EcclesRoad004RevC

PLANNING | Salford set to approve 500 more homes

Projects from Bellway, Countryside, Yu Group and English Cities Fund are among the items due to be considered by Salford’s planning committee on 3 October, with Countryside’s plans for the former British Vita site recommended for refusal.

 

Recommended for approval


Land off Hilton Lane

HILTON LANE WALKDEN

Developer: Bellway

Homes: 209

Scheme: Working with APD, Bellway is seeking full consent in a resubmitted proposal for the 16.2-acre Walkden site, where it is looking to build out 124 three-bedroom and 85 four-bedroom houses, varying between two and three storeys. A prior application was refused in July, due to concerns over impact on traffic at Hilton Lane and Newearth Road – that decision is being appealed.

More than 100 letters of objection have been received, including submissions from two councillors and MP Barbara Keeley, with objectors focusing on loss of green space and pressure on facilities in addition to roads. The recommendation to approve comes with a raft of conditions, with six-figure contributions required in areas including open spaces, sports pitches, education, public realm and highways.


Plots C1 and C2, Salford Central

C1 C2 Towers Ecf Salford

Visualisation from Irwell side. The C1 block, to the left, is to e built first.

Developer: English Cities Fund

Homes: 211

Scheme: ECF is seeking reserved matters approval for the site, on the southern side of Trinity Way close to the Slate Yard development. The proposed building for the C1 plot would include a six-storey podium block, alongside a 23-storey tower including the apartments, which will comprise 86 one-bedroom apartments and 125 two-bedroom apartments, the tower to be mirrored by a future tower on the C2 site.


621 Eccles New Road

EcclesRoad004RevC

Developer: Yu Group

Homes: 140, along with 12,00 sq ft of offices

Scheme: This is a resubmission of a previous plan to bring apartments and live/work units to the site, a proposal that was considered unsuitable for reasons of design, quantity of parking and functionality of the B1 use.

Plans have now been amended. and include demolition of the existing building and erection of a part nine-storey, part six-storey residential and office complex, along with 79 parking spaces. The residential mix takes the form of 12 studios, 47 one-bedroom apartments, 73 two-bedroom apartments, two duplexes and six three-bedroom units.


Recommended for refusal

Former British Vita site, Seaford Road

British Vita Site Countryside

Developer: Countryside

Homes: 136

Scheme: A 5.4-acre site comprising vacant industrial premises, which will be demolished, the site was formerly used to make coated fabrics. The developer proposes a private rented scheme, all priced at market housing level, across a scheme comprising 72 houses and 64 apartments. Of these, 16 would be one-bedroom apartments and 48 two-bedroom.

Although acknowledging that the project would bring back into use a heavily contaminated site that has failed to attract commercial interest, although empty since 2009, it is in dispute with the applicant over gross development value, benchmark land value and developer’s profit level.

Officers noted: “The introduction of the dwellings will increase pressure on local amenities and services. There is a clear and robust policy basis for requiring contributions which are appropriate in scale and kind to mitigate those impacts. The applicant’s offer falls significantly short of what is considered necessary and achievable to allow the site to come forward for development.” Salford’s housing supply of 11 years-plus means that it does not need to apply the ‘tilted balance’ required by NPPF.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

All of these schemes look rubbish. Salford really is a void of architectural interest right now.

By Acelius

Re the Brita Vita Site: Stop messsing about! Build more flats.Build more houses. Make living affordable for the many!

By James Yates

Why on earth would anyone grant planning for the English Cities Fund proposals? Just depressing. It looks like the Olympian towers proposed near Piccadilly. They’re both out of date 2 years before they’re even ready to start on site. Surely councils can force developers to do better than this?

By Derek

You’re right Derek, when you factor in they are getting the land for peanuts and may even be getting HIF funding like their other scheme, they should be pushing the envelope when it comes to design.

By Oscar

All great schemes. Get them built.

By ALL

Oh dear, the English Cities Fund proposal in particular is very dour! All this development should be exciting news, instead I’m becoming increasingly depressed by the legacy our generation are leaving behind. Housing Crisis seems to be an excuse for ‘build it at any cost’. Not say ALL recent development is poor, but this one depresses me just looking at it.

By Martin

if its houses it always seems to have to wide objection even on brownfield sites. If it’s a tower or high density apartments it seems to get the nod through.There’s no denying the housing crisis but is our legacy to have limited diversity or choice in new homes? The ECF proposal does look depressing.

By Taxed

Problem is apartments aren’t family housing, many end up not affordable, many end up non uk buyers who rent them out. The infrastructure cannot cope with the amount of extra traffic, it can’t cope now and at the rate all these developments are being approved Manchester and Salford will come to a standstill.

By Clara