The well known Griffin Hotel on the corner of Lower Broughton Road and Great Cheetham Street West was demolished years ago and the site has been vacant ever since.
Now, Great Chetham Developments Ltd has applied to Salford City Council to build 57, mainly two bedroom market sale, apartments on the site in blocks up to five storeys high.
As the site is in what Salford Council classes a 'low value' area, there is no requirement for the developer to provide any affordable properties. Nor is there any requirement for the developer to pay any fees for things like open space and public realm to mitigate the effects of putting up apartments in the area.
Instead, the developer will contribute just £28,295 for four units on the scheme that have been deemed "akin to house type accommodation" - (Open space £17,940, Education £4,355 and Public Realm £6,000) - which is absolute peanuts for 57 properties, and another example of the failed Salford Council planning policy, (which is completely separate from the Government's NPPF).
Meanwhile, at Newhaven Business Park on Barton Lane in Eccles, Countryside Properties has applied to build 244 properties – 196 houses and 48 apartments - in a controversial development that has seen both residents and Councillor David Lancaster object, together with Manchester Ship Canal Company (Peel Holdings) and European Metal Recycling which operates a site nearby.
They are objecting on the grounds of lorry access to the scrap metal site, traffic and congestion issues, and that new residents would complain about noise from the site.
On this latter point, Council officers respond "It has generally been accepted by the City's Environmental Consultants that internal living areas can be acoustically insulated to provide satisfactory noise levels with windows closed..."
62 trees, half of which are 'category B' trees, will also be felled as part of the development.
There is no affordable housing in the application, the Council officer's report stating, "There would be a split of market housing and private rental dwellings, none of the units on site would be of affordable tenure."
And, as usual, Countryside is using 'viability' clauses to avoid full planning contributions, although no-one knows what the company will actually pay...
The officer states that payments towards open space, education, transport and public realm should be sought – but that "The applicant has however submitted a viability appraisal to demonstrate that the scheme would not be financially deliverable if the contribution sought was too high..."
The report only states that an "update" on the viability position will be provided prior to the panel meeting. As yet nothing at all has been tabled.