Application no: 09/57413/out applicant: Rossford Dental Laboratory location: 78-80 Chorley Road Swinton M27 5ad proposal: Outline planning application to include layout and access in respect of four dwellinghouses and nine apartments ward

Other Material Considerations

PPG 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment

Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (adopted July 2006)

Design and Crime SPD (adopted July 2006)

Trees and Development SPD (adopted in July 2006)

Sustainable Design and Construction Guide SPD (adopted in March 2008)

Design SPD (adopted in March 2008)

Appraisal

Principle of Development

Policy DP4 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (Make the Best use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure) states that priority should be given to developments in locations consistent with the regional and sub-regional frameworks and sub regional policies which;

• 
  Build upon existing concentrations of activities and existing infrastructure
  

• 
  Do not require major investment in new infrastructure, including transport, water supply and sewerage.
  

The policy also goes on to state that development should accord with the following sequential approach;

• 
  first, using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements and previously developed land within settlements;
  

• 
  second, using other suitable infill opportunities within settlements, where compatible with other RSS policies
  

Policy L4 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (Regional Housing Provision) states that Local Authorities should monitor and manage the availability of land identified in plans and strategies and through development control decisions on proposals. This includes maximisation of and the re-use of vacant and under-used brownfield land in line with Policy DP4 and indicative targets (set out in a table appending the policy)

Policy ST11 of the Unitary Development Plan advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last. Sites should also be well served by a choice of means of access and are well related to housing, employment services and infrastructure.
The proposal entails the re-use of brownfield land through the provision of a new dwelling thus complying with the thrust of Policy ST11 (location of new development) and the guidance contained within PPS3 (Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing) which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over land that has not been previously developed (greenfield land).

Design, Scale and Massing

Policy CH 3, Works within Conservation Areas states that development in conservation areas will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. In determining this, regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal:

• 
  retains or improves features that contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area;
  
• 
  is of a high standard of design, consistent with the design policies of the plan;
  
• 
  retains existing mature trees;
  
• 
  secures environmental improvements and enhancements; and
  
• 
  protects and improves important views within, into and out of the conservation area.
  

Policy CH 4, Demolition of Buildings within Conservation Areas states that demolition within a conservation area will only be permitted where:

• 
  the structure to be demolished makes no positive contribution to the character or appearance of the area;
  
• 
  it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no viable use of the structure, and the cost of repairing and maintaining it, or that part to be demolished, to a reasonable and structurally sound condition is prohibitive, taking into account the potential availability of grants from public funds; or
  
• 
  the proposals would make a vital contribution to the regeneration of the local area, and any replacement structure would be of at least equal design quality to the structure to be demolished.
  

If demolition is considered to be acceptable, consent will only be given if detailed proposals for the reuse of the site, including any replacement building or other structure, have been approved.

Policy CH8, relates to the Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological or Historic Interest and states that the impact of development on any building, structure or feature that is identified on the council’s local list of buildings, structures and features of architectural, archaeological or historic interest will be a material planning consideration.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The application site is to some extent constrained by the boundary with no.28, which has private garden areas flanking both the north eastern and western boundaries. The proposed footprint of the dwelling is significantly larger than the existing dwelling on site, but this increase in footprint to some extent has been dictated by previous permissions, which are currently not implemented and have recently expired.
The previous permission on this site (Ref.03/47163/FUL), which is no longer extant has a floor area of approximately 138 square metres which is similar to that which was proposed in the previous application which was refused. The main difference between the permission for the extension and the previous scheme was that the gable extended approximately 1.5 metres closer to the side boundary with 28 Roe Green. Within this amended application, the gable would now come one metre closer than the previous scheme to the side boundary with number 28. However the closest part of the dwelling to the side boundary of number 28 has been reduced from two storey to single storey and has been set back from the front elevation of the proposed dwelling. That is the proposed two-storey gable would not come any closer than the existing and the proposed single storey extension would be smaller than that of the previous permission 03/47163/HH.
Salford City Council’s Design and Heritage Team have commented:
Roe Green is characterised by properties of varied styles and sizes of 2 stories; this proposal seeks to create a modern expression of the existing Briar Cottage. The Briar Cottage plot occupies a prominent but constrained plot which this proposal seeks to address. The proposal has been designed to turn the corner of Roe Green and provide natural surveillance onto the Green. Whilst the proposed development is of a larger footprint than the existing Cottage building the proposal has been designed to ensure that the neighbouring properties amenity is not adversely affected, with the scale of the western elevation stepping down to one storey at the closest point to No.28 Roe Green. The materials specified, the render finish in particular, should be of the highest quality; I would recommend a through coloured render to ensure longevity.
In view of the comments from the Design and Heritage Team, it is considered that the proposal would be consistent with Salford's design and conservation policies. In particular, it is considered that the design is of a sufficient quality to overcome the concerns regarding the modern appearance of the dwelling.
It is considered that that sufficient evidence has been provided in the form of the Historic Assessment that accompanies the application prepared by Dr Michael Nevell of the Greater Manchester Archaoelogical unit, in which it is concluded that Briar Cottage, in its current state, makes little contribution the character and appearance of the Roe Green Conservation Area.
In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with policies CH3 and DES1, in that the replacement dwelling would preserve and enhance the character of the Conservation Area, particularly, in view of the current dilapidation of the dwelling on-site.
The reduction of the two-storey element to single-storey only has addressed the two reasons for refusal in that the amount of overshadowing to the adjacent neighbour has been significantly reduced and the overall massing of the building and its impact upon the character of the conservation area has been lessened.
It is not considered that it would be particularly viable to retain the existing dwelling, especially given its relation to large trees on the site (which is discussed further in the report). It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would also be consistent with policy CH4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.