORT
of
Urban Vision Partnership Limited
to the
Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel
1st March 2007
Planning Applications and Related Development Control Matters
(Not considered to contain exempt information)
Non-members of the panel are invited to attend the meeting during
consideration of any applications included within the report
in which they have a particular interest.
AMENDMENT REPORT
APPLICATION No:06/53387/FUL
APPLICANT:Development Processes Group Plc
LOCATION:Land Adjacent To The Former Ellesmere Public House Walkden Road Worsley M28 7BQ
PROPOSAL:Erection of a two storey building with additional level of living accommodation in roof space to provide 11 apartments together with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:Walkden South
OBSERVATIONS:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report I have received additional comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Advisor and the Consultant Arboriculturalist.
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – have commented verbally that they have no objections to the amended proposed layout but recommend lockable gate between the application site and the adjoining shop, as detailed below I have attached this as an informative.
Consultant Arboriculturalist – no objections in principle but recommends conditions relating to the extent and construction technique of the proposed geotextile to be used for the car parking area and additional details relating to the root protection areas. The submitted root protection details from the applicant should be increased in size to ensure the protection of the three plane trees; there is enough space on site to accommodate the increase. I am satisfied that that the additional conditions with ensure the protection of the trees on the adjacent highway.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
To the south of the site is the former Ellesmere Public House, a Grade II listed building, which is currently in use as offices. To the east, the site is bounded by Walkden Road, beyond which are residential and commercial properties. To the north are further residential and commercial properties. To the west are the rears of residential properties which front Brindley Street. The application site is currently used for car parking.
There are three trees within the existing footpath to the front of the site. These are not the subject of a Tree Preservation Order as they are on highway land, but given their size and type, make an important contribution to the amenity of the area.
The application has been amended from that originally submitted, in relation to its design, layout and elevation treatment. The proposed building would be L shaped and would be largely three storeys in height. There would be a two storey element adjacent to 91 Walkden Road. The proposed building would be a minimum of 6.6m from the back of the footpath on Walkden Road and 8.2m from the north elevation of the Ellesmere. An area of open space would be provided between the proposed building and the Ellesmere and between the proposed building and the car parking area. Vehicular access into the site would be from Walkden Road, utlising an existing access point adjacent to the Ellesmere. There would be a separate pedestrian access point at the other northern of the site, close to 91 Walkden Road. A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided to the front of the building.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2003, planning permission and listed building consent were granted for the erection of a two storey extension to the Ellesmere to provide additional office accommodation (ref: 03/46683/FUL and 03/46684/LBC). These permissions have not been implemented.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections but recommends conditions requiring the undertaking of a risk assessment to establish the potential for on-site contamination and the submission of a noise assessment.
United Utilities – no objections
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – comments received relating to the original site layout plan. The gap between the proposed building and the adjoining shop should be closed off with a lockable gate of a minimum of 1.8m in height and the front garden and the car park should be separated by a fence and self-closing gate at least 1.8m high. The 1.5m high fences and gates to the car park should be 1.8m high, but the fence defining the front garden should be no more than 1.1m high.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th September 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 7th September 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-16 Park Road
1A, 1-11 Brindley Street
2 Royle Street
79-91 (O), 132-166 (E) Walkden Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection from the occupiers of five neighbouring properties in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Loss of light
Loss of parking in the area
Loss of privacy
Insufficient parking for the proposed development
The need for the proposal
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Building
DP2: Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3: Quality in New Development
UR1: Urban Renaissance
T9: Demand Management
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: ST11: Location of New Development
DES1: Respecting Context
DES9 - Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
DES11: Design Statement
H1: Provision of New Housing Development
H2: Managing the Supply of Housing
H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
CH2: Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Regional Development Principles
RDF1: Main Development Locations
L4: Regional Housing Provision
RT6: Parking Policy and Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: the principle of the proposed development; the design of the proposed building; impact on neighbouring residents; impact on the highway network; and public open space. These will be discussed in turn below.
The Principle of the Proposed Development
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for development and details the order in which sites for development should be brought forward: existing buildings; previously developed land which is well served by a choice of means of transport and is well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure; previously developed land in other locations provided that adequate levels of accessibility could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in locations which are, or would be made to be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H1 requires all new housing development to comply with a number of criteria, including: contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the area; be built at an appropriate density; provide a high quality environment and adequate level of amenity; and make adequate provision for open space.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
Policy HOU1 of the recently adopted Housing Planning Guidance states that within West Salford, Broughton Park, Claremont and the northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large majority of dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments. Apartments are likely to be most appropriate form of development on the city’s Town and Neighbourhood Centres.
Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed, they should provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net residential floorspace of the apartments. Small dwellings (i.e. studios and one bedroom apartments) should not predominate, and a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable. Smaller dwellings undoubtedly have a role to
play in meeting the needs of some one and two person households, but they should not be allowed to dominate new apartment developments and should have a floorspace and layout that makes them adaptable to changing needs (typically 57 square metres or above).
Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously developed land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid areas of important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as outlined in Adopted RSS Policy DP1.
The principle of development on this site has been established through the granting of planning permission in 2003 for the erection an extension to the former Ellesmere Public House on this site. It is a brownfield site in an urban area, and its re-use complies with the provisions of national and local government policy and guidance.
In relation to the principle of residential development on the site, it is well served by public transport, being only a short distance from Walkden train station and a number of bus services operating along Walkden Road. It is within 400m of Walkden town centre and the services and facilities therein. The provision of apartments on the site would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types and sizes in the area, which is largely characterised by houses rather than apartments.
The proposal consists of seven two bedroom apartments and four one bedroom apartments. All except one of the one bedroom apartments would have a floor area of above 57m2. The application site is constrained in various way and the design of the building has been affected by the existing trees and the impact on the setting of the Listed Building. The planning application was submitted several months prior to the Adoption of the Housing Planning Guidance. The majority of the apartments would be two-bedroom and although there is a lack of three-bedroom apartments the overall scheme consists of quite a small number of apartments, in an area that consists of predominantly family dwellings. I would therefore consider the size and density of apartments to be acceptable in terms of Policy HOU2.
The Design of the Proposed Building
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 DES9 relates to landscaping and considers that development will be required to incorporate hard and soft landscaping provision, where appropriate.
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will only be granted for development that would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any Listed Building.
The design of the proposal has been amended following discussions between the applicants and Urban Vision and the Council’s Design and Heritage team. This has resulted in a more contemporary design which would provide a contrast to the adjacent Listed Building, whilst respecting its character and setting. It has also resulted in the provision of an area of open space between the proposed building and the Ellesmere. The proposed building would be lower in height than the Ellesmere. The building would be constructed using stone and render for the elevations and aluminium for the roof. The applicants have submitted samples of the stone to be used, which would be similar in terms of colour and texture to the stone of the Ellesmere. I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of all the materials to be used for the external elevations of the building in order to ensure that they are of a sufficiently high quality and enhance the setting of the Listed Building and the surrounding area generally.
The Council’s Design and Heritage team has questioned the revised layout of the building, which results in the car parking being provided in front of the proposed building (between the building and the trees) rather than at the side as originally proposed, and the proposed building set further back within the site. They have commented that the street scene will suffer from the building being set back and that other properties in the area are at the back of pavement. However the existence of the trees has to a large extent dictated the location of the building within the site, as setting the building at the back edge of pavement would have an unacceptable impact on the trees and would be likely to require their removal. On balance, I consider that the need to retain the trees, given their contribution to the amenity of the area, is more important than the need to locate the building closer to the footpath, and I am therefore satisfied with its proposed siting.
The Greater Manchester Police Authority have commented that there should be fencing between the front garden and the car park and the proposed fencing and gates to the car park should be 1.8m high. The proposed fencing would be 1.5m in height. This aspect of the application has been looked at in detail by the Council’s Design and Heritage team who have advised the applicant on the height and design of the proposed fencing to ensure that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building. I have attached a note informing the applicant of the comments relating to a lockable gate between the application site and the adjoining shop I have also attached a condition requiring details of landscaping including all details of the proposed fencing within the site and samples of the proposed fencing is included within the materials condition. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the landscaping and boundary treatment meets the criteria of Adopted Policy DES9.
In view of the above, I am satisfied that the design of the proposed building would enhance the character of the area and would enhance the setting of the listed building. I therefore consider that the application accords with the above policies.
Impact on Residential Amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The amendments made to the layout of the building have resulted in it being located closer to the residential properties to the rear of the site. 1A Brindley Avenue lies directly adjacent to the application site and south west of the proposed development. No 1A Brindley Avenue has number of windows on the east elevation. All of the windows overlook the existing Listed Building due to its orientation. The adjacent dwellings on Brindley Avenue lie south west of the proposed development and would be in excess of 22m from the side and rear elevations. I would therefore not consider there would be an unacceptable impact with regards to overshadowing. All of the windows on the rear elevation of the proposed building would be to non-habitable rooms (kitchens and bathrooms). The applicant has confirmed that these would be obscure glazed in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. A condition has been attached to ensure that this is the case, and in view of this, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy on the residents to the rear of the site as a result. All the habitable rooms would be located within the front elevation of the building. There would be a minimum of 26m between the closest habitable room windows within the proposed building and the properties on the opposite side of Walkden Road. This exceeds the 21m ordinarily required between facing habitable room windows and is therefore considered sufficient to ensure that the residents opposite would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected by the proposal. This distance is also sufficient to ensure that the building would not have an unacceptable overbearing impact on residents.