" The proposed development next door should be rejected. The plans are unsightly and it could make my house worth less. Construction of the house will block sunlight and means less privacy, which people don't like. Also, building work is noisy and messy, which can make living here less nice for a while. This could make people not want to buy houses here, including mine. We've all spent a lot of money on our homes, and it's not fair if something new being built makes them lose value"
Michael, Salford
Planning Officer
Salford City Council
Planning and Building Control
Salford Civic Centre
Chorley Road
Swinton M27 5DA
Dear Planning Officer,
Re: Objection to Planning Application PA/2023/0434 - Development at 52 to 55 Church Road, Salford
As a direct neighbour to the proposed development site, I wish to object to the planning application referenced above. My objection is grounded on material planning considerations and highlights several breaches of the Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (adopted 18 January 2023).
Developer's Argument: The proposal enhances the local housing stock and utilises previously developed land, purportedly in line with Policy EF1 and the objectives for sustainable development and efficient land use.
Contention: The development, by significantly increasing density without due consideration for the existing community's amenity, contravenes the local plan's directives on residential amenity and privacy. Specifically, Policy D1 mandates developments to achieve a high design quality that enhances surroundings and respects local character, which is not sufficiently addressed given the proposed scale and proximity to existing homes.
Evidence: The Local Plan explicitly states, "Development shall maintain suitable separation distances between the windows of habitable rooms in dwellings and the windows and walls of other properties to ensure that an appropriate level of amenity is provided for all residential occupiers". The proposal's design and density raise significant concerns over its compliance with these privacy and amenity protections.
Developer's Argument: The planning statement asserts that the development is designed to harmonise with the surrounding urban fabric, enhancing the local area while respecting existing residential developments.
Contention: The proposed development's standards and density substantially diverge from those of the Chorley Estate and other nearby developments. This disrupts the urban cohesion contrary to the principles outlined in the Salford Local Plan which stresses the need for new developments to be consistent with and complementary to adjoining development.
Evidence: The Local Plan's Policy D1 advocates for development that achieves a high design quality, consistent with enhancing the surroundings and respecting local character. Disparities in development standards would challenge the Plan's objectives, suggesting a need for careful consideration of the proposed development's compatibility with its immediate context.
Developer's Argument: The applicant may argue that the development's provisions for car parking and waste management comply with existing standards and regulations, adequately accommodating the needs of future residents.
Contention: The introduction of a significant number of new residences heightens concerns about the sufficiency of car parking spaces and waste collection facilities, especially given the development's density. Insufficient infrastructure improvements will exacerbate existing pressures on local amenities and roads, leading to issues that detract from the quality of life and environmental sustainability aims of the Salford Local Plan.
Evidence: The Salford Local Plan underpin the importance of comprehensive infrastructure planning and the current developments must not only meet immediate needs but also consider their long-term impact on local resources, including transport and waste management systems.
Developer's Argument: The development's design and access statement claims to respect the area's heritage and architectural merit, suggesting compliance with Policy D2 (Local character and distinctiveness) and Policy HE2 (Managing change across historic areas).
Contention: The proposed materials and design features, while attempting to pay homage to local heritage, may not fully align with the conservation area's established character, risking a breach of the nuanced requirements for new developments within or adjacent to conservation areas to enhance or at least preserve their historical significance.
Evidence: Policy HE2 clearly outlines that development shall "protect, conserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment" and "positively respond to the history and stories of the local area, enabling people to understand how the site and area have changed over time". The planning documents do not convincingly demonstrate how the proposed development adheres to these principles, particularly in terms of architectural coherence with the conservation area.
Developer's Argument: The noise impact assessment suggests measures to mitigate noise impact, aiming to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework's guidelines on noise pollution.
Contention: Despite proposed mitigation measures, the development's proximity to a busy road and the scale of the proposed construction could result in a detrimental impact on the existing noise environment, potentially conflicting with the local plan's emphasis on protecting residents from unacceptable levels of noise pollution.
Evidence: The Local Plan under Policy D1 and D7 emphasises the importance of developments providing a high quality of amenity for its occupiers, including protection from noise pollution. The noise impact assessment details do not fully assure that the development will not adversely affect the existing residents' quality of life due to increased noise levels.
Developer's Argument: The applicant argues that the proposed development will make efficient use of previously developed land, contributing to the city's housing supply in a sustainable location, thereby aligning with the Salford Local Plan's objectives for density and land use.
Contention: Despite the intention to optimise land use, the proposed density may not adequately consider the existing community's character and infrastructure capacity. The Salford Local Plan underlines the need for new housing developments to balance density with local context and infrastructure adequacy, ensuring developments contribute positively to the area without overburdening local resources.
Evidence: Policy guidance on the density of new housing emphasises sustainable development by increasing densities in well-served public transport locations but requires this to be balanced against local character and infrastructure capacity. The proposal's density and layout raise concerns over its alignment with these principles, potentially leading to an over-concentrated development that may strain local infrastructure and detract from the area's character.
Developer's Argument: The planning documents suggest that the development's impact on local traffic and the highway network has been adequately assessed, with measures proposed to mitigate any adverse effects, implying compliance with the Local Plan's transportation policies.
Contention: The development's potential to significantly increase local traffic and strain on the highway network may not have been fully mitigated by the proposed measures. This could result in increased congestion and safety concerns, in contradiction to the Local Plan's directives on managing traffic impact from new developments.
Evidence: Policy A6 specifically requires developments to support the efficient, effective, and safe operation of the city’s highway network, including the provision of a Transport Statement or Assessment and the refusal of development if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network. The information provided does not convincingly demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely affect the highway network's capacity, potentially leading to congestion and safety issues unaddressed by the proposed mitigation measures.In conclusion, while acknowledging the need for new housing and development within Salford, it is paramount that such developments strictly adhere to the policies and guidelines set forth in the Salford Local Plan.
The concerns outlined above suggest that the proposed development at 52 to 59 Church Road may not meet these stringent criteria, warranting a thorough review or modification of the application to ensure compliance with local planning policies.I trust that these detailed objections, grounded in specific policy citations, will be carefully considered in the determination of this application. I remain committed to a constructive dialogue throughout this process.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Sandring
