Agenda item

The demolition of existing buildings (2) and the erection of two any industrial processes (class e (g) (iii)), general industrial (use class b2) storage and/or distribution (use class b8) units with ancillary office accommodation, together with other associated parking, servicing landscape and infrastructure.

The Committee considered an application at Titan House, Crossoak Lane, Salfords, for the demolition of existing buildings (2) and the erection of two any industrial processes (class e (g) (iii)), general industrial (use class b2) storage and/or distribution (use class b8) units with ancillary office accommodation, together with other associated parking, servicing landscape and infrastructure.

Robert Jeffrey, a local resident, spoke in objection to the development asking that the Committee refuse the application in order to give the applicant an opportunity to revise their proposal. Residents understood the land was designated as an employment area; however, the scale of the development in front of the houses at Empire Villas was the issue. Had the proposal been for construction at the southern side of the plot residents would not have objected. It was felt that the current proposal would be overbearing and overshadowing and did not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of its surroundings. The history of the site was outlined, as was the distance of the proposed development to Empire Villas which would overshadow gardens, houses and the road.

Jim Blackmore, Vice-Chair at Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application stating at the last planning committee meeting the majority vote was against approval of this application. The north wall of the building had been lowered by half a metre, but it was still 40 feet high in front of Empire Villas. This had still not been reduced by enough to make the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring houses acceptable. The proposed 40 foot high wall in front of Empire Villas would be domineering and unpleasantly noticeable. Parts of the Core Strategy policy CS1, Paragraph 2.1.5 of the development plan and Policy DES1 were outlined. The policies in CS1 and DES1 were inclusive and all had to satisfied, this application did not meet this criterion.

Paul Stoodley, CEO of the applicant Salmon, spoke in support of the application, explaining the company was a commercial property developer that had been creating jobs for over 30 years, including in this borough. The changes to the application were outlined including a reduction in height of the building by half a metre, reducing impact on neighbouring properties. HGVs would be unable to turn left when exiting the site and a sunlight and daylight report had been submitted which showed no major adverse effects (and this was calculated using the original proposed height of the building). The officer recommendation was to approve this application. It complied with the Local Plan and there was a lack of any material reasons for refusal. The site had been allocated for employment and this would bring significant economic benefit to the Borough.

Councillor Chester, a visiting member, spoke in objection to the application stating that residents were not objecting in principle to development at the site. However, the size and design of this proposal did not meet the criteria set out in policy DES1. The development would have an overshadowing effect on the properties at Empire Villas and a reduction of half a metre would not make a vast difference in this regard. Several properties would not meet BRE guidelines (light analysis) and this related to the effects on gardens and outdoor spaces. It was unclear if this information was available. The effects of loss of daylight on various properties at Empire Villas was outlined in detail. It was also difficult to see how the proposal adhered to policy DES1. There would be a significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. In terms of the height of the trees, it was stated that these were overgrown and had not been maintained at fence height by Titan as they should have been. These should not provide a baseline for comparison or mitigation against negative results, hence a comparison with no tree results would be most appropriate and residents should not suffer as a result of the failure than their neighbours to maintain their hedges. It was felt that there was a gap in policy between the DMP and DES1, where there was a transition between residential and commercial development.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED that the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee so that reasons for refusal can be considered.