PDC Agenda Item 4 - Applications for permission to develop ...
|WARD: Davyhulme East |H/58904 |DEPARTURE: No |
|CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CANAL ROAD CROSSING AND ASSOCIATED ROADS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING ROADS AS PART OF THE WESTERN GATEWAY |
|INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEME (WGIS) |
|Land adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal, M60 and Trafford Boulevard, Urmston |
|APPLICANT: Peel Investments (North) Ltd. |
|AGENT: Indigo Planning Ltd. |
|RECOMMENDATION: GRANT |
SITE
The application site is located around and including Junction 10 of the M60 and includes land between the Manchester Ship Canal (to the north), the M60 (to the west and south-west) and Trafford Boulevard (to the east).
The land in the centre of the proposed roads and highway works is allocated in the Unitary Development Plan as a Regional Sports Complex and has been developed in recent years with the JJB Soccer Dome, the golf driving range and the Chill Factor e ski slope. A Travel Lodge hotel has also recently been constructed on land to the north east of Trafford Way.
The Manchester Ship Canal is the administrative boundary between Trafford and Salford. This application forms part of a wider set of proposals that also include land within Salford (see Proposal section below).
PROPOSAL
The Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme (WGIS) is intended to provide additional local road capacity parallel to the M60 and an additional canal crossing as well as improvements to some local roads. The scheme would therefore reduce local trips on a section of the M60 and provide development opportunities in the area.
This application forms part of a wider set of development proposals, which also includes that part of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme (WGIS) within Salford as well as the Port Salford project – a proposed multi-modal freight terminal. The Port Salford development would be located to the north of the Ship Canal (opposite Davyhulme Sewage Works) and to the south of the A57 and Barton Aerodrome and comprises rail served distribution warehousing, a rail link, canal quay and berths, inter-modal and ancillary facilities, vehicle parking and landscaping. The Salford WGIS proposal includes new roads and road improvements between Junction 12 in the north and the proposed canal crossing in the south. The Port Salford and Salford WGIS proposals are the subject of a current application being dealt with by Salford City Council.
In addition to the Port Salford development, the wider WGIS road scheme is also designed to allow additional highway capacity for further development including the Salford Reds Stadium, which has previously been permitted, and a potential future major office and residential development at Trafford Quays (although this is not a committed development nor an allocation in the UDP and would need to be considered on its own merits if proposed at a future date).
The application for the Trafford section of WGIS proposes a new swing bridge road crossing over the Manchester Ship Canal and associated highway works. These would include: -
- a link road (referred to as the parallel collector road) running parallel with the M60 to the east of the motorway and to the west of Chill Factor-e – the road would carry local traffic currently using the motorway between Junctions 10 and 11; the central section of this road (including the new canal bridge) would be a two way dual carriageway;
- alterations to the slip roads to and from the M60 at Junction 10 including the closure of the anti-clockwise exit slip road onto Trafford Boulevard - the parallel collector road would be connected into the roundabout in place of this slip road;
- alterations to the motorway between Junctions 9 and 10 including an additional lane anticlockwise;
- a link road running along the northern side of the JJB Soccer Dome and joining up with the existing access road at Trafford Way, which links to Trafford Boulevard;
- facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the Ship Canal and for the Metrolink to be extended over the Ship Canal into Salford in the event that the Metrolink is extended to and beyond the Trafford Centre;
- local road improvements to Bridgewater and Ellesmere Circles.
The development represents EIA Schedule 2 development and an Environmental Statement has been submitted, which includes a Transport Assessment.
The Environmental Statement addresses issues of ground engineering, water quality, traffic and transport, air quality, noise and vibration, nature conservation, landscape and visual amenity, archaeology, heritage features agricultural land quality, socio-economic impacts and hazard and risk.
An Environmental Statement Supplement has been submitted updating the original Environmental Statement with further information including more detailed indicative proposed structure planting.
A number of amendments to the detailed highways layouts have also been submitted during the course of the application.
The application was originally submitted in March 2004 but for the majority of this time, it was subject to a direction from the Highways Agency not to grant planning permission until satisfactory traffic modelling work had been carried out in order to allow a proper assessment of the impact on the strategic highway network. This direction was lifted on 23rd December 2008.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19th June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RPG13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Trafford Centre and its Vicinity (TCA1)
Regional Sports Complex (TCA1(a))
Mixed Use Development (TCA1(b))
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
The relevant Policies and Proposals of the Plan are as follows: -
D1 – All New Development
TCA1 – Trafford Centre and its Vicinity
ENV16 – Tree Planting
ENV27 – Road Corridors
ENV29 – Canal Corridors
ENV30 – Control of Pollution
ENV33 – Contaminated Land
T1 – Sustainable Integrated Transport Network
T2 – High Quality Integrated Public Transport Network
T3 – Pedestrian and Cycling Route Network
T4 – Maintaining and Improving the Highway Network
T8 – Improvements to the Highway Network
T9 – Private Funding of Development Related Highway and Public Transport Schemes
T16 – Inland Waterways
T18 – Providing for Pedestrians, Cyclists and the Disabled
T19 – New Facilities for Cyclists
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT RSS POLICIES
DP5 – Manage Travel Demand, Reduce the Need to Travel and Increase Accessibility
DP7 – Promote Environmental Quality
DP9 – Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change
RT1 – Integrated Transport Networks
RT2 – Managing Travel Demand
RT3 – Public Transport Framework
RT4 – Management of the Highway Network
RT9 – Walking and Cycling
MCR1 – Manchester City Region Priorities
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Related Planning Application in Salford
03/47344/HYBOUT – Port Salford - Multi-modal freight interchange comprising rail served distribution warehousing, rail link, canal quay and berths, inter-modal and ancillary facilities, vehicle parking, landscaping and canal crossing and associated roads as part of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme – land between the Manchester Ship Canal and the A57 (Liverpool Road) between Eccles Sewage Works to the east and Makro to the west, together with a corridor to the Trans-Pennine rail line east and north of Barton Aerodome – Current application
Other Nearby Sites
H/70853 - Formation of vehicular egress from Trafford Centre to M60 Junction 10 – Current application
H/70408 – Formation of emergency vehicular egress onto M60 – Current application
H/62900 – Erection of a three storey building to provide a 54 bed budget hotel with ancillary car parking, landscaping and access from Trafford Way – Approved – 17th November 2005
H/58838 – Erection of an indoor adventure and winter sports centre with associated retail uses and ancillary car parking, landscaping and access – Approved – 20th April 2005
APPLICANTS’ SUBMISSION
Environmental Statement
Ground Engineering and Construction
Environmental effects resulting from construction will be mitigated by adoption of sound construction practices including health and safety provisions. There would be a requirement for retaining walls on some parts of the parallel collector road and the piling of foundations to the Ship Canal bridge crossing.
Water Quality
Measures will be taken during construction to ensure that soil and silted surface water run-off do not enter directly into the Ship Canal. Good construction site management will mitigate these effects with surface water being collected by temporary site drainage leading to silt traps before being discharged into the Ship Canal. Soil quality will be maximised and erosion minimised by managed soil stripping.
The floodwater regime of the existing Ship Canal will not be compromised by the development. A significant proportion of the run-off will be directed towards the Ship Canal. The discharge will not induce flooding.
Overall there is no detrimental impact on the existing surface water regime. There are no residual impacts to water quality, floodwater regime or hydraulic continuity of the existing watercourses.
Traffic and Transport
On both the local roads and the M60 motorway, there is peak hour congestion and there are a relatively high number of low-severity accidents. The constraints of the network to accommodate significant development traffic have been recognised for some time. The WGIS is a major highway improvement scheme to accommodate other Western Gateway development and provide wider transport and highway benefits.
Port Salford will be a relatively low generator of traffic, particularly during peak periods. The existing network can accommodate Port Salford, subject to improvements to Junction 11 of the M60 and widening to four narrow lanes between Junctions 11 and 12 on the M60 northbound. These are effectively elements of WGIS which will be brought forward to allow Port Salford to proceed.
The residual elements of Port Salford with WGIS would not be any worse than the residual impacts without WGIS and the local network would improve.
Air Quality
There are no significant sources of dust within the study area and the existing levels of nitrogen dioxide PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter) emissions are within the national objectives for 2004.
Any impact from on-site construction traffic and plant is likely to be negligible. With the WGIS in place, the air quality impacts would be greatest near to the new road links, although still moderate. Elsewhere, the impacts would be small or extremely small. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at all of these locations, apart from one very close to a particularly busy motorway junction, would be below the statutory air quality objectives in all the future years modelled, either with or without the WGIS scheme. The objectives for PM10 that apply for 2004 are expected to be achieved but the provisional objectives that apply from 2010 are unlikely to be met with or without the development – a position similar to many other locations in the UK.
Noise and Vibration
The most significant source of noise is the traffic using the major road systems in the area. The M60 makes significant contributions to the ambient levels. No significant vibration sources were identified around the site.
Initial temporary impacts will arise from site preparation and construction work. For all the locations examined, the noise from on-site construction processes is likely to exceed the threshold levels. The majority of locations, however, would not experience a significant environmental effect.
General principles of construction site noise control will be followed. Mitigation measures include sensitive positioning of equipment, hours of operation and HGV access routes. Monitoring of noise levels will be conducted during the construction works. The choice of piling technique will be reviewed once the construction programme is finalised. Noise impact from construction works would not be significant following the relevant mitigation measures.
As traffic noise changes will not cause significant impacts, mitigation measures are not necessary.
Nature Conservation
The majority of the site contains nothing of major ecological or nature conservation importance and there are no statutory or local designations. The Ship Canal is possibly of local importance as a Wildlife Corridor.
The impact of the WGIS would be minor. It could be implemented at any time in conjunction with or after the Port Salford development provided that the bird breeding season is taken into account.
Overall the scheme will have a minor impact on biodiversity and nature conservation.
Landscape and Visual Amenity
There are no national, regional or local landscape designations and the sensitivity of the landscape is therefore considered low even at a local level. The site is visible from a relatively restricted area generally within less than one kilometre, due to the screening effect of the topography, key groups of trees, the M60 embankment and large buildings.
Generally, the necessary road infrastructure, whilst having some visual impact, will have no significantly adverse visual impacts with mitigation planting.
The loss of some existing trees on the site will have a short term impact on the intrinsic landscape character of the area. Mitigating planting will have a beneficial medium to long term effect on the intrinsic landscape character of the area.
Archaeology
There are no national archaeological designations (Scheduled Ancient Monuments or Areas of Archaeological Importance) within the site or its immediate environs.
Any impact on archaeological resources such as peat deposits and possible stray finds will take place at the construction phase of the development (i.e. when the ground will be disturbed). The operational phase of development will not have any further impacts.
Mitigation during the construction phase should include a programme of archaeological field evaluation. If further recording is required, a brief detailing the proposed works will be agreed with the County Archaeologist for Greater Manchester and implemented. The possible destruction of stray finds during ground works can be mitigated by an archaeological watching brief.
Heritage Features
There are no above ground heritage features within the application site. Overall, the impact will be low and no additional mitigation is required.
Agricultural Land Quality
There is no potential agricultural land within the application site.
Socio-Economic Impacts
During the construction phase, the socio-economic impacts are limited to the temporary positive employment and construction training impacts. During the operational phase, the WGIS proposals will strengthen the likely employment creation and training impacts of the overall Port Salford project.
There is no need for any mitigation measures to offset the socio-economic impacts. There would, however, be benefit in ensuring that the positive residual impacts of employment creation and training opportunities are targeted at those communities where the need is greatest.
The Port Salford development as a whole has the potential to make a major contribution to the regeneration and renewal of Salford and Trafford.
Overall Conclusions
The WGIS proposals have been developed in parallel with the EIA process and have so benefited from, and draw upon, the findings and knowledge of the specialist team. Consequently, any potential long-term negative effects have been largely mitigated through the design evolution of the scheme.
All of the individual assessments conclude that the proposed development is not likely to give rise to significant adverse effects on the environment, provided that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. Where negative impacts are predicted, their significance is generally moderate or slight. The main negative effects will arise during the construction phase. However, these are short-term effects and appropriate mitigation measures are identified. A number of controls on the development are suggested by specialists to further minimise the adverse impacts of the development during the construction and operational phases. Overall, the development is not likely to have a significant detrimental effect on the environment.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Agency: Directs conditions to be attached to any permission that may be granted requiring: -
- the setting up of a Port Salford / WGIS Highway Design Group to meet regularly to discuss the project;
- the setting up of a Port Salford Transportation Steering Group;
- submission of detailed design, construction details and traffic management details, statutory orders to be confirmed, details of periods of closure of proposed canal bridge to be agreed, harbour revision orders to be confirmed, submission of a traffic management and advanced driver information strategy and necessary Transport and Street Works Act orders to be confirmed;
- agreed highway works to be fully implemented.
The Agency states that the mitigating highway works set out (Part and Full WGIS) are complex, cover three highway authority jurisdictions (Salford, Trafford and the Secretary of State), require various statutory orders to be confirmed and need to go through a detailed design process before implementation can occur. Therefore, it is the Highways Agency’s view that this will take a considerable time before the site can be occupied and, as such, sufficient time will need to be allowed within the consent for this to take place.
LHA: No objections.
The application is for a new road and bridge crossing of the Manchester Ship Canal, which in isolation would merely provide additional carriageway capacity in the immediate area and particularly provide some reduction in the volume of traffic using, and hence congestion on, the section of the M60 over the Barton High Level Bridge. As the application proposes no development within Trafford other than this road and bridge it is not a traffic generator in its own right, although the increased capacity will result in some constrained traffic demand being unlocked which will result in some increased flows and greater congestion at pinch-points within the highway network.
It is, however, only when potential future developments are included within the assessment of the road scheme that the full potential and impacts of the road can be considered. These major developments (including a notional development of the site referred to as Trafford Quays) are not part of the application but are included within the assessment. It is important to note, however, that many of the traffic increases and impacts demonstrated by the scheme modelling result from future developments, which will be subject to separate detailed assessment and analysis in due course either as separate applications or within the development of future Local Development Frameworks.
The traffic modelling and assessment carried out for the scheme therefore provides a reasonably robust overall assessment of the impact of the potential future major developments within the section of the Manchester Ship Canal corridor in the vicinity of the M60 and shows how the WGIS road proposals would accommodate general and development traffic in the future. The model also provides indications of where specific local problems may arise, however it will be necessary for a more detailed examination to be made of the impact in such areas before final decisions can be reached on specific future developments.
It should be noted that some of the journey time information does indicate that there would be increases in delay in the area of Village Way. However, it is considered that this is due to the extra traffic flows resulting from future developments causing queues on the local network on roads not benefiting from the WGIS scheme and therefore the impacts of any future proposals will need to be addressed in due course as part of any planning application for those developments.
There are clear overall benefits arising from the WGIS scheme concept that bring additional capacity to the network and produce improved operational conditions. The scheme can accommodate significant increases in traffic demand on the highway network resulting both from general traffic growth and from future major developments resulting in benefits on both the M60 motorway and the local highway network. It is also clear from the do-minimum assessment that this additional traffic would cause major congestion and increases in travellers’ journey time if such increases in traffic demand were to take place without any significant improvement of the highway network, such as that proposed in the WGIS scheme.
The LHA therefore raises no objection to the application.
Built Environment:
Highways – No objections in principle. However, it is not certain whether the highway alterations can be satisfactorily constructed within the red edged land. Due to the scale and clarity of the application drawings, it is not possible to check the vertical and horizontal design criteria. Works to the existing highway will need to be progressed by Section 278 agreement with the Highway Authority.
Drainage – No observations.
Strategic Planning and Development: Comments incorporated into Observations section of report
Renewal and Environmental Protection:
Traffic Noise
There is potential for the changes in the traffic levels and the associated noise to have an adverse impact on the dwellings at the traffic roundabout at Junction 10 of the M60 and also the houses at Primrose Terrace, Redclyffe Road, adjacent to Trafford Boulevard. The potential impact is required to be assessed and suitable mitigation measures to protect residential amenity identified and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Clarification of the future of these properties is essential as many appear to be boarded up.
(The applicant has submitted an update to the original noise assessment, which concludes that the expected traffic volume changes around Junction 10 are broadly neutral with very low net changes, which means that any noise changes will be less than 1dB and will accordingly be of no noise significance. The applicant has also agreed to provide double glazing for the remaining occupied dwelling at Primrose Terrace).
Construction Noise
Should the development be approved, construction work is likely to take two years to complete. The noise from the highway construction works is likely to cause intrusion to the houses at Primrose Terrace and separate legislation would be used to minimise the effects of construction noise to residents.
Air Quality
The proposed development will result in changes to the amount of vehicle movements around the M60 and network roads around the Trafford Centre and Trafford Park, which is within an Air Quality Management Area. The applicant has prepared a supplementary air quality assessment based on the detailed traffic modelling that has been carried out. This is considered to provide a satisfactory basis for assessment of the air quality impact and Environmental Protection raises no objections in relation to this issue, given that, without the WGIS scheme, the air quality impact of the Port Salford development would be greater.
Landfill Gas
The site is within 250m of a known landfill site or area of ground that has the potential to create gas.
Contaminated Land
The applicant is advised that they have a duty to adhere to the regulations of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the current Building Control regulations with regard to contaminated land.
Environment Agency: No objections subject to conditions as follows: -
- Drainage scheme for disposal of surface water
- Scheme for storage, handling, loading and unloading of fuels, oils, chemicals and effluents
- Investigation for contaminated land and any necessary remediation
- Details of any piling work
- Any facilities for storage of chemicals to have impervious bases and bund walls
- Details of protective fencing along the Ship Canal
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive: The submitted plans show a “Metrolink protected corridor” but it may be more appropriate to safeguard a route for “public transport” because a “guided bus way” could be considered as an alternative to Metrolink.
The plans also show some bus priority measures as part of the Bridgewater Circle improvement scheme but it is difficult to assess what benefits would be gained from these proposals without further clarification.
Given that the application is for the development of new highways to facilitate a number of other developments within Trafford and Salford, it is difficult to comment on the proposal in isolation of the developments it is intended to serve, particularly when the future of Trafford Quays is still under scrutiny. The public transport proposals included within this application seem to be “add on” rather than integral, and it would be preferable to see an integrated transport strategy for the whole area.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit: GM Police are concerned regarding the potential impact of increased traffic flows on the M60 between Junctions 10 and 12 as a result of the Salford Sports Centre, Salford Port and the Trafford Quays Link. The existing facilities in the area already suffer from high vehicle crime, which will be exacerbated by this proposal. The Junction 10 Link will relieve the pressure on the M60 but exacerbate the volume of traffic on the A57 (Eccles, Salford) potentially increasing the number of road accidents on the A57. GM Police wish to comment further following the response of the Highways Agency and additional issues need to be determined by the GM Police Traffic Management Section.
(The Police Architectural Liaison Unit has been informed that the Highways Agency has lifted its holding objection and that the application is to be reported to the 12th February Committee and any further comments are awaited).
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit: No objections subject to the standard archaeological condition advocated by PPG16. Archaeological mitigation will be required through a programme of evaluation and, following on from this, further more detailed excavation, palaeo-environmental analysis, watching briefs, post excavation analysis, reporting/publication and archive deposition as appropriate.
Transco: Transco has low and medium pressure gas mains in this area, which may be affected by the proposals. Some of these may require diverting to accommodate the proposals.
United Utilities: No objections. However, there are numerous supercritical combined and surface water public sewers traversing the proposed road layout and UU will not permit building over them. Any necessary disconnection or diversion must be carried out at the developer’s expense. The applicant should discuss the full details of the drainage proposals with UU. The development is also adjacent to / includes UU’s electricity high voltage apparatus. This should be taken into account in any planting proposals. Should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus, the cost would normally be borne by the developer.
Salford City Council / Urban Vision: No observations.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received making the following comments: -
• The thousands of vehicles using the new road and bridge will cause noise and air pollution to residents living in the vicinity. Being such an open area, the sound tends to travel a long distance.
• The scheme would destroy existing green space.
• There is no merit in building a further road to ameliorate the traffic generation caused by the poorly thought out development at the Trafford Centre.
• At a time when we are continually told by the government to reduce our “carbon footprint”, it makes no sense to pollute the surrounding environment with more noise, fumes, HGV’s and heavy plant.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The route of the proposed new road and Ship Canal crossing is identified as a safeguarded route on the Revised Trafford UDP Proposals Map under Proposal T8 – Improvements to the Highway Network.
2. Previously, this new link road and Ship Canal crossing had been identified as one of the benefits to arise from the proposed mixed-use development at Trafford Quays (TCA1B), which has subsequently been deleted from the Revised Plan (July 2004). However, notwithstanding the removal of the Trafford Quays proposal from the Plan, the new infrastructure proposed within this application broadly accords with the Revised Trafford UDP. It is therefore considered that the development is acceptable in principle.
DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY
3. The applicant states that, when developing the swing bridge design, the proposals were considered in terms of functionality, appearance and economy and were discussed with the Manchester Ship Canal Company. There are seven existing bridges on the Ship Canal, which have to be opened to allow the passage of taller vehicles. Of these, six are swing bridges and one is a lifting bridge (Eccles). The applicant states that, over the years, the swing bridges have been found to be the most reliable and can be manually operated in the event of a power failure or breakdown of the opening mechanism. On the other hand, the lifting bridge has a history of getting stuck.
4. The applicant states that the cantilever truss design is the traditional mode of construction for this type of swing bridge and is in keeping with the other six similar bridges on the canal and that, although this design is not necessarily the most economic when considering initial construction or long-term maintenance, its greater reliability and more fitting appearance are considered to be of higher priority.
5. The Environmental Statement Supplement includes a visualisation of the proposed bridge looking south-west from the northern bank of the Ship Canal. It is recognised that the proposed bridge would be much lower than the adjacent Barton High Level (motorway) Bridge and the nearby Chill Factor-e ski slope and that it would therefore not be able to “compete” with these structures. Therefore, it is recognised that, in aesthetic terms, the bridge is designed to relate more to the existing nearby Barton Swing Bridge, which is less than one mile upstream and is easily visible from the new bridge location.
6. Whilst a more creative, site-specific solution to the bridge design might have been preferable, it is accepted that the proposed bridge would be seen in the context of the much higher M60 viaduct immediately adjacent to the site. It is therefore considered that, in terms of design and visual appearance, the proposed bridge is acceptable.
7. The low level swing bridge design does have the disadvantage that it will have to be closed to road traffic at certain times to allow shipping to pass along the canal. However, the low level bridge would allow pedestrian, cycling and public transport routes to be provided more easily. The design of the proposed bridge includes provision for walking and cycling and a corridor reserved for Metrolink / public transport and therefore accords with UDP Policy T8 – Improvements to the Highway Network – in this respect.
8. The application includes details of structural landscaping, showing avenue tree planting (extra heavy standards) along the parallel collector road in the areas where existing vegetation will not be retained. The route of the proposed road will also lead to the creation of a narrow strip of land between the road and the Ship Canal. The applicant has stated that this will be appropriately landscaped with structure planting and managed accordingly.
9. The Environmental Statement states that there will be a need for retaining walls to accommodate embankments on the southern flank of the Ship Canal crossing. It is considered that details of the treatment of retaining walls, together with details of surfacing, barriers, lighting and design of pedestrian crossings will need to be controlled by condition as it is important to ensure that these elements are considered in terms of the visual appearance of the pedestrian environment as well as from a technical, engineering perspective.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The Existing Traffic Situation
10. The M60 crossing of the Manchester Ship Canal via the Barton High Level Bridge is a heavily used traffic route throughout the day and at peak times motorway traffic is extremely slow moving due to traffic volumes on the route. Previous traffic analysis has shown that a significant percentage of trips over the bridge are local in origin and destination, thereby adding high numbers of local vehicles into the more strategic vehicular flows on this section of the motorway network. The resultant locally congested section of the M60 creates problems on both the strategic trunk road network and on the local road network which serves the communities of Davyhulme, Urmston, Flixton etc. in addition to the Trafford Centre and the many other businesses within Trafford Park. In addition, the M60 has the wider role of providing access within the Greater Manchester conurbation and the North West Region. The lack of capacity at certain times of the day on both this section of the M60 and some parts of the local road network is recognised as a serious constraint on the future development potential of major sites within the Ship Canal corridor in the vicinity of the M60 both in Trafford and Salford.
Transport Modelling Work
11. A transportation model has been developed in order to assess the increase in network capacity that would result from the implementation of the WGIS proposals. This modelling work has been carried out by the applicant in close liaison with the two Local Highway Authorities (Trafford & Salford Councils), The Greater Manchester Transportation Unit and the Highways Agency (in respect of impacts on the Motorway network).
12. A growth factor has been applied to existing traffic flows in order to predict the traffic impact in future years. In addition, development traffic likely to be generated by the following major development sites has been added into the modelling: -
1. Salford Reds Stadium;
2. Port Salford;
3. Trafford Quays - although development of this site is not included within the UDP, a notional development of 3000 dwellings and 25,000 sq m of B1 use has been included.
13. The model has been used to assess the traffic impacts in both 2009 and 2018 and has assessed three relevant scenarios:
1. Do-minimum, The do-minimum model includes future traffic growth, any committed highway improvements and development traffic resulting from all major committed developments in the area.
2. Part-WGIS – The Part-WGIS highway improvements are based solely in Salford and also include any committed highway improvements and development traffic detailed above in the do-minimum scenario. The implications of this proposal relate more to the Port Salford development and are considered to have only minor implications for traffic conditions within Trafford.
3. WGIS - The WGIS scheme improvements are detailed in the proposals section above and also include the committed highway improvements and development traffic detailed above in the do-minimum scenario – plus the development traffic associated with the Port Salford development and a notional development on the Trafford Quays site.
14. The model clearly demonstrates that the WGIS scheme provides additional road capacity over that included within the do-minimum scenario, resulting in increased throughput of traffic and reduced congestion. This additional traffic is partly generated by future growth but mainly as a result of the future developments described above.
Travel Time
15. The model analysis shows that, with the future development and the WGIS schemes in place, an overall improvement in travel times would be achieved across the network as a whole, although these benefits would not be evenly distributed. Whilst through motorway trips would gain significant benefits during the busy traffic periods, on the local network there is a mixture of effects with some very significant benefits but also some significant increases in journey time, such as at Village Way, Trafford Park. The primary benefit is to the A57 in Salford and the M60 motorway network between junctions 10 and 11, whilst the additional (previously constrained) demand that is able to enter the network results in increased levels of congestion at some local junctions.
Queue length analysis
16. The queue information analysis shows a similar picture to that of the journey time assessment with overall benefits mostly concentrated on the A57 (in Salford) and on the M60, but some reduced queues at junctions on the local network.
The most significant changes in traffic queues on the local network would be at the following locations: -
M60 Junction 9 – In the am peak period, the modelling with WGIS demonstrates an increase in average queue lengths on all arms of Junction 9 with the highest increases on the Barton Road and Lostock Road arms. In the pm peak, there is an increase in average queue lengths on the Parkway arm and the M60 Southbound off slip.
M60 Junction 10 – In the am peak, the modelling demonstrates a decrease in average queue lengths on all arms except one – the M60 northbound slip. In the pm peak, there would be a decrease in average queue lengths on all arms except one - Trafford Boulevard.
Bridgewater Circle – In both the am and pm peaks, the modelling demonstrates only marginal differences at the two new Bridgewater Circle junctions. The largest queues would be on Trafford Boulevard.
Ellesmere Circle – In the am peak, the modelling demonstrates only marginal differences on the majority of the arms but there is an increase on the Trafford Boulevard arm. In the pm peak, there is a large reduction on the Ashburton Road arm but an increase on the Redclyffe Road arm.
Parkway / Barton Dock Road – In the am peak, the modelling demonstrates only marginal differences in queue lengths. In the pm peak, there are increases in the queue lengths on Parkway and on Barton Dock Road westbound, but drastically reduced queues on Barton Dock Road eastbound.
Parkway access – In the am peak, the modelling demonstrates only slight increases in queue lengths. In the pm peak, there are increased queue lengths on all arms of the junction with the largest increase noted on Parkway northbound.
Junction 10 impacts
It is noted that there is:
▪ proposed widening to the Barton Road entry into Junction 10;
▪ an improvement to the clockwise exit and entry slip roads at Junction 10;
▪ an additional lane on the anti-clockwise carriageway between Junctions 10 and 9 to improve merging and weaving manoeuvres.
17. The transportation modelling demonstrates significant overall reductions in average journey times per vehicle. The 2019 pm peak reduces from 10.54 minutes per vehicle in the do-minimum to 7.56 minutes per vehicle with WGIS installed, therefore a potential saving of 28% of the do minimum time. More specifically from the perspective of drivers travelling from the Urmston/Davyhulme/Flixton areas using Junction 10, the installation of the WGIS scheme would reduce queues on the Barton Road approach in both the 2018 am and pm peaks compared to the do-minimum scenario.
Road layout design
18. It is accepted that the submitted road layout design is not necessarily the final design and that further detailed work will need to be undertaken to provide a layout that offers the greatest benefits in terms of increased capacity, reduced congestion and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and some priority for public transport users. In particular, further details will be required to demonstrate how traffic will be managed when the swing bridge is closed in order to minimise road congestion at busy times.
Conclusion
19. The Trafford application in isolation would merely provide additional carriageway capacity in the immediate area and particularly provide some reduction in congestion on the section of the M60 over the Barton High Level Bridge. As the application proposes no development within Trafford other than this road and bridge it is not a traffic generator in its own right, although the increased capacity will result in some constrained traffic demand being unlocked which will result in some increased flows and greater congestion at pinch-points within the highway network.
20. It is, however, only when potential future developments are included within the assessment of the road scheme that the full potential and impacts of the road can be considered. These major developments (including a notional development of the site referred to as Trafford Quays) are not part of the application but are included within the assessment. It is important to note, however, that many of the impacts demonstrated by the modelling result from future developments, which will be subject to separate detailed assessment and analysis in due course either as separate applications or within the development of future Local Development Frameworks.
21. The traffic modelling therefore provides a reasonably robust overall assessment of the impact of the potential future major developments in the area and shows how the WGIS road proposals would accommodate general and development traffic in the future. The model also provides indications of where specific local problems may arise and does indicate that there would be increases in delay in the area of Village Way. However, it is considered that this is due to the extra traffic flows resulting from future developments causing queues on the local network on roads not benefiting from the WGIS scheme and therefore the impacts of any future proposals will need to be addressed in due course as part of any planning application for those developments.
22. There are clear overall benefits arising from the WGIS scheme that bring additional capacity to the network and produce improved operational conditions. The scheme can accommodate significant increases in traffic on the highway network resulting both from general traffic growth and from future major developments resulting in benefits on both the M60 motorway and the local highway network. It is also clear from the do-minimum assessment that this additional traffic would cause major congestion and increases in travellers’ journey time if such increases in traffic demand were to take place without any significant improvement of the highway network. On the above basis, the LHA therefore raises no objections to the application, subject to conditions.
23. The Highways Agency has assessed the proposal in terms of the impact on the strategic highway network and has directed that a number of conditions should be attached to any permission that is granted. These would include the setting up of appropriate working groups to co-ordinate the development, the submission of detailed designs, construction details and traffic management measures and control of the timing of the development in relation to the Port Salford scheme
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
24. The applicant states that the construction of WGIS would provide the scope to improve bus services by increasing cross-canal linkages and the new Ship Canal bridge would also be able to accommodate the Metrolink if it were to be extended to the Trafford Centre. The scheme does include the provision of a Metrolink / public transport corridor that runs across the proposed canal bridge into Salford. The submitted road layout plans also include details of bus priority lanes in the vicinity of Bridgewater Circle. However it is difficult to assess exactly what benefit would be provided by these facilities as they will need to be fully integrated with other measures on the existing highway network, which do not form part of the current proposals. It is considered essential that there are complimentary improvements to Metrolink routes and bus priority schemes on the existing highway network and within the Trafford Centre (in the vicinity of the bus station) if the full benefit of the public transport facilities included within the WGIS scheme are to be realised. It is also recognised that the detailed design of the road layouts is likely to change over the life of the permission and it is therefore considered that a condition would need to be attached requiring further details and implementation of public transport routes.
PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE LINKS
25. The applicant has submitted a plan showing pedestrian and cycle routes running alongside the proposed roads. These are designed to link up with the existing routes surrounding the site within both Trafford and Salford. The submitted plans also show proposed pedestrian and cycle crossings at two locations within the Trafford application site – one at Junction 10 and one at the new roundabout within the leisure complex area. It is considered that, subject to the detailed design of these routes and crossings, which would need to be required by condition, the proposed development is acceptable in this respect.
AIR QUALITY
26. EU Directive 99/30/EC sets down binding, mandatory limit values for a number of pollutants including particulates (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). These limits come into effect in 2005 for PM10 and 2010 for NO2. The government is committed to meeting these standards and has set national objectives in the UK Air Quality Strategy. Having regard to these standards, Trafford Borough Council and Salford City Council have identified locations within their respective areas where these standards are unlikely to be met. The M60 motorway falls within the Air Quality Management Area declared by Trafford Borough Council and Salford City Council.
27. The Highways Agency has stated that it is content with the approach to the appraisal of air quality set out in the original Environmental Statement and the methodology adopted. The applicant has submitted an updated air quality assessment based on the revised traffic model and, on this basis, the Council’s Environmental Protection section raises no objections with regards to this issue.
NOISE
28. The Environmental Protection Section has stated that there is the potential for noise from increased traffic to have a limited impact on dwellings close to Junction 10 of the M60 and at Primrose Terrace on Redclyffe Road, adjacent to the proposed junction of the new road with Trafford Boulevard (near the existing Junction 10 of the M60). However, the majority of the latter dwellings are within the applicant’s control and are now vacant. The applicant has also submitted an update to the original noise assessment, which concludes that the expected traffic volume changes around Junction 10 are broadly neutral with very low net changes, which means that any noise changes will be less than 1dB and will accordingly be of no noise significance. The applicant has also agreed to provide double glazing for the remaining occupied residential property at 1 Primrose Terrace and it is therefore considered that a condition should be attached to this effect.
OTHER ISSUES
29. The proposed development does not fall within a category that would normally attract a requirement for financial contributions. It is therefore considered that there is no requirement for a Section 106 requirement in respect of this application.
30. The Highways Agency has commented that the proposed highway works are complex, require various statutory orders to be confirmed and need to go through a detailed design process before implementation can occur. The Agency therefore considers that sufficient time will need to be allowed within the consent in order for this to take place. It is therefore considered appropriate, in this particular case, to grant planning permission subject to a time limit of ten years for commencement of development.
CONCLUSION
31. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle in this location. The development accords with the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and would deliver strategic highway improvements, which would allow improved access across the Ship Canal for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport as well as private cars. The development would bring additional capacity to the highway network and produce improved operational conditions and would provide infrastructure to accommodate future development in the area. It is considered that, subject to appropriate conditions, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety. It is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to the following conditions: -
1. Time Limit Condition (Ten Years)
2. Detailed design of bridge and samples and details of materials to be submitted.
3. Landscaping (for the areas of structural planting shown on drawing numbers 01022/PL14 and PL15 and for all other incidental open spaces).
4. No development shall commence until details of all re-grading work and details of existing and proposed ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the application plans 010041/SLP1 Revision.C, M35036 210D, M05013-033 Revision C, , M05013-A-041C Revision C, M05013-A-092, M05013-A-105, M05013-A-106, M05013-A-107, M05013-A-108, M05013-A-109, 010022/PL/05A, 010022/PL14, 010022/PL15 and 0905/02, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Site investigation for contaminated land and landfill gas.
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development/demolition shall take place within the application site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. Details of surface water drainage
9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no piling work through areas of the site that may have the potential for cross contamination to deeper levels shall commence until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall commence until temporary protective metal fencing has been erected along the boundary with the Manchester Ship Canal, the details and precise position of which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be retained in position for the duration of the construction period.
11. Details of scheme for the storage, handling, loading and unloading of fuels, oils, chemicals and effluents during construction.
12. Standard condition for storage of chemicals during construction.
13. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no phase of development shall commence until the detailed design of the pedestrian and cycle routes as illustrated on plan number M05013-A-041C Revision C (including width, typical sections, surfacing materials) and details of the design and width of pedestrian crossings, details of pedestrian barriers, street furniture, street lighting and the design and materials of retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with these details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the first opening for public use of any part of the road network hereby approved, routes for public transport and bus priority lanes shall be provided in accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these routes shall be safeguarded thereafter, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the proposed link road connection to Junction 10 of the M60, double glazed windows shall be installed to the residential dwelling at 1 Primrose Terrace.
16. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of construction, details of the design of the junctions at Bridgewater Circle and Ellesmere Circle shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with these details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
17. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, within three months of the date of this permission, the applicant shall set up and hold an initial meeting of a Port Salford / WGIS Highway Design Group. This grouping shall meet regularly based upon a frequency agreed by all parties at the first meeting.
18. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the development pursuant to this planning permission, the developer shall set up the Port Salford Transportation Steering Group (PSTSG) by meeting with, as a minimum, representatives of the two local highway authorities (Salford and Trafford), the Highways Agency and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.
19. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency, no construction pursuant to this planning permission beyond site remediation measures, shall be commenced unless and until:
a) the detailed design, construction details and traffic management details broadly in accordance with the highway works set out in Plan A (‘Part WGIS’) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency;
b) the statutory orders necessary under the Highways Act 1980 (or any other Act) required for the construction of the additional crossing of the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) have been confirmed;
c) details of the periods of closure to vehicular traffic of the proposed additional crossing of the Ship Canal set out in Plan A have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency;
d) the necessary harbour revision orders, (should such an order be necessary) under the Harbours Act (or other such necessary Act) to limit the navigable rights of way of water based traffic passing along the MSC through the proposed additional crossing shown in Plan A to the times specified in part(c) above have been confirmed;
e) details of a traffic management and advanced driver information strategy to inform drivers and the Highways Agency’s Regional Control Centre (RCC) of the occurrence of the swing bridge shown on Plan A (as part of Part WGIS) being closed to vehicular traffic has been agreed;.
f) the necessary Transport and Street Works Act order or orders (should such orders be necessary) required to implement the rail connection to the development have been confirmed.
20. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency, no development pursuant to this planning approval shall be brought into use unless and until:
a) The highway works as agreed in Condition 19(a) (Part WGIS) have been fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency.
21. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency, no development pursuant to this planning permission beyond site remediation measures, shall be commenced unless and until:
a) the detailed design, construction details and traffic management details broadly in accordance with the highway works set out in Plan C (‘Full WGIS’) have been approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency;
b) the highways orders necessary under the Highways Act 1980 required for the mitigating highway works as identified in Plan C namely:
1. the closure of the M60 Junction 11 southbound on slip;
2. the closure of the M60 Junction 11 northbound off slip;
3. The closure of the M60 Junction 10 southbound off-slip;
have been confirmed;
c) agreement of the periods of closure to vehicular traffic of the proposed additional crossing of the Ship Canal set out in Plan C has been reached with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency;
d) the necessary harbour revision orders, (should such an order be necessary) under the Harbours Act (or other such necessary Act) to limit the navigable rights of way of water based traffic passing along the MSC through the proposed additional crossing shown in Plan C (as part of Full WGIS) to the times specified in part(c) above have been confirmed;
e) details of a traffic management and advanced driver information strategy to inform drivers and the Highways Agency’s Regional Control Centre (RCC) of the occurrence of the swing bridge shown on Plan C being closed to vehicular traffic has been agreed.
22. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency, no development of the Full WGIS scheme pursuant to this planning permission shall be brought into use unless and until:
a) the works as agreed in Condition 21(a) above (Full WGIS) have been fully implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency.
23. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority, no development of the proposed WGIS scheme pursuant to this planning permission shall be brought into use unless and until:
a) any phasing of any parts of the scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority;
b) the detailed design, construction details and traffic management details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority;
c) details of the periods of closure to vehicular traffic of the proposed additional crossing of the Manchester Ship Canal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority;
d) the necessary Harbour Revision Orders under the Harbours Act (or other such necessary Act), should such orders be necessary, to limit the navigable rights of way of water based traffic passing along the Manchester Ship Canal through the proposed additional crossing to the times specified in part c) above have been confirmed;
e) details of a traffic management and advanced driver information strategy to inform drivers of the occurrence of the swing bridge crossing of the Manchester Ship Canal being closed to vehicular traffic have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved in relation to part a) above, the hours of closure of the Ship Canal bridge shall be limited to those approved in part c) above and the approved traffic management and advanced driver information strategy in relation to part e) above shall be operated thereafter. No part of the proposed WGIS scheme pursuant to this planning permission shall be brought into use unless and until the works approved in relation to part b) above have been fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority;
24. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority and GMPTE, the details submitted in relation to part a) of Condition 21 above shall include viable public transport measures to ensure that the approved scheme can contribute to the longer term public transport infrastructure requirements of the area and a timetable for implementation of the measures. The approved public transport measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
SD
|WARD: Bowdon |H/67482 |DEPARTURE: No |
|ERECTION OF TWO- AND THREE-STOREY BUILDING TO FORM 5 APARTMENTS WITH BASEMENT AND SURFACE CAR PARKING AND ASSOCIATED GROUNDWORKS |
|FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS ONTO PARK ROAD. |
|Windswood, 4 Park Road, Bowdon |
|APPLICANT: Egerton Trust |
|AGENT: Barriss Liptrott and Associates |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT |
SITE
The application relates to a site located on the northern side of Park Road in Bowdon between the junction with Pinewood and The Springs on the opposite side of the road. The site measures some 0.21 hectare with a frontage of approximately 28 metres to Park Road and measuring some 80 metres deep. It is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling that is positioned some 40 metres back from the front boundary. There is currently a single access point situated towards the eastern side of the front boundary.
There are four detached houses to the east, accessed from a single access onto Park Road located adjacent to the access to the application site. To the north are flats at Erlesdene on Green Walk. To the west and on the same side of Park Road is the recently completed flats development at Cornhills. On the opposite side of the road are flats at West Thorpe.
The site lies within the Devisdale conservation area – sub-area C. There are no Tree Preservation Orders in place on the site though there is a protected oak tree at Rowansway, the adjacent house.
PROPOSAL
Following the proposed demolition of the existing house and garage (application H/CC/67479 reported elsewhere on this agenda seeks conservation area consent for this demolition) it is proposed to re-develop the site with a development of apartments.
As originally submitted the proposal was for a 6-storey building of 9 apartments. Further to concerns expressed about the scale and design of the development, numerous amendments have been made and the application now to be considered is for a two-and three-storey building comprising 5 apartments. The development would incorporate earthworks to drop the level of the building and also to facilitate the construction of the basement area. The resulting lower ground floor would be some 2 metres below the floor level of the existing house whilst the floor of the basement would be over 5 metres below this level. The proposed building would measure some 10.5 metres to the edge of the higher roof area, though a small pod on the top that provides access to the main roof increases this by a further 2 metres.
The development would incorporate 10 basement parking spaces accessed from the front of the building and 2 surface level visitor spaces at the front of the building. Bin storage and plant areas would also be in the basement area. Access from Park Road would be from the existing access which would be amended and widened. (Separate consents and permission will be required for demolition of existing gateposts and erection of new gates and gateposts as details have not been submitted as part of the current applications).
The building would have an art-deco style. It would be rendered, have a flat roof and would incorporate balconies.
The building would be positioned some 30-32 metres into the site from the Park Road boundary. The basement parking area would require some earthworks and the provision of a retaining wall at the entrance to the basement car park.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Planning Guidance for the North West now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Conservation Area (Devisdale)
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
ENV12 – Species Conservation
ENV14 – Tree and Hedgerow Protection
ENV16 – Tree Planting
ENV21 – Conservation Areas
ENV23 – Development in Conservation Areas
H1 – Land Release for New Housing Development
H2 – Location and Phasing of New Development
H3 – Land Release for Development
H4 – Release of Land for Development
OSR9 – Open Space in New Housing Development
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
D3 – Residential Development
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/CC/48555 - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garage. Granted on 10 February 2000.
H/48554 - Erection of single and two storey extensions to form additional living accommodation following demolition of existing garage. Erection of detached double garage. Planning permission granted on 17 January 2000.
H/56499 (for Cornhill and 4 Park Road) - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 14 apartments together with basement and surface level parking. Withdrawn.
H/CC/56500 - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of 4 Park Road and redevelopment to provide 14 apartments together with basement and surface level parking (consent for demolition of Cornhill already approved under reference H/CC/51449). Withdrawn.
H/CC/67479 - Conservation Area Consent application for demolition of existing detached house and garage. This application is reported elsewhere on this Agenda.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
Accompanying documents include:-
Bat survey
This concludes that:-
- there was no evidence to suggest bats had been present inside the house loft
- there was no access for bats to the upper storey/roof of the garage
- to make provision for bats in the new development would not be imperative but would be a commendable pro-active measure that would ensure the development does not affect the favourable conservation area status of bats by causing a net loss of available bat roosts
- so long as the recommendations are followed the development will not affect the conservation status of bats
- recommendations include advice regarding how and when to demolish and also roost tubes to be installed in each external wall of the new build, towards the eaves and not directly above windows or doors to ensure this development does not cause a net loss of roosting potential for bats
Tree survey
This report relates to the originally submitted development and identifies a number of trees to be removed. These include 11 trees, mostly young, dead or conifers. It does also include the proposed removal of a large sycamore on the front boundary which is identified as moribund.
Design and access statement and justification statement
These reports relate to the originally submitted development and make the following comments:-
- the existing property does not conform to the historic design characteristics of the area, nor does it have the mass and scale of the surrounding Victorian villas
- the existing house does not contribute to or enhance the conservation area
- the relationship of the existing building with the new development at Cornhill is awkward with a sheer gable facing Windswood and the proposals would have a better relationship with that building
- the proposal is for a contemporary, large, villa-sized property of Art Deco appearance which will seek to enhance and preserve the conservation area with a building of similar mass and scale to the Victorian villas
- the contemporary Art Deco would be more appropriate to complement the newly constructed development at Cornhill
- the demolition of the existing large, detached garage which is fairly new would preserve and enhance openness to the side boundaries
- the adjacent dwellings (Marloes, Cornhill) have already been re-developed and the proposals would enhance the street scene rather than look awkward as at present
- the proposals maintain the built mass to the Park Road frontage with a similar eaves/roof line to Marloes and Cornhill
- car parking is largely concealed under the building
- engineering works have been minimised with the proposals
- the high quality apartments proposed are commensurate with the area
- the scheme includes the widening of the access to Park Road and the access will conform to the correct sight lines and include an electrically controlled gate
- the driveway width and parking area will ensure that emergency vehicles are able to access the site
- footpaths within the site will have a shallow gradient
- parking includes provision for disabled drivers
Compliance With Housing Land Supply Policy
The contents of this report are superseded as a result of the new policy position in relation to housing numbers and as such are not reported in detail here.
Traffic study
This report relates to the originally submitted development and concludes that:-
- the site is within an established residential area and is currently used as a single residence
- the traffic the proposed development will generate will be minimal and compared to the potential of the existing use of the site will be totally un-noticeable
- the access to the site will be improved as part of the development
- the parking facilities to be provided as part of the development will be in excess of the LPA’s minimum standards
- there are no highways/traffic related reasons why the proposed development should not be approved
CONSULTATIONS
On the originally submitted plans (6 storeys, 9 apartments):-
LHA – No objections in principle to the proposal. Some amendments required for the proposals to be acceptable on highways grounds. The access arrangements onto Park Road are acceptable.
The suggested amendments have been superseded by the revised plans and as such are not detailed here.
Highways – No objection. Alteration to vehicular crossing to be agreed with the LHA.
Drainage – No objection raised. R2, R6, R9, R10, R12a, R14, R17 and R19
English Heritage – the property is within the Devisdale conservation area. Whilst a mix of architectural styles is discernable in the area it has been designated for its predominantly traditional suburban layout and Victorian architecture. The following comments on the scheme are made:-
- the architectural language is not appropriate to the conservation area setting
- whilst taking a cue from Cornhills the proposal pushes contemporary design towards urban styling
- large mass and scale
- horizontality of proposed elevations are inappropriate to the suburban conservation area setting, those of adjacent buildings (particularly Marloes) are relieved and given verticality
- small and densely presented fenestration increases the impression of scale and urban design
- the size of plot and proportions of existing neighbouring developments may not preclude granting permission for development of this site but for design reasons English Heritage cannot recommend that this particular application is approved. A smaller ore sympathetically designed scheme more in keeping with the conservation area setting should be sought
Any comments on the revised proposals will be included in the Additional Information Report.
REPRESENTATIONS
On the originally submitted plans (6 storeys, 9 apartments):-
Neighbours – 28 letters objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:-
- 6 storey building would be overpowering, have serious impact on character of area and is a massive overdevelopment of a site currently occupied by just one house
- Too high and will dominate surroundings
- Ugly and inappropriate undercroft parking near the front of the site and visible from the road
- Style of building is extremely modern, mainly glass and render, and out of keeping with the conservation area which comprises mainly brick built Victorian buildings
- Too close to Cornhills and will appear as one long, massive building block
- Cornhills is and eyesore, out of keeping with the character of the conservation area and this development will reinforce that negative impact
- The proposal does not comply with the Council’s conservation area policies and would not preserve or enhance the conservation area
- Massive development would further erode the character of the conservation area
- Size would make inappropriate design much more intrusive
- Area has already suffered overdevelopment with apartment blocks
- Loss of light and outlook for neighbours in Cornhills
- Overlooking of neighbouring properties
- Extra traffic, more fumes and loss of trees
- Development will inevitably lead to removal of more trees from the site
- just a council tax raising exercise
- the offset with units on Regent Road is inappropriate, especially as those are small bed-sit type units
- there is a moratorium on replacing family housing with apartment blocks
- new access and increased traffic movements in and out generated by the additional flats will add to the road hazards along this part of Park Road
- this traffic and highway risk is exacerbated by the number of other junctions and bus stops close by
- more pressure on services such as water supply, sewers and drains
- this section of Park Road has been like a building site for a number of years with developments at the Grove Park Hotel site and Cornhills and during this period builders traffic and parking has caused nuisance and danger to road users and pedestrians
Bowdon Conservation Group – Objects to the proposal and raises the following concerns:-
- proposal is a poor example of modern design
- inappropriate for the conservation area
- design uninspiring
- bigger than flats on its western boundary but does not relate in any way to the other surrounding properties
- would not preserve or enhance the conservation area
- apart from Cornhills it would be overdominant in relation to neighbouring properties and would impact adversely on neighbours in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy
- contrary to the principle of the Council’s housing restraint policy
On the amended plans:-
Neighbours – 7 letters received objecting to the revised proposals on similar grounds to those expressed in relation to the originally submitted plans:-
- development is ugly
- it will be overdevelopment and ruin the character of the conservation area
- will create more traffic and result in increased danger on the road and for pedestrians, particularly with the bus stops nearby
- will cause overlooking
- loss of trees and shrubs
Any further comments on the revised plans will be included in the Additional Information Report.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The application proposes the development of 5 new apartments to replace the existing single dwelling on the site and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the adoption of the Regional Spatial Strategy (in September 2008) carries significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.
2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, new RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.
3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the new RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.
4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant new RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.
Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -
“Development should be focused in and around the centres of the towns and cities. Development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on addressing regeneration and housing market renewal and restructuring.”
Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.
Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.
Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in locations that are accessible by public transport to areas of economic growth should be proposed. Emphasis is placed on proposing a high level of development in inner areas to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured to support economic growth.
Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -
“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”
Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -
“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs and support agreed local regeneration strategies.”
5. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the RSS criteria (set out in Policy L4 and Policy MCR3): -
a) Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy;
b) Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,
c) Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport.
In terms of criteria (b) and (c) the proposal can be agreed to be acceptable as it proposes the re-use of previously developed brown-field land and the site is in a location that is served by public transport albeit to a limited level.
In relation to criteria (a), however, the merit of the proposal as a development supportive of a local regeneration strategy is very much less than clear given its relatively distant location (approximately 1.4 km) from the edge of the Altrincham Town Centre Priority Regeneration Areas.
6. The strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the new RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration, and to meet affordable housing needs.
7. Whilst the proposal does not strictly align with the development focus set out in RSS Policies L4 and MCR3 it is modest in scale and cannot be said to conflict with the development focus set by these Policies (the application site being located within the southern part of the city region as defined in the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document of July 2008).
8. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) it is considered that it would not be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4.
9. As such it is considered that in principle the proposed residential development of the site for 5 apartments is acceptable. The development does however raise other site specific issues and these are discussed below.
10. The application when originally submitted in July 2007 was submitted as a combined site proposal with a property at 39 Regent Road in Altrincham at a time when the Council was accepting that approach in respect of the housing land supply SPD. As there is a new policy position at the current time the application has to be assessed in respect of the policies relevant now and the combined site element of the original proposal is not being considered as part of the proposed development for Windswood.
IMPACT ON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF DEVISDALE CONSERVATION AREA
11. The proposed re-development of the site should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Devisdale conservation area in order to be considered acceptable and to comply with the Council’s policies for new development in the area. It is considered that this is the defining issue with this application.
12. The site lies within sub-area C of the Devisdale conservation area which is summarised in the Planning Guidelines for The Downs, The Devisdale, Bowdon and Ashley Heath as ‘Gently curving roads, low stone front boundary walls and gateposts, a wealth of trees and other planting with substantial buildings behind, sometimes visible only in glimpses. Buildings are mainly Victorian built in individual styles often in cream brick, with steep pitched slate roofs and an informal character derived from varied roof lines, gables and bays etc. The overall impression is one of a relaxed and affluent spaciousness with landscaping dominant.” It goes on to say that in sub-area C “there are a number of developments of modern detached houses but the character of views along the main roads is still retained.”
13. The main elements of the scheme that contribute to its impact on the conservation area are its design (including the height and massing of the building), the site coverage including the position of the building on the site, landscaping and also, in this case, the implications of reducing the ground levels across parts of the site to cater for the basement areas. The applicants have drawn attention to the relationship between the existing building and the recently completed development at Cornhill as being detrimental to the conservation area and this too is a valid consideration.
14. The proposed building is clearly of a significantly greater mass than the existing house on the site though this in itself does not mean the proposal is unacceptable. In terms of its width the proposal measures some 21.5 metres compared to the existing house which is 19.5 metres across. There is also a detached garage which extends the existing built form on the site to approximately 31 metres across. The main part of the proposed building would be 10.5 metres high above the new lower ground level compared to approximately 7.5 metres for the existing house to ridge height above the existing ground level.
15. In terms of its position on the site the proposed building would be set back some 30-32 metres from the road frontage. This is closer than the existing house and terrace by some 8 metres but is on a similar line to the building on the adjacent site at Cornhills. The houses to the east are much closer with Rowansway being only 14 metres from the front boundary (though the house itself is far smaller than the current proposal or Cornhills); the large buildings on the opposite side of the road – West Thorpe and Belmont – also in the region of 14 metres back from the front boundary. It is considered that the position of the building on site is acceptable. The development would also have the benefit of providing some screening to the side of the Cornhills development and providing a far better relationship between the buildings on these two sites which would be a positive benefit to the conservation area.
16. The existing building is positioned approximately 3-4 metres from the boundary with Cornhills and whilst the main house is between 4 and 22 metres from the eastern boundary the detached garage fills that gap. To the rear boundary there is some 18-24 metres from the main rear elevation. The proposed building would retain some 2.5 – 4 metres to the boundary with Cornhills, some 4-17 metres to the eastern boundary and 17-23 metres to the rear boundary. The existing house has a long driveway that runs from the front boundary up along the eastern side boundary to a hardstanding area in front of the double garage; there is also a terraced area to the front and a small patio to the rear.
17. The applicants have submitted a street scene drawing that shows the proposed development with the Cornhills development and Marloes beyond as well as showing the smaller houses to the east. In terms of its massing the building clearly relates better to the new apartments developments to the west than to the older houses to the east, the overall height above street level is similar to the existing and at three-storeys it would not be out of character with the surrounding area.
18. The existing house is at a slightly raised level on the site and the proposal will cut into this area. This will enable the lower ground floor to be set at a lower level than the ground floor of the existing house – by some 2 metres – and will enable the formation of a basement parking area below this. A similar approach was taken with the Cornhills development at the adjacent site. Whilst these two elements help to reduce the above ground impact of elements of the proposal (overall height kept down and parking hidden) it does result in new elements that may not be considered to be ideal:- a new opening to the basement car park and also the formation of a new slope and artificial ground level to cater for the basement. In this case the layout of the driveway has been designed to position the new entrance away from the entrance into the site and will be fairly well screened by existing boundary trees and landscaping. The basement extends beyond the floor plan of the building above and it is proposed that the top of the basement area will be grassed over; similarly, the area between the edge of the basement and the driveway will be infilled to create a slope that will be grassed and will incorporate planted areas. It is considered that with appropriate landscaping treatment the visual impact of the reduced levels and the basement car parking area will be able to be minimised and by removing the existing driveway which is opposite the entrance and replacing it with landscaping and a pedestrian pathway, the views into the site in this respect would be improved.
19. The building incorporates elements of Art-Deco styling and does read as a coherently and well styled building in itself, it is considered therefore to be of good design. In terms of architectural style, there is no reason why such an approach should not be accepted in this conservation area where there is a mix of styles and periods.
20. Details of front boundary treatments and the new gates and gateposts have not been submitted as part of this application and a separate application will be required for such works.
21. Overall it is considered that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Devisdale conservation area and by addressing the poor relationship between the existing house and Cornhills would make a positive contribution to the conservation area.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
22. It is considered that the position of the proposed building in relation to neighbouring properties is such that there would be no undue loss of light nor would the building in its amended form appear overbearing. It would be over 50 metres from properties on Green Walk with good tree cover in between. In relation to properties at Cornhills, the development would be on a similar building line and would not cause undue overshadowing of the rear amenity area. Cornhills does not have main habitable room windows in the east facing side elevation and those windows that are in this elevation facing the site are required by condition on the planning permission for that development (H/64351) to be obscure glazed and as such no individual apartment at Cornhills would be seriously affected. Houses at Sevenoaks and Rowansway to the east are positioned some 20 and 12 metres respectively from the boundary of the application site and approximately 25 metres from the closest part of the proposed building. It is considered that there would be no direct impact on those properties in terms of loss of light nor would the building appear overbearing.
23. There is a potential issue in respect of overlooking from the proposed development in particular to the detached houses to the east. Windows in the side elevation of the proposed building would include main living room (on the front curved part of the elevation), kitchen and en-suite rooms at lower and upper ground floors. The upper ground floor property would also include a balcony at the front corner of the building. These would be between 8 and 11 metres from the eastern boundary (distances vary due to the way that this boundary curves around the building). At first floor level there would be a large roof terrace area with large patio doors opening out onto it. The edge of this terrace would be between 4 and 11 metres from the boundary and the patio windows would be some 12 to 18 metres from the boundary. That terraced area would include a 1.7 metre high glazed screen around its rear corner closest to the eastern side boundary. These windows and terrace area would face the access drive to Sevenoaks and Rowansway and onto garden areas. The relative orientation of the properties and distances involved (the front elevation of Sevenoaks is some 25 metres from the closest point of the roof terrace whilst there would be a minimum of 26 metres to the rear corner of the property at Rowansway) is such that there would be no direct interlooking with main front and rear windows at these adjacent houses. Given the distances, relative orientations and tree cover, it is also considered that the level of overlooking of garden areas would not unduly affect the levels of privacy currently enjoyed by occupiers of those properties.
TREES
24. Amendments to the proposed development have removed the basement area close to the trees on the eastern boundary. It is not proposed to remove any significant trees from the site and given the reduced scheme and in particular the reduced basement area there is no undue concern, subject to conditions, that the development would require the removal of or cause harm to the adjacent trees (there is a protected oak tree in the north-western corner of the garden at Rowansway - TPO 176 T1). Additional planting as part of a landscaping scheme would compensate for the loss of the smaller and less important trees that are identified for removal.
TRAFFIC
25. The proposed development for 5 apartments with 2 car parking spaces each, plus 2 visitor spaces, would add some traffic to the road in the vicinity and would increase the number of vehicular (and pedestrian) movements in and out of the site. The access to the site would be retained in its existing position but would be widened by about 0.5 metre to 4.4 metre, a sliding gate across the access would be set back 6 metres from the edge of the highway which is about 1 metre more than the current gate. It is considered that the level of additional traffic would be relatively limited and would not result in an adverse impact on highway or pedestrian safety or convenience in the vicinity of the site.
26. Car parking levels are acceptable and meet the Council’s guidelines for flats. Cycle storage/parking facilities could be provided by way of condition attached to planning permission if granted.
OTHER ISSUES – RED ROSE FOREST AND OPEN SPACE
Red Rose Forest
27. The Council’s approved SPG for Developer Contributions Towards Red Rose Forest (September 2004) sets out where developments should contribute to tree planting in the Red Rose Forest area. The requirement applies to most residential developments across the Borough. A residential development requires 3 new trees per dwelling or 1 per apartment. Tree planting should normally be required to be on site. The development for 5 apartments proposed should therefore provide 5 trees. It is considered that in this location it would be preferable for the tree planting to be on site, to enhance the visual amenity of the area and to give a continued tree cover in the conservation area. A s106 agreement will be required to ensure adequate tree planting on site or financial contribution (at a rate of £235 per tree) to off site planting.
Open Space
28. The site is within an area of deficiency for open space and play space. The Council’s approved SPG on Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums (September 2004) sets out when developers will be expected to contribute to such provision. For residential development, there is a set method of calculating the contributions based on the number of dwellings and number of bedrooms. In this case, there are 4 two-bedroom and 1 three-bedroom apartments proposed. On this basis the contribution would be £6253.44 towards open space provision and £2968.87 towards outdoor sports facilities – a total of £9222.31.
RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT
A: That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon the completion of an appropriate s106 agreement and that such an agreement be entered into to secure a financial contributions towards off-site open space provision (£6253.44) and outdoor sports facilities (£2968.87); and a sum of £1175 as a contribution towards Red Rose Forest tree planting off site (to be reduced by £235 per tree planted on site as part of an agreed planting scheme);
B: That upon receipt of a satisfactory agreement planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:-
1. Standard
2. Amended plans – 16 January 2009
3. Materials – conservation area
4. Tree protection No.1
5. Landscaping
6. Bats – to follow the recommendations of the submitted Bat Survey including the installation of bat roost tubes in the construction of the proposed building
7. Contaminated land
8. Provision of access facilities no2
9. Retention of access facilities
10. Notwithstanding the submitted plans the screen to the terrace on the eastern side of the building shall be extended beyond the position indicated (by approximately 5 metres). Development shall not be carried out until details of the screen have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the screen has been erected in accordance with the approved details. The approved screen shall be retained thereafter.
GE
|WARD: Bowdon |H/CC/67479 |DEPARTURE: No |
|CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DETACHED HOUSE AND GARAGE |
|Windswood, 4 Park Road, Bowdon |
|APPLICANT: Egerton Trust |
|AGENT: Barris Liptrott and Associates |
|RECOMMENDATION: GRANT |
SITE
The application relates to a site located on the northern side of Park Road in Bowdon between the junction with Pinewood and The Springs on the opposite side of the road. The site measures some 0.21 hectare with a frontage of approximately 28 metres to Park Road and measuring some 80 metres deep. It is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling that is positioned some 40 metres back from the front boundary. There is currently a single access point situated towards the eastern side of the front boundary.
There are four detached houses to the east, accessed from a single access onto Park Road located adjacent to the access to the application site. To the north are flats at Erlesdene on Green Walk. To the west and on the same side of Park Road is the recently completed flats development at Cornhills. On the opposite side of the road are flats at West Thorpe.
The site lies within the Devisdale conservation area – sub-area C. There are no Tree Preservation Orders in place on the site.
PROPOSAL
This application seeks conservation area consent to demolish the existing house and garage. A related application to re-develop the site is reported elsewhere on this Agenda – planning application H/67482.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Conservation Area (Devisdale)
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
ENV12 – Species Protection
ENV14 – Tree and Hedgerow Protection
ENV21 – Conservation Areas
ENV23 – Development in Conservation Areas
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/CC/48555 - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garage. Granted on 10 February 2000.
H/48554 - Erection of single and two storey extensions to form additional living accommodation following demolition of existing garage. Erection of detached double garage. Planning permission granted on 17 January 2000.
H/56499 (for Cornhill and 4 Park Road) - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 14 apartments together with basement and surface level parking. Withdrawn.
H/CC/56500 - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of 4 Park Road and redevelopment to provide 14 apartments together with basement and surface level parking (consent for demolition of Cornhill already approved under reference H/CC/51449). Withdrawn.
H/67482 – Erection of two and three storey building to form 5 apartments with basement and surface car parking and associated groundworks following demolition of existing buildings. Alterations to existing access onto Park Road. This application is reported elsewhere on this Agenda.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways – No comments to make.
Drainage – No comment to make.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – In respect of the submitted bat survey, the survey found no evidence of bats but made a number of precautionary recommendations and it is suggested that these form part of the conditions of any permission if granted.
REPRESENTATIONS
Neighbours – 26 letters of objection raising concerns in respect of the proposed re-development but also making the following comments in respect of the proposed demolition:-
- the existing is a fine property that has recently been extensively renovated and gardens re-landscaped
- the characteristics of Bowdon architecture are being eroded at a rapid rate
- in order to preserve the appearance of the area which has already suffered from an over-development with apartment blocks it is essential to preserve Windswood
- the present house at Windswood is architecturally attractive and adds much to the character of the conservation area
Bowdon Conservation Group – Objects to the proposed development and demolition of the property.
OBSERVATIONS
IMPACT ON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE DEVISDALE CONSERVATION AREA
1. The site lies within sub-area C of the Devisdale conservation area which is summarised in the Planning Guidelines for The Downs, The Devisdale, Bowdon and Ashley Heath as ‘Gently curving roads, low stone front boundary walls and gateposts, a wealth of trees and other planting with substantial buildings behind, sometimes visible only in glimpses. Buildings are mainly Victorian built in individual styles often in cream brick, with steep pitched slate roofs and an informal character derived from varied roof lines, gables and bays etc. The overall impression is one of a relaxed and affluent spaciousness with landscaping dominant.” It goes on to say that in sub-area C “there are a number of developments of modern detached houses but the character of views along the main roads is still retained.”
2. The existing house at Windswood is a fine property in good condition. It has spacious gardens to the front and is attractively landscaped. It does not, however, date to the Victorian period and appears to be more like an inter-war property. It sits well within the conservation area but given the characteristics of the conservation area it could not be described as making a positive contribution to this character, rather it makes a neutral contribution. Its relationship to the new development at Cornhills in particular is poor.
3. It is considered that the loss of the existing property would not significantly detract from the character or appearance of the conservation area to such a degree that conservation area consent should be refused; this is subject to a satisfactory replacement development being approved.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:-
1. Standard conservation area condition
2. Consent tying to redevelopment
3. Tree protection No.1
GE
|WARD: Urmston |H/70220 |DEPARTURE: No |
|Erection of 1.8m high paladin fencing along west boundary of site following removal of existing 1.8m wire mesh fence. Removal of fencing |
|between piers and vehicular access gates along eastern boundary of site and replacement with paladin fencing and vehicular access gates. |
| |
|181 Higher Road, Urmston |
|APPLICANT: Mr. Paul Mason |
|AGENT: Mr. Mark Davies. |
|RECOMMENDATION: GRANT |
SITE
The site comprises a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses of an almost triangular plot on the northern side of Higher Road. The area is made up of a variety of uses including a bathroom showroom on the southern side of Higher Road directly opposite the site, terraced housing within both Albert Avenue to the west and Poplar Grove to the east. To the north west of the site, there is a Jewish burial ground with access from both Chapel Grove and Albert Avenue.
The Kingdom Hall itself is located at the southern side of the site, directly adjacent to Higher Road and having a private car park to its rear accessed from an unadopted highway adjacent to its north eastern corner. This highway bounds the site and is to the rear of, and links to, terraced properties fronting onto both Albert Avenue and Poplar Grove. These terraced properties all have small rear yards enclosed by 2m high walls along the eastern boundary and a 1.6m fence along the western boundary.
The car park itself is directly to the rear of the Kingdom Hall and along its eastern and northern boundaries, there is a wall with piers that have a maximum height of 2m. The piers are sited at approximately 2.4m centres and sit directly above a wall approximately 0.6m in height.
Along the western boundary of the site, there is a wire mesh fence approximately 1.8m in height and approximately 50m in length.
PROPOSAL
Removal of existing wire mesh fencing along the western boundary of the site and replacement with a paladin fence that would be 1.8m in height and approximately 50m in length. Along the north and eastern boundaries, the existing wall and piers would remain, but the existing means of enclosure between the piers would be removed and replaced with paladin fencing. The overall height of this part of the enclosure would remain the same at approximately 2m.
Further to this, the existing vehicular access gates would be removed and replaced with inward opening paladin gates of a similar height and width as existing.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
None
PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
D1 – All New Development.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None relevant to current application.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The applicant wishes to improve the appearance of the existing wire mesh fence and increase the security of the car park. This is due to youths who can currently access the area and create noise and disturbance to properties that surround the car park.
The proposed paladin fencing was chosen for its appearance and strength and, being a relatively fine mesh, would not allow easy footholds for would be intruders. The removal of “sharp standards and fittings” would also be more child and neighbour friendly.
CONSULTATIONS
LHA – No objections subject to “Zebex” paladin fencing being used.
REPRESENTATIONS
Neighbours: In relation to the application as originally submitted, a petition of 30 signatures from 24 different properties and 4 individual letters of objection were received. Two of the individual letters had also signed the petition.
The concerns raised in relation to the proposed fencing and access gates are summarised as follows:
- The small spacing between the fencing would create a prison like appearance and reduce passage of light during the day and visibility during the night
- The fencing would affect the outlook of properties and create visual intrusion to neighbouring occupiers
- The height of the fencing at 2.2m would be excessive and be out of character with neighbouring Victorian terraced properties.
OBSERVATIONS
IMPACT UPON THE STREETSCENE
1. The Council’s Guidelines: “Fencing” (which should also be taken to relate to walls or gates) states that: “Security is a problem which is behind many applications for fencing but achieving security should not be done in a way which is at the expense of the character and amenity of the surroundings. In most cases a solution can be found which will meet security needs and look acceptable”. The Guidelines also state that the choice of fencing or other boundary treatment can have a significant effect on the overall appearance of a property or the character of an area.
2. The street scene within the immediate area of the car park is characterised by Victorian terraced properties with small rear yards that are enclosed by 2m high rear boundary walls along the eastern side and a 1.6m fence along the western side of the application site. The car park’s appearance is currently in need of attention whereby the wire mesh fencing along the western boundary detracts from the area’s character. It is considered that the removal of this and the replacement with a 1.8m paladin fence would enhance the appearance of the car park, provide further security to it and maintain the openness of the area bounded by the terraced properties.
3. The proposal also includes the removal of fencing between piers along the north and eastern boundaries and its replacement with paladin fencing to the same height as existing. This would help to improve security and would not detract from the character or appearance of the area.
4. As the car park is located directly behind the Kingdom Hall, the streetscene along Higher Road would be unaffected by the proposed development.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
5. The proposed amendments to the scheme have lowered the proposed 2.2m high wall and fencing to the existing height of 1.8 metres. As a result of this, it is considered that the amendments will result in a development that will have no detrimental impact on residential amenity and hopefully reduce anti social behaviour by providing a more secure means of enclosure for the car park.
CONCLUSION
6. It is considered that the proposed alterations to the perimeter of the car park would be acceptable within the street scene and would not be unduly detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with Proposals D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s ‘Fencing’ guidelines and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions:
1) Standard
2) Materials
3) Colour scheme for fencing.
GD
|WARD: Bowdon |H/70384 |DEPARTURE: No |
|DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF NINE DWELLINGS (SIX SEMI-DETACHED AND THREE TERRACED), FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS ROAD AND |
|ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. |
|Vale Court, Hall Road, Bowdon |
|APPLICANT: Trafford Housing Trust |
|AGENT: TADW Architects |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT |
SITE
The application site is located on a bend on Hall Road to the west of Vicarage Lane, Bowdon. It comprises a large, 2-storey building which was until recently in use as sheltered accommodation for the elderly. Residents have been/are being decanted into more appropriate accommodation by Trafford Housing Trust. The site currently has vehicular access onto Hall Road on the east side of the site, a car park on its south side and grassed areas around the building.
To the north and east of the site are predominantly two storey detached residential properties. To the south is a development of two-storey apartments (The Lymes) and to the west are allotment gardens. The area is predominantly residential, although is in close proximity to shops, offices and other commercial uses on Vicarage Lane to the east.
PROPOSAL
Permission is sought for the erection of 9 two-storey dwellings on the site following demolition of the existing building. Four of the proposed dwellings would be for shared ownership and five for open market sale.
The scheme includes 6 semi-detached dwellings and 3 terraced dwellings and construction of a new access road into the site off Hall Road. There would be 2 pairs of semi-detached houses fronting Hall Road on the northern side of the site and 3 terraced and 2 semi-detached dwellings fronting the new access road on the southern side of the site.
Since the original submission, amended plans have been submitted in response to concerns over the extent of hardstanding to the front of the dwellings and the comments of the LHA on the proposed parking arrangements. This has increased the gap between plot 9 and Hedgeside and the gap between the two pairs of semi-detached dwellings fronting Hale Road. It also resulted in the tenure mix changing from 5 shared ownership and 4 open market sale to 4 shared ownership and 5 open market sale. Earlier in the process the applicant had amended the proposed dwellings, including an increase in the overall depth of each dwelling, single storey elements added to the rear of some of the dwellings, pitched roof canopies over the front doors and other elevational changes.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Adopted Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
None
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
ENV4 – Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands
ENV14 – Tree and Hedgerow Protection
H1 – Land Release for Development
H4 – Housing Development
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
D3 – Residential Development
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
A Design and Access Statement, Arboricultural Statement and Bat Survey have been submitted in support of the proposal.
The submission states that Vale Court is one of four schemes in Trafford having an uncertain future. It states that these properties are in poor physical condition and do not offer modern facilities. The size of investment required to bring these up to a decent standard and that would be sustainable over a longer period in time would have led to the Trust making a substantial loss on these properties and a failure to identify the needs within the Council’s Housing Market Assessment. The Trust has identified that the priority need within these areas was for family accommodation, so any investment in the current structures would not have tackled long-term demand issues.
Through the redevelopment of the current sheltered schemes the Trust is aiming to contribute to the development of mixed communities through replacing these sites with mixed housing in terms of tenures and types. On this site THT would look to develop a range of family properties for sale, rent and shared ownership. The shared ownership properties would go some way to addressing the affordability and intermediate housing issues that were raised as part of the Housing Market Assessment. In addition THT would be aiming to use proceeds from the sale of the open market dwellings to support the development of other affordable homes across the Borough, in particular the proposed development off Winchester Road, Lostock, Stretford (Application H/69416).
CONSULTATIONS
LHA – Comments on the latest amended plans not available at time of preparing this report, although they have indicated that the amended proposals appear to be acceptable. Any further comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.
The previous comments, which pre-date the amended plans and which the amended plans seek to address, are as follows:
▪ To meet the Council’s car parking standards the provision of two car parking spaces per dwelling should be provided. The site layout plan demonstrates this level of provision and there are no objections in principle, however the location and arrangement of some of the car parking spaces (specifically plot 6) are not acceptable on highways grounds.
▪ The proposals include a number of new dropped kerbs to be provided; therefore the applicant’s attention is drawn to the need to gain further approval from Trafford Council’s Streetworks Section for the construction, removal or amendment of a pavement crossing under the provision of section 184 of the Highways Act 1980. In addition, it is noted that the provision of a new access road is proposed as part of the proposals, and it is critical that the Highways, Bridges and Structures Team provides comments on the acceptability of this road layout and turning head.
▪ The applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.
Built Environment (Highways) – No objection and comment as follows:
▪ The alterations to the adopted highway will need to be agreed with the LHA.
▪ It is unlikely that the new access road will be adopted by the LHA.
Built Environment (Drainage) – Informatives to be attached to any permission.
Built Environment (Street Lighting) – No comment
Built Environment (Public Rights of Way) – Comment that on the balance of probability there is a public right of way to the rear boundary.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit –support the proposal in principle but raise the following concerns relating to the layout and boundaries:
▪ It is not clear from the plan where the parking space for plot 7 is – this should be ideally within the curtilage or otherwise overlooked by the property. The area behind plot 6 is not suitable for this purpose.
▪ Plot 2 appears to have no apparent access to the rear garden apart from through the house. This is good from a security point of view, however the location of wheelie bins at the front of the property needs to be more carefully considered – these need to be secured within a purpose made structure sufficiently distant from the property so they don’t provide a fire risk.
▪ The boundary with the allotments should be at least 2.1m high (this can be achieved with 1.8m fencing and 300mm trellis above).
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objections. Comment as follows:
▪ The bat survey has been undertaken by a licensed and experienced bat consultant whose work is known to the Ecology Unit. The survey found no evidence of bats at the time of survey but did consider the building to have high potential to support bats. A number of recommendations are therefore made and we would suggest that these are required through a planning condition, should permission be granted (paragraphs 5.1-5.3). In addition as the building has high roosting potential that will be lost, provision must be made within the development to replace this potential. This could be through the use of bat boxes/bat tubes or the use of bat bricks to provide access to the new buildings. Again it is recommended that this be required by a condition. As trees are to be felled as part of this application, we would recommend that a condition be attached to any permission that there should be no works to or felling of any trees and scrub during the main bird breeding season (March to July inclusive).
REPRESENTATIONS
Neighbours – 8 letters received in response to the originally submitted plans and 9 further letters in response to the amended plans. Any further responses received in relation to the latest amended plans will be included in the Additional Information Report. The concerns raised to date are summarised as follows:
Character and appearance:
▪ Density and type of development would be overdevelopment of the site and out of character with existing low density detached housing in the area.
▪ Proposal would leave little space to adjacent properties, resulting in cramped appearance, overbearing impact and loss of privacy to neighbours.
▪ Proposed buildings protrude beyond the building line and would have an overbearing visual impact.
▪ Proposals will create a sense of encroachment and give a feeling of high density living to existing residents.
▪ Off road parking to the front of the houses with no front gardens would be out of character with the rest of the road. Lack of green space is out of keeping with surrounding houses. Existing parking at Vale Court is hidden away at the rear.
▪ Being on a prominent bend in the road would make the visual impact and over dominant design even more noticeable.
▪ The design is very plain and simplistic which exacerbates the poor quality aspect onto Hall Road. Design is out of character with existing houses on Hall Road.
▪ Proposed landscaping fails to meet the objective set out in the Design and Access Statement. Additional hedging and trees should be planted along the Hall Road frontage.
▪ A smaller number of properties with more space and greenery would be more in keeping with Hall Road.
Traffic and highway safety:
▪ Proposal would add to traffic congestion and parking pressures on this part of Hall Road. It would generate more traffic than the existing use.
▪ Hall Road is used by parents and children to walk to the two local primary schools. The addition of nine houses would limit parking, cause congestion and result in unnecessary risk, especially to small children.
▪ Proposals would increase risk of accidents with cars having to back out onto the road on a bend. Also conflict with cars leaving 17 Hall Road due to the road having limited visibility due to the bend. There is already concern over parked cars on the bend during the daytime due to lack of parking for the offices on Vicarage Lane.
▪ Hall Road should be considered for a ‘Homezone’ scheme with a 20mph speed restriction and the street prioritised for people, cyclists and play activities.
▪ Hall Road is already of extremely poor quality and should be resurfaced.
▪ Any approval should require adequate maintenance of the new access.
Other issues:
▪ There is a greater need for sheltered housing for the elderly in this area rather than family housing.
▪ The need for low cost housing is questioned when there are empty flats next door to the site.
▪ Both local primary schools are already oversubscribed.
▪ Request confirmation that there is sufficient bin space to the rear to accommodate proposals for improved recycling bins and not just domestic refuse bins.
▪ The high proportion of paved area creates a large impermeable area which has a negative impact on groundwater recharge and leaves little space for landscaping and planting. This is unsustainable and out of character with the area.
▪ Plans do not seem to have proper regard to the views of the neighbourhood. Report on the consultation process is misleading and does not represent neighbours’ views.
▪ The amended plans do not address the concerns raised previously.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT – RSS SPATIAL/HOUSING POLICY
1. The application proposes the development of two new dwellings and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy published by the Secretary of State in March 2008 must now carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.
2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, the Proposed Changes to the RSS Policy L4 significantly raise the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.
3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the Proposed RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.
4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Proposed Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.
5. Proposed Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -
“As far as possible growth should be focused in their centres and inner areas but development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on areas in need of regeneration (particularly the Housing Market Renewal areas).”
6. Proposed Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.
Proposed Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.
7. Proposed Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in public transport accessible locations with strong economic prospects should be encouraged to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured.
8. Proposed Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -
“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”
9. Proposed Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -
“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs, and any general market housing (in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport) should support agreed local regeneration strategies.”
10. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a mixed tenure development, with 4 units for shared ownership and 5 for open market sale. They would all be family houses of 2-3 bedrooms. The submission states that the shared ownership properties would go some way to addressing the affordability and intermediate housing issues that were raised as part of the Housing Market Assessment. In addition Trafford Housing Trust would be aiming to use proceeds from the sale of the open market dwellings to support the development of other affordable homes across the Borough, in particular the proposed development off Winchester Road, Lostock, Stretford (Application H/69416).
11. Having regard to the above the affordable element of the proposal would comply with the RSS in that it would meet identified local housing needs (particularly for affordable housing). With regard to the houses for open market sale, Policy L4 of the RSS requires general market housing to be in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport and should support agreed local regeneration strategies. The site is considered to be within a sustainable location and well served by public transport as there are bus stops on Vicarage Lane. With regard to supporting agreed local regeneration strategies it is acknowledged that the site is not within one of the Priority Regeneration Areas designated by the Council, however it would form part of a strategy that aims to redevelop four sites in Trafford that will provide more affordable housing in the Borough. The applicant has stated that the Vale Court scheme will be used to raise necessary funds to develop sites on the Lostock estate which have been cleared for up to 5 years. It is considered these improvements to the stock of affordable housing in the Borough would justify the number of open market houses proposed in this application.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT – PPS3
12. One of the key objectives set out in PPS3 is the priority on re-using previously developed land within urban areas in preference to the development of greenfield sites. The redevelopment of a site within the urban area for housing is therefore acceptable in principle and in accordance with PPS3 and the principles of sustainable development, subject to compliance with the Council’s policies relating to the impact of the development on the character of the area, neighbouring properties and highway safety.
13. Guidance contained in PPS3 encourages development at 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare to make the best use of previously developed land. The density of the proposed development equates to approximately 38 dwellings per hectare. This is consistent with the density encouraged in PPS3 and is considered acceptable in principle. A higher density - closer to 50 dwellings per hectare - is unlikely to be acceptable in this location where surrounding housing is at relatively low density.
IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA
14. The proposed development would be different to the prevailing form of development found on Hall Road in that it would comprise semi-detached and terraced dwellings whereas Hall Road is otherwise comprises detached dwellings at relatively low density. In addition, some of the proposed dwellings would not front onto Hall Road and instead front onto a new access road extending into the site which would introduce an unusual form of development into the area given that most existing buildings have a frontage onto Hall Road. In these respects the proposed layout and dwelling type would contrast with the pattern of development on Hall Road. It is acknowledged however, that the existing Vale Court development is itself different to its surroundings in that it comprises a single, large multi-occupancy building. There is also an important requirement to make the best use of the land available, as advised by PPS3. The shape of the site is such that if frontage development only were proposed it would leave land in the south west corner of the site undeveloped or left as garden. This would not optimise the land available and therefore it is considered appropriate to provide an access into the site and for dwellings to front onto this access.
15. The four semi-detached dwellings on the northern part of the site would be positioned on a similar alignment relative to Hall Road as the dwellings to the north and incorporate a staggered building line to reflect the curvature of Hall Road. The proposed dwellings to the south part of the site would be positioned slightly set back from the alignment of the dwellings to the east on Hall Road. When viewed from Hall Road to the east the proposed development would retain a gap of 2m to the boundary with Hedgeside, widening to 2.6m at the rear. There would be a gap of 2.2m between the two pairs of semi’s detached houses fronting Hall Road. These gaps between buildings would be less than that typical of Hall Road, however it is not considered it would appear as a cramped form of development or detrimental to the area’s character as the dwellings are semi-detached and narrower than the detached houses in the vicinity and so consequently require less space around them. In addition the semi-detached dwellings would follow a staggered building line which would help break up the massing of the buildings and avoid a continuous line of development across that part of the site. Elsewhere the development would retain a gap of 14m between the semi-detached dwellings and the dwellings facing the access road and the terraced dwellings on the southern part of the site would retain 4.17m to the boundary with Fairhaven. These distances would be comparable to others in the immediate vicinity and typical of Hall Road. It is considered this siting and space retained around the development would be compatible with the surrounding area.
16. The proposed dwellings, parking and turning areas and access road would result in a relatively large amount of building and hard area coverage which would alter the present appearance of the site which has an open grassed area to the front. In response to this concern amended plans have been submitted which amend plots 8 and 9 to 2-bed units rather than 3-bed in order that their parking provision can be reduced from 2 spaces each to 1 space each. This in turn has allowed for a front lawn to be provided in front of these two dwellings instead of hardstanding for 4 cars. There is still some concern that the extent of hardstanding to the front of these dwellings and plot 6 would affect the character of the streetscene but it is not considered this would be so harmful that it would justify refusal of the application. Overall the development would still retain a reasonable amount of green space in the form of gardens to the front and rear and trees and shrubs surrounding the site. The rear garden depths of plots 1 to 5 comply with the recommended length of 10.5m set out in the Council’s guidelines for new residential development. The gardens at plots 6 and 9 (and marginally at plot 8) would fall short of this guideline, however this would not adversely impact on the character of the area as the size of garden is considered proportionate to the size of dwelling and as there are allotments to the rear there are no buildings in close proximity.
17. The proposed dwellings are of a relatively simple and traditional form, constructed in multi-red facing brickwork with contrasting buff soldier course and grey concrete interlocking tiles. The detailing includes front gables to plots 1 and 5, canopies to the front doors, timber casement windows with headers and cills and string course between ground and first floor. The height of the proposed dwellings would be comparable to nearby detached dwellings in terms of eaves and ridge heights. In terms of their size, design and materials of construction it is considered that the proposed dwellings would have acceptable impact within the streetscene.
18. The proposed boundary treatment to Hall Road is indicated as being 600mm high brick walls with railings above to an overall height of 900mm. The Design and Access Statement refers to planting behind the wall where possible and there would also be 4 metal gates to the entrance paths to plots 6 to 9. Although hedges and low brick walls are predominant on Hall Road it is not considered boundary treatment of this height would be intrusive or out of character with the street scene.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
19. Hedgeside is a two storey detached dwelling to the north of the proposed development. The proposed development would extend to within 1.3m of the boundary with this dwelling at its front corner, widening to approx 1.8m at the rear. It would not extend beyond the rear elevation of Hedgeside. The development would not therefore significantly impact on light or outlook from any windows in that dwelling.
20. In relation to Fairhaven to the east the proposed development would retain 4.2m to this boundary and there is also an existing gap of approximately 4m between the boundary and the side gable of Fairhaven. The proposed dwellings would extend beyond the rear elevation of Fairhaven but given the gaps retained on both sides of the boundary it is not considered they would significantly impact on the outlook from its rear windows or result in unacceptable overshadowing.
21. To the rear of the site there are two-storey apartments (The Lymes) which are positioned relatively close to the boundary and with windows facing the site. The Council’s Guidelines for New Residential Development recommend distances of 10.5 metres to rear garden boundaries from main windows and 27 metres across private gardens where there are major facing windows. To the boundary with The Lymes the proposed dwellings would retain distances of between 14.5m at its closest (plot 4) and 16m at its furthest (plots 1 and 2) which complies with the 10.5m set out in the Council’s guidelines. Between the buildings themselves distances of approximately 19.7m at its closest (plot 1) to 28.8m at its furthest (plot 5) would be retained. Parts of the development would therefore fall short of the 27m distance recommended in the Council's guidelines, however as The Lymes sits at an angle relative to Vale Court their first floor windows would not directly face each other. It is also relevant to take into account that the existing Vale Court building extends closer to The Lymes dwellings than the proposed dwellings (albeit it doesn’t have any windows in its nearest elevation).
TREES
22. There are a number of trees on the site, some of which are proposed to be removed to facilitate the development (none of the trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order). These include small groups of trees to the front, side and rear of the existing building and a mature Common Oak to the side of the building. An arboricultural statement has been submitted with the application and concludes that the development can be implemented with the removal of one moderate value tree (the Oak) and several low value trees, the loss of which will be mitigated by the provision of new trees, including trees to the Hall Road frontage. The remaining trees can be retained and protected for the duration of site construction works in accordance with current best practice. The Council’s Tree Officer has advised that the proposals are acceptable, although the tree planting indicated to the frontage should be heavier nursery stock than is indicated e.g. heavy standard trees.
VEHICLE ACCESS
23. The existing access onto Hall Road is to be removed and a new access into the site provided which would serve plots 1 to 7. Plots 8 and 9 would have access direct from Hall Road. The LHA has no objection in principle to the formation of a new access at this location.
CAR PARKING
24. To meet the Council’s car parking standards the provision of two car parking spaces for each dwelling should be provided. The site layout plan has been amended to take into account the comments of the LHA and demonstrates two spaces each for the 3-bed units and one space each for the 2-bed. Whilst the provision for the 2-bed units falls short of the standard it is considered this would represent an appropriate balance between the need for adequate car parking and the need to minimise the extent of hardstanding to the front in the interests of visual amenity. The number of spaces proposed and the layout is now considered acceptable by the LHA.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
25. The SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’ applies to all new residential developments resulting in an overall increase in the number of residential units on any site. No play space or sports facilities are to be provided within the proposed development, therefore a contribution to off-site provision will be required to comply with the SPG. Based on the rates set out in the SPG a contribution of £20,324.90 would be required, with £13,781.85 toward open space provision and £6,543.05 toward outdoor sports facilities.
26. In accordance with the provisions of the SPG ‘Developer Contributions Towards Red Rose Forest’ a development of nine dwellings would be expected to provide 27 trees on site. There would be scope for some of this requirement to be provided on site although not the full amount, it would be appropriate to secure a financial contribution toward tree planting off-site. The SPG sets out a requirement of £235 per tree which would generate a total contribution of £1,410. (less £235 per tree that is provided on site).
RECOMMENDATION MINDED TO GRANT, subject to:
A. The completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such legal agreement be entered into to secure:
i) A contribution to play space or sports facilities of £20,324.90, of which £13,781.85 would be toward open space provision and £6,543.05 toward outdoor sports facilities in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’
ii) A contribution to tree planting of a maximum of £6.345 in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Developer Contributions towards the Red Rose Forest’.
B. The following conditions:
1. Standard 3 year time limit
2. Development in accordance with amended plans
3. Samples of materials to be submitted and agreed
4. Tree protection scheme
5. Landscape scheme, including full details of planting and boundary treatment
6. Removal of permitted development rights for extensions, outbuildings, hard surfaces, gates, walls and fences
RG
|WARD: Hale Central |H/70423 |DEPARTURE: No |
|ERECTION OF FOUR-STOREY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT, TO COMPRISE 7 SELF-CONTAINED APARTMENTS; PROVISION OF CAR PARKING WITH NEW VEHICULAR |
|ACCESS FOLLOWING CLOSURE OF EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING. |
|231 Ashley Road, Hale |
|APPLICANT: Williams Tarr Ltd |
|AGENT: Calderpeel Partnership Ltd |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT |
SITE
The application relates to a site currently occupied by a 3-storey detached building situated at the junction of Ashley Road and Murieston Road. The building has basement accommodation and a single storey extension on the north-western side of the building. It is currently vacant and was recently used as a site office in relation to the re-development of the adjacent site 229 Ashley Road; prior to that it was in use as 3 flats. To the north and east of the site lie residential properties on Cambridge Road and Murieston Road. On the opposite corner of the junction of Ashley Road with Murieston Road lies St. Peter’s House and annexe associated with the adjacent St. Peter’s Church. The wider area to the south, east and west is residential in nature. To the north-west beyond the adjoining property at no. 229 and Cambridge Road is Hale District Centre. Planning permission was granted in 2004 for comprehensive redevelopment of 229 Ashley Road with a part single, part three-storey building comprising storage/staff facilities in the basement, retail at ground floor and two floors of offices above (H/58081) with an amendment approved in 2006 (H/65359). That permission has been implemented and Tesco occupy the ground floor retail unit; the offices above are currently vacant.
The site has a curved frontage to the junction of Ashley Road/Murieston Road, with
2. vehicular access on the corner. There is a stone wall (some of which has been removed), approximately 1.2 metres in height around the boundary with a lawned area on the south-eastern side approximately 1.2 metres above pavement level. A mature beech tree is situated in the south-eastern corner of the site and there is a double detached garage and area of hardstanding in the north-eastern corner of the site. A boundary fence, approximately 1.8 metres in height runs along the rear garden boundary with No. 1, Murieston Road, a detached two storey property with single storey rear extension to the north-east of the site. No. 2, Cambridge Road, is a semi-detached residential property adjoining the north-western boundary of the site and situated at a right angle to the application property.
The site is within the South Hale Conservation Area (sub-area A), as is the adjacent 229 Ashley Road. The southern boundary of the District Shopping Centre lies to the north-west beyond 229 Ashley Road and outside the conservation area.
Tree Preservation Order 339, 2002 protects the two beech trees within the site, one close to the junction between Ashley Road and Murieston Road and the other close to the boundary with 1 Murieston Road.
PROPOSAL
This application proposes the erection of a development of 7 two-bedroom apartments following the demolition of the existing building (for which conservation area consent has already been granted).
The proposed development of the site has been amended several times following discussions between the applicants and officers. The amended scheme now being put forward for consideration would combine traditional and contemporary elements and would appear as a three/four-storey building fronting Ashley Road and Murieston Road. It would be a hipped roof building (with a flat section on top) and would incorporate projecting gables to the Ashley Road and Murieston Road elevations and also on the corner of the building at the junction of the two roads; there would also be a gable and two dormer windows on the rear elevation. Details of materials have not been provided though it has been indicated that the main material would be facing brick similar to that used on 229 Ashley Road. Windows above the general eaves level of the building i.e. at fourth-storey level, to serve the third floor apartment, would be in the three projecting gables to the road front elevations, in the dormer windows at the rear and rooflights to the front and side. Whilst the existing building is raised above street level, the proposed development would result in the ground floor of the building being at street level. The building would also incorporate a basement area underneath most of the building; this would include space for cycle storage and would also provide storage space for residents.
As amended the building would be positioned approximately 0.2 metres off the boundary with 229 Ashley Road. It would be set back to varying degrees from Ashley Road – from a maximum of 7 metres for the corner of the building closest to 229 Ashley Road down to 0.5 metre for the corner gable projections. The projecting gable to the Murieston Road frontage would be approximately 10.4 metres back form the boundary.
The existing access to the site, positioned right on the junction of Ashley Road with Murieston Road, would be closed and a new access would be provided further along the boundary with Murieston Road, approximately 7 metres from the boundary with 1 Murieston Road, the first house on the road. An access gate would be positioned approximately 4.8 metres into the site from the back of the footway. The access would serve a parking area of 10 car spaces, 2 of which would be dedicated for disabled users. All of the spaces would be positioned along the boundary with 1 Murieston Road but positioned 1 metre off the boundary with No.1 leaving space for a narrow landscaping strip and the plans indicate the planting of new trees adjacent to this boundary. Cycle storage would be provided within the basement area.
Pedestrian access to the rear of the building would, because of the changes in levels, incorporate a shallow ramp that runs along the rear elevation of the building. There is a pedestrian gate adjacent to the new vehicular access. The building would also incorporate an access door to the front elevation with access along a short path directly onto the street.
Bin storage, previously proposed as an extension to the existing bin storage area provided at the Tesco site, would now be within a timber enclosure located adjacent to the beech tree on the boundary with No.1.
The proposed site plan indicates that the two protected trees would be retained and that landscaping would be incorporated within the site along the boundary with1 Murieston Road and around the front of the building to both road. This is proposed as amenity space for the occupiers. The stone wall that was previously around the site frontage is proposed to be re-instated along the whole frontage with a small railing on top.
Compared to the most recently refused scheme (H/68733) the amended plans now submitted incorporate a number of changes:- repositioning of the building closer to the boundary with 229 Ashley Road, provision of a dedicated bin store within the site rather than sharing the bin store with the Tesco site; removal of gables to side and incorporation of hipped roof to the 229 Ashley Road side elevation; provision of cycle storage within basement area; reduction in projection of front gable towards Ashley Road; reduced height to ridge.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Conservation Area
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
ENV14 – Tree and Hedgerow Protection
ENV21 – Conservation Areas
ENV23 – Development in Conservation Areas
H1 – Land Release for Development
H2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing Development
H3 – Land Release for Development
H4 – Release of Other Land for Development
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
D3 – Residential Development
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/37774 – Change of use and conversion of basement to form self contained two bedroom flats – Approved 1993.
H/50673 – Change of use of Flat 1 from residential flat to dental surgery – Approved 2001.
H/60867 – Demolition of existing residential building; redevelopment to provide a three storey block comprising 2 retail units (A1) at ground floor, self contained B1 office accommodation at first floor, 2 no. apartments at second floor and 1 apartment in the roofspace. Planning permission refused on 19 May 2005.
H/CC/60854 – Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing building. Refused on 12 May 2005.
H/63122 – Demolition of existing building. Redevelopment to provide a three-storey block comprising basement storage, office unit (Class B1) and dental surgery/consultation suite (2 consulting rooms) at ground floor with 2 apartments at first and second floor and a third apartment in the roofspace. Associated amenity space, 9 car parking spaces and creation of new vehicular access following closure of existing access. Planning permission was refused on 13 December 2005 but was granted on appeal on 19 December 2006.
H/CC/63111 - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing building. Refused on 13 December 2005 but allowed on appeal on 19 December 2006.
H/REN/63834 – Change of use from residential flat to dental surgery (Renewal of planning permission H/50673). Planning permission granted on 9 March 2006.
H/63842 - Demolition of existing buildings. Redevelopment to provide a three-storey block comprising dental surgery/consultation suite at ground level with 2 apartments at first and second floor level and a third apartment in the roofspace. Provision of associated amenity space, 9 car parking spaces and new vehicular access following closure of existing access. Planning permission refused on 9 March 2006.
H/CC/63843 – Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings. Refused on 9 March 2006.
H/CC/64338 – Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings. Refused on 28 June 2006.
H/64339 - Demolition of existing buildings. Redevelopment to provide a three-storey building comprising dental surgery on the ground floor with 3 apartments above; provision of associated patio area and landscaping, erection of 2.4 metre high wall to boundary with 229 Ashley Road; provision of 11 car parking spaces (including 4 under new loggia) and new vehicular access following closure of existing access. Refused on 28 June 2006.
H/CC/68734 – Conservation area consent for the demolition of existing buildings. Approved on 20 August 2008.
H/68733 - Demolition of existing buildings. Redevelopment to provide a three/four storey building comprising two retail units on the ground floor (with basement) and three apartments above; provision of 10 car parking spaces with new vehicular access following closure of existing access; provision of associated landscaping. Planning permission refused on 20 August 2008 for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed development by reason of its size, massing and position would be unduly intrusive in the street scene and detrimental to the character and appearance of the South Hale conservation area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals S5, ENV21, ENV23 and D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development, by reason of the amount of building and hardstanding, limited amount of landscaping and amenity space, proximity of bedroom windows to the boundary with 229 Ashley Road and the reliance on the adjacent site for bin provision, would be an over-development of the site out of character with the area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and the character and appearance of the South Hale Conservation area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals S5, ENV21, ENV23 and D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposed development would not provide adequate provision for servicing for the retail space proposed and as such would give rise to highway safety issues on Ashley Road and Murieston Road. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals S5, D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
4. The proposed development by reason of the size and position of the building would be likely to cause damage to and/or loss of a protected beech tree to the detriment of the amenities of the area having regard to Proposals ENV14 and D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
PLANNING STATEMENT
This covers planning policy, housing policy, policy compliance of current proposal, parking, residential amenity and impact on south Hale conservation area. The statement concludes:-
- the site is located on the edge of the existing town and District Shopping centre where a residential use would be in character with other buildings in the immediate vicinity
- conservation area consent has already been granted for the demolition of the existing building and therefore it has already been determined that the existing building does not positively contribute to the character and appearance of the South Hale conservation area
- the building has been designed appropriately for its context using cues from the adjoining building at 229 Ashley Road and the older buildings within the South Hale conservation area
- the principle of 3 flats has already been established and the details of the residential proposal conforms to all the Council’s adopted standards for new development as contained within the SPG
- a net increase of 4 units would not represent any harm to the aims of RSS Policy L4 where the target housing figures do not set a maximum figure
- the site is vacant, under-used and derelict, it is a brownfield site on a prominent corner location that would benefit from environmental improvements
- the site is in a sustainable location close to community facilities and accessible by public transport
- the parking is in accordance with the advice in PPG13 and the provisions of Policy D2 of the Trafford UDP
- in terms of residential amenity the development retains over 13 metres to the boundary with 1 Murieston Road and 22 metres to the nearest window in that property which is compatible with the distances in the Trafford UDP for New Residential development
- amenity space in the form of a communal garden would be located on the corner of Ashley Road and Murieston Road, this would be useable space and would be delineated with a boundary wall and soft landscaping, this area would provide 125 sq.m of useable space which meets the council guideline of 18 sq.m per flat
- the proposal has been carefully considered in order to make it a high quality and acceptable development which would also preserve the character and appearance of the South Hale conservation area and a such the development should be approved
DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT
Concludes that:-
- the scheme offers a sustainable development that responds to the existing topography, landscaping and constraints and makes a positive contribution to the South Hale conservation area and reinforces the local vernacular architecture at this key location within Hale
BAT SURVEY
This concludes that there was no sign of bats or evidence of occupancy of the building by bats found during the survey therefore no mitigation is required in respect of bats prior to the demolition of the building.
TREE SURVEY
Two apple trees within the site are classed as not worthy of retention and would be removed as part of the proposals. The two protected Beech trees within the site would be retained as would the Sycamore and Cherry in the front corner of the site adjacent to Murieston Road.
CONSULTATIONS
On the originally submitted plans:-
Strategic Planning and Developments – Comments are incorporated in the Observations section below under Principle of Development.
LHA – To meet the Council’s standards the provision of one parking space per flat should be provided.
The proposals include a parking area to the rear of the flats to be provided with ten car parking spaces and some cycle parking spaces. Whilst there are no objections in principle to the proposals, the aisle widths behind the car parking spaces is substandard and would need to be enlarged in order for the proposals to be acceptable on highways grounds. The standard aisle width is 6 metres and the plan demonstrates an aisle width of just 5.2 metre due to the presence of the disabled access ramp. It is considered that the design can be adapted to provide the required aisle width, although the parking may have to be relocated further towards the site boundary.
The provision of two secure cycle lockers are required in order to meet the Council’s cycle parking standards. It is noted that the provision of cycle parking spaces are made within the site but that these are for short stay parking and not long stay, therefore if the spaces could be amended there would be no objections.
The applicant will need to ensure that they gain further approval from the Council for the construction, removal or amendment of a pavement crossing under the provision of section 184 of the Highways Act 1980.
The applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.
If the aisle width dimensions can be increased to 6 metres there would be no objections to the proposals on highways grounds.
Drainage – Standard comments regarding proposed drainage system, constraining the peak discharge rate of storm water, sustainable urban drainage and cellar drainage.
Pollution and Licensing – The application site is situated on brownfield land. A condition requiring a contaminated land report together with further investigations, assessments and remediation measures is recommended.
G.M.Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Was consulted by the Architect on this development prior to the application. As long as the recommendations are incorporated into the scheme (contained within letter of 10 September 2008, a copy of which is included within the submitted application), then the application is supported. These recommendations include (in order to meet Secured by Design accreditation):- fencing of 2.1 metres high to enclose the rear of the building including the car park; some defensible space to the front of the building; details of glazing, doors etc to be of a specified standard; lighting to be provided within the site, particularly to the car park and building entrances; height of vegetation to be designed so as not to allow hiding places and to allow natural surveillance; bin store to be enclosed and lockable.
GM Ecology Unit - Comments have not materially changed since the time of the previous application and are as follows:-
In my view the Report indicates that reasonable effort has been used to assess the buildings and trees on the site for their potential to support bats. The Survey was undertaken in December when it is not possible to carry out emergence/dawn activity surveys. However, it is my opinion that this does not prejudice the findings of the Report.
The Report concluded that the building had no evidence of bat roosting and was in a condition that there were few opportunities to support roosting. No further investigations were recommended.
I concur with the findings of the Report and note the advisory point of the Report that bats and their roosts are protected at all times. Therefore, if at any stage during the demolition or development bats are found or suspected all works should cease and appropriate advice sought and implemented from the bat consultant.
In conclusion, there are no known ecological reasons for the current proposal to be refused.
Any comments on the amended plans will be incorporated in the Additional Information Report.
REPRESENTATIONS
On the original plans:-
Neighbours – 12 letters of objection expressing the following concerns:-
- current application for residential accommodation is more in keeping with the surrounding area but still represents overdevelopment
- there would be no amenity space for residents, lack of car parking spaces and shared bin store
- sharing bin store would be potentially hazardous to health for residents
- footprint is larger than approved and extends further out towards the Ashley Road boundary
- building would be bulky and out of character with the surrounding residential conservation area, it is too big
- conservation area guidelines are not being followed – there is not enough space around the building and it is too high
- the development would not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area
- the building would overpower and overshadow neighbouring houses
- number of apartments is excessive and will result in too much pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the corner of a busy junction
- traffic management proposals including double yellow lines around the junction area suggested
- balconies and terraces will be a feature of the apartments and would be intrusive and potentially result in noise pollution
- is there a moratorium to not allow additional units
- there have been several application for the development of the site (only one being approved) and each one increases the bulk of the development to the present monster
- the development will overshadow the surrounding properties
- building is the same size as already refused and larger than the building allowed on appeal
- parking is inadequate with insufficient reversing space, especially for larger cars, such that there would inevitably be more on street parking, particularly on Murieston Road
- existing properties on Cambridge Road and Murieston Road would be overlooked
- design is such that the ground floor flats would themselves suffer from a loss of privacy
- the area around the site is becoming increasingly dangerous and busy throughout the hours that Tesco is open (7am to 11pm everyday) and any development that increases the density of this area will be detrimental to the quality of the lives of residents
- existing building is detached and should remain so to create a physical distinction between retail and residential
- basement is unnecessary
Hale Civic Society – Raises the following concerns about the application:-
- Has concerns about the mass, scale and proximity to the Ashley Road boundary
- The overbearing nature of the building and the lack of surrounding amenity space does not preserve or enhance the conservation area
- Sharing of bin store with Tesco and potential lack of security to residences through this store shows lack of regard by developers
- Does not meet conservation guidelines
- Massive terrace effect in the village
- Approve of a wholly residential scheme but there is a lack of residential quality brought about by overdevelopment
On the amended plans:-
Councillors Mrs Young and Candish – comment on the amended plans and conclude that subject to certain conditions the proposal is now acceptable:-
- The previously proposed commercial element that bothered so many people is now gone and 7 flats with 10 parking spaces is probably as good as we will get though a smaller building with only 6 flats would have been better
- The building is big but is only 5 sq.metres bigger than that approved on appeal and the design is such that this extra would not be noticeable
- The proposed building is higher in part but lower in the other part
- The developer has listened to residents concerns and amended plans to try and address their fears – giving up the shared bin store, moving the cycle store to the basement, widening the turning space for parked cars and sloping the roof at the end by 229 Ashley Road to allow more light into 2 Cambridge Road
- Planting is also proposed at the end of the car park which will reduce the impact of car noise on 1 Murieston Road
- It is also now proposed to put a small railing on the boundary wall to deter youths from sitting on it eating take-aways and leaving rubbish
- There are a lot of windows on the side facing 1 Murieston Road – the ones to the central stairs could be made smaller and the bedroom windows should have leaded lights to improve the appearance of the building
- Would be happier if a condition could be placed preventing a future application for change of use to commercial or retail
Any further comments on the amended plans will be included in the Additional Information Report.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. Whilst the property is now vacant and has not been used for residential purposes for a year or so, the authorised use of the property is as 3 apartments. The application now proposes a development of 7 apartments on the site and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy published by the Secretary of State in March 2008 – and now formally published (in September 2008) – must carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the former published Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.
2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, new RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.
3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the new RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.
4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant new RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.
Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -
“Development should be focused in and around the centres of the towns and cities. Development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on addressing regeneration and housing market renewal and restructuring.”
Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.
Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.
Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in locations that are accessible by public transport to areas of economic growth should be proposed. Emphasis is placed on proposing a high level of development in inner areas to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured to support economic growth.
Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -
“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”
Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -
“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs and support agreed local regeneration strategies.”
5. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the RSS criteria (set out in Policy L4 and Policy MCR3): -
a) Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy;
b) Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,
(c) Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport.
In terms of criteria (b) and (c) the proposal can be agreed to be acceptable as it proposes the re-use of previously developed brown-field land and the site is in a location that is served by public transport.
In relation to criteria (a), however, the merit of the proposal as a development supportive of a local regeneration strategy is very much less than clear given its relatively distant location (approximately 1.3 km) from the edge of the Altrincham Town Centre Priority Regeneration Areas.
6. The strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the new RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration and to meet affordable housing needs.
7. Whilst the proposal does not strictly align with the development focus set out in RSS Policies L4 and MCR3 it is modest in scale and cannot be said to conflict with the development focus set by these Policies (the application site being located within the southern part of the city region as defined in the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document of July 2008).
8. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) it is considered that it would not be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4.
9. As such it is considered that in principle the proposed residential development of the site for 7 apartments is acceptable. The development does however raise other site specific issues and these are discussed below.
IMPACT ON CHARACTER OF CONSERVATION AREA AND STREET SCENE
10. The site is within South Hale conservation area (sub area A). This part of the conservation area relates to the low ground centred on Ashley Road and is described as mainly comprising residential properties but also has churches, a public house and some commercial properties on the edge of the Hale district centre. The area is less spacious than the other sub-areas. It comprises mainly two and three-storey Victorian detached and semi-detached dwellings, many have hard surfacing to the front but these tend to be well screened by landscaping on front and side boundaries. There are some Edwardian two-storey properties with accommodation in the roofspace. The Victorian and Edwardian properties have mainly slate roofs. The properties in this area tend to have expansive and interesting rooflines, ornate windows, porches and verandahs, accesses that have gate posts at the front boundary and there is often mature landscaping within the curtilage. Boundaries to the roads often comprise low stone walls with hedges over. The guidelines also set parameters for building envelope and hard area coverage.
11. The proposed development conflicts significantly with a number of the parameters relating to space around the building and hard area coverage. Nevertheless, a re-development following demolition of the existing building has been approved on appeal where the Inspector noted the conflicts of that proposal with the conservation area parameters yet concluded that that proposal would not be out of place. That approval, which could still be implemented, should be given some weight in the consideration of this current proposal, as should the recent decision of the Planning Development Control Committee to refuse application H/68733 for the reasons detailed above.
12. In terms of its design the building is of good quality with plenty of sympathetic detailing. It is proposed that facing brick is used and other materials should include natural stone (if used), slate roof, timber door and windows. It is considered that the design is acceptable and would result in an attractive building.
13. Compared to the approved scheme the proposed development would be very slightly closer to the edge of the footway along Ashley Road and closer to the boundary with Murieston Road (by less than 0.5 metre in both cases). The projecting gables in particular would be closer to the street, though not so close as the closest part of 229 Ashley Road.
14. The proposed building would be of a similar height to main roof ridge as the scheme approved on appeal (13.5 metres compared to 13.4 metres for the appeal scheme). The massing of the proposed building and its impact would seem greater due to the roof design, particularly to the corner gable compared to the tower feature on the appeal scheme, and the more dominant gables to the front and side which would emphasise the top floor level. The design of the roof also contributes to the building having a more bulky appearance in particular the corner area where instead of a conical tower which was separated from the main roof the proposal would have a projecting bay with a roof that is an extension of the main roof at the same ridge height.
15. As regards site coverage the proposed building would occupy a similar footprint on the site to the approved scheme. The proposal now being considered does, however, include a greater area of hardstanding to the rear, which is wholly taken up with car parking (and includes 1 more space than the approved scheme); the appeal scheme incorporated a small amenity area in the rear corner of the site. The current scheme does not include any external amenity space other than the small area of landscaping on the front corner of the site which would not offer any privacy and would not really form the function of amenity space (this area was also retained as lawned area on the approved scheme). On the other hand, the current proposal includes a landscaped front garden area (to the Ashley Road frontage), a front door to the building and the reinstatement of the stone boundary wall compared to the appeal scheme which had an open paved area to the Ashley Road frontage. This treatment would be more suitable to the conservation area and the site’s location between the commercial end of Hale and the residential area.
16. In comparison to the recently refused retail/flats scheme, the building is now slightly smaller (the large front projecting bay has been reduced), the building has been re-positioned closer to the 229 Ashley Road and has a revised roof design to reduce its bulk. Also, the frontage arrangements are designed to be more suited to a wholly residential scheme.
17. On balance it is considered that the revised proposals now being considered for a wholly residential scheme, when considered in the light of the approved appeal proposals for a mixed use development, would result in a scheme that whilst big, would be appropriate for this prominent location and would create an appropriate transition between the commercial and residential areas at this end of Hale village centre.
HIGHWAYS
18. The comments of the LHA are noted in respect of the suitability of the proposed car parking provision and layout. The amended plans have addressed the concern about manoeuvring space and a 6 metre wide aisle width is now provided. The previous concerns about servicing and deliveries do not apply to the residential scheme now proposed and as such, there are no objections on highways grounds.
19. Details of gates and gateposts for the new access have not been provided and as such would have to be the subject of a fresh application.
TREES
20. The proposed building would be in a similar position in relation to the protected beech tree at the front of the site as the approved appeal scheme (the tree was not protected at the time of that appeal) and the basement area would be slightly further from the tree than was previously the case. The submitted tree survey and plans indicate an adequate root protection area and the retention of the tree. It is considered that the proposed development could be implemented without the loss of or harm to that protected tree (subject to conditions).
21. The design of the proposal, however, incorporates the only window in the bay (a large window to living area) directly facing the tree at a close distance. The approved scheme had windows all around the corner tower and the previous refused scheme included a reason for refusal based on concerns about that tree. This may result in pressure in the future to carry out works to or to remove the tree to allow for more light into those rooms. This concern could be resolved by incorporating secondary windows in the side walls of this projecting bay to allow more light into those rooms. The incorporation of additional windows would not necessarily compromise the design of the building and would not raise any other concerns. Damage to and/or the loss of that tree would be of significant detriment to the amenity of the area and would be resisted.
22. The other protected beech tree on the boundary with No1 is also to be retained and would be under less pressure as it is located to the rear of the proposed bin store area and with suitable protection measures should not be at risk.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
23. The rear elevation of the building is some 13 metres from the boundary with 1 Murieston Road. The rear elevation of the building is designed to have a less bulky appearance than the street front elevations and it is considered that any impact on the amenity of 1 Murieston Road, 2 Cambridge Road and other neighbours in terms of loss of light or outlook would not be so harmful as to refuse permission.
24. The residential scheme incorporates more windows on the rear elevation than previously was the case (when no residential amenity issue was raised). The increase in the number of apartments in the scheme does result in more windows on the rear elevation. Not including the stair core there would be 14 habitable room windows on the rear elevation; with the appeal scheme there were only 2 habitable room windows on that elevation (the existing property also has habitable room windows facing that boundary). The recently refused scheme included, other than ground floor doors, two bedroom windows and an en-suite window at first floor level and first and second floor windows to the stair core; those windows met the guidelines for privacy distances to neighbours gardens and the stair core window could be obscure glazed or fitted with stained glass which would have the advantage of reducing the external impact of internal lighting Some 22 metres was retained to the neighbours conservatory at 1 Murieston Road. These distances were considered to be adequate and loss of privacy for neighbours was not one of the reasons for refusal.
25. With the current application, the rear elevation includes windows to 4 bedrooms on the ground, first and second floors (3 being the only window to those rooms) whilst for the top floor apartment there would be two dormer windows - one being the only window to a bedroom the other a second window to the living area. There would also be windows on each floor to the stair core. They are positioned approximately 13 metres from the boundary with 1 Murieston Road and approximately 22 metres to the conservatory at the rear of that house; and obliquely approximately 3.5 metres from the boundary with 2 Cambridge Road – views to the main rear elevation from these windows would be at a very oblique angle. Notwithstanding the increase in the number of habitable room windows to this elevation it is considered that the development would not cause an unacceptable loss of privacy to the neighbours living at these properties.
26. The approved development for the site also includes car parking adjacent to the boundary with the garden of 1 Murieston Road and it is considered that the impact arising from the use of the car park area will be no worse than the approved development. There would be some space for boundary planting to mitigate any impacts from the use of this car park.
RED ROSE FOREST AND OPEN SPACE
Red Rose Forest
27. Under the SPG for Red Rose Forest Contributions (September 2004), the proposal for 7 apartments generates a requirement for 7 trees to be planted on the site, over and above those planted to replace trees lost as part of the development. It is not clear from the plans submitted that all of these additional trees will be planted on site which would be the preference. As such a s106 agreement will be required to ensure adequate tree planting on site or financial contribution (at a rate of £235 per tree) to off site planting.
Children’s Play Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision
28. The SPG for Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums (September 2004) applies to all new residential developments resulting in an overall increase in the number of residential units on any one site. If the site is in an area of over provision no additional provision will be required from the developer. This site is in an area of under provision, therefore the policy applies. For the development proposed – 7 2-bedroom apartments – the provision should be £11,908.42 comprising £8074.83 towards open space provision and £3833.59 towards outdoor sports facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT
A: That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon the completion of an appropriate s106 agreement and that such an agreement be entered into to secure a financial contributions towards off-site open space provision (£8074.83) and outdoor sports facilities (£3833.59); and a sum of £1645 as a contribution towards Red Rose Forest tree planting off site (to be reduced by £235 per tree planted on site as part of an agreed planting scheme);
B: That upon receipt of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and standard reasons
1. Standard
2. Amended plans - 23 January 2009
3. Materials – conservation area
4. No development, including demolition, shall commence unless and until a method statement for the excavation of the basement of the building hereby approved, including details of lateral support for the adjacent soil, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.
5. Tree protection No.1 (protection to be in place prior to demolition)
6. Landscaping
7. Contaminated land
8. The basement area to the development hereby approved shall not be used other than for storage ancillary to the use of the property as apartments and shall not be used as additional or ancillary living accommodation.
9. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, the stone wall to the front boundary shall be re-instated in accordance with details (including details of materials, coursing, joints) that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10. Obscure glazing/stained glass to the stair core windows on the rear (north-east facing) elevation
11. The approved bin stores shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the apartments and shall be retained thereafter.
12. Provision of access facilities No.2
13. Retention of access facilities
14. No external lighting shall be provided other than in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure other than those expressly authorised by this permission is not permitted unless planning permission for such development has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.
GE
|WARD: St. Mary’s |H/70470 |DEPARTURE: No |
|ERECTION OF A PART SINGLE, PART TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION, TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO NORTH ELEVATION, SINGLE STOREY GARAGE EXTENSION |
|TO SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION AND TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO FRONT ELEVATION AFTER DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND PART OF REAR |
|ELEVATION. |
|55 The Avenue, Sale |
|APPLICANT: Dr. Aziz Tarek |
|AGENT: A&S Inman (Designs) Ltd |
|RECOMMENDATION: GRANT |
The application has been called in to the Planning Committee for decision by Councillor Holden who considers that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the street scene by reason of it'.
SITE
The site comprises of a large two storey detached residential property that is located in a row of other similar sized detached properties on The Avenue, Sale. It is set back from the road and benefits from a good sized front garden and a large private garden to the rear within which is sited a detached garage along the south east boundary of the site.
It is surrounded on all sides by residential properties of a similar size and type although varying in age and style. On the opposite side of The Avenue are more residential properties including individual dwellinghouses and a small block of flats.
PROPOSAL
The application is a resubmission of planning application ref. H/70078 for the erection of a part single, part two storey side and rear extension to provide extra living accommodation. The application was refused for the following reasons;
i. The proposed side extension, by reason of it's size, siting and projection will have an overdominant and overbearing impact on the adjacent property no.53 The Avenue that will be detrimental to the residential amenity of it's occupants. The application is therefore contrary to Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and associated supplementary planning guidance 'House Extensions'.
ii. The proposal, by reason of it's size, siting and design will result in a cramped form of development and a loss of spaciousness to the side of the property that will be out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene. The application is therefore contrary to Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
iii. The proposed extension, by reason of it's blank, windowless frontage will result in an extension that appears unsympathetic to and out of character with the host dwelling and will therefore detract from the character and appearance of the street scene. The application is therefore contrary to Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and associated supplementary planning guidance 'House Extensions'.
This proposal seeks address these reasons for refusal. There are three elements to the scheme comprising of a two storey extension to the front of the property, a single storey extension to the side and a two storey extension to the rear.
The extension to the front is sited to the eastern side of the front elevation over the existing front door and is to project 2m from the main front wall of the property, bringing it flush with the existing central staircore, incorporating a new roof.
The single storey side extension is to accommodate a new garage and be flush with the existing main front wall of the property projecting back to be flush with the proposed rear extension. The side elevation is set 200mm from the boundary with the adjacent property and it is proposed to have a pitched roof to match that of the main dwelling.
The rear extension is to be two storey in height projecting 3m from the main rear wall of the property although will not project beyond the main side walls of the property on either side.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
No notation
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
D6 – House Extensions
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/70078 – Erection of a part single, part two storey side and rear extension to provide extra living accommodation.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
Relevant information contained within the Observations section of the report.
CONSULTATIONS
None
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Concerns may be summarised as follows;
• The revised proposal does not extend the space between the side extension and the boundary with no.53 and as such there will be no impression of space between the two properties
• The proposed side extension will obscure the two inglenook windows in the side elevation of no.53 The Avenue resulting in a loss of daylight to the living room.
• The side wall of the extension being only 200mm from the boundary will mean that it may not be maintained from within the owner’s property boundary and will be in breach of the Construction, Design and Management Regulations.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE
1. The proposal is for the erection of extensions to a residential property that relate to the existing residential use on site. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
2. The proposed rear extension is to project 3m from the main rear wall of the property, 1.5m adjacent to no. 57. Therefore the 1.5m projection beyond the rear elevation of no. 57 and distance from boundary to no. 57 complies. However, the adjacent property no. 57 The Avenue is sited in such a way that projects beyond the main rear wall of the existing property by approximately 1.5m and as such, this element of the extension, once complete, will project only 1.5m beyond the nearest part of the adjacent dwelling, significantly reducing it’s impact. On the opposite side, it is set away from the boundary with no.53 by 3m, offsetting any overshadowing or any overbearing impact the development may have.
3. A distance of 34m is retained between the habitable room windows of the proposed extension and those on the rear elevation of the properties on Meadway Close, well in excess of the minimum 21m required and as such there are no concerns with overlooking in this regard.
4. To the south side, the first floor has been removed from the proposal with only a single storey extension accommodating a garage and utility room being proposed. As with the previous application it is set only 200mm from the boundary with no.53 and there is a 1m high fence on the boundary. The occupier of no.53 has raised concern about the impact this element of the proposal will have on their amenity, in particular two ground floor windows on either side of the chimney in the side elevation serving the living room.
5. The proposal will result in a development being much closer to these windows, however they are secondary windows to the room, the main being sited on the front elevation and as such, any loss suffered to these windows is not considered significant enough to justify a refusal on these grounds.
6. The proposed front extension is set well away from the surrounding residential properties and will not come closer to any part of the neighbouring properties than the existing nearest part of the dwelling. There are residential properties on the opposite side of The Avenue however the nearest is approximately 50m away and will be unaffected by the proposal.
DESIGN/STREET SCENE
7. The previous application had been unsympathetic in it’s design and failed to harmonise both with the host dwelling and the broader character of the street scene. The first floor of the side extension has been removed, resulting in the space and rhythm of the plots being maintained.
8. The extensions themselves have been designed in such a way as to be in keeping with the overall character of the existing dwellinghouse with the key details and proportions carried through. They are of a size that whilst large, do not dominate the property or detract from it’s overall character and style and have been tied in well with the host dwelling. The proposed new roof to the front will give coherence to the development tying the old in with the new, assisting in integrating the new extension. The applicant has indicated it is to be constructed of matching materials and this may be ensured through a suitably worded planning condition.
TRAFFIC/HIGHWAYS
9. A driveway of 10.5m is retained giving 10m for tandem parking with 0.5m retained to allow the garage door to open. A third vehicle may be accommodated within the proposed garage, resulting in a total provision of three off street parking spaces for the property, a level considered sufficient for a four bedroom house.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to conditions
1. Standard time limit
2. Materials samples
3. Remove PD for windows in the side elevation
RM
|WARD: |H/69777 |DEPARTURE: No |
|Davyhulme East | | |
|ERECTION OF A HOTEL BUILDING OF 15 STOREYS IN HEIGHT TO PROVIDE 211 BEDROOMS, INCORPORATING A GUEST ONLY HEALTH, SPA/LEISURE FACILITY, A |
|FUNCTION/CONFERENCE SUITE, A BAR LOUNGE, CAFÉ AND RESTAURANT TOGETHER WITH ADMINISTRATION, SERVICING, AND STORAGE AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS, |
|CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING WORKS. |
|Land at Parkway, Junction 9 of M60 and Southern Boundary of Trafford Centre |
|APPLICANT: Peel Investments (Leisure) Ltd |
|AGENT: Turley Associates |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT |
SITE
The application relates to an undeveloped triangular shaped site measuring 1.76 hectares situated to the north of Junction 9 of the M60. The site primarily comprises scrub vegetation with a number of small trees at its north west corner. It is generally flat with a totem sign for the Trafford Centre at its south east corner. The M60 is elevated (approximately 10m above ground level) as it passes the application site providing an aerial view of the site. Landscaping along the side of the motorway provides an element of screening to passing motorists, however during the winter months it is clearly visible.
Immediately adjoining the site to the north is a strip of land which is grassed with a line of mature trees along its north and south boundaries. This safeguarded strip belongs to United Utilities, under which runs the Thirlmere Aqueduct. Beyond this, to the north and west is car parking for the Trafford Centre. To the east, the application site is adjoined by Parkway. Beyond Parkway is Barton Clough Primary School. To the south, on the opposite side of the roundabout are a mix of residential properties, including two storey semi-detached properties and Circle Court a 15 storey apartment block. The motorway divides these into two separate areas, Stretford and Urmston. To the south west on the opposite side of the M60 is Kingsway Primary School and the George Carnall Leisure Centre. To the west is Egerton High School and an area of terraced and semi-detached properties.
PROPOSAL
The application seeks consent for a 211 bedroom hotel with associated leisure and conference facilities. The proposal will comprise a triangular shaped two storey base podium, which broadly follows the alignment of the site boundaries. This podium will comprise a reception and lobby for the hotel, a bar and lounge area, function and meeting room facilities, health and fitness facilities for guests of the hotel and administration staff and kitchen areas. It will be clad in a mix of reconstructed stone panels and glazing with brise soleil. Above the main entrance is a projecting glazed canopy. A terrace with seating would extend over part of the podium roof; and part will be laid out as a green roof.
Above the podium, a 13 storey oval shaped tower will rise upwards. The elevations of this element will be full glazed with elements of coloured glazing and will provide 211 bedrooms and associated access facilities. Balconies wrap around the elevations of this tower and a metal frame with an inclined column would extend the full height of the development on its southern elevation. This feature creates a twisted appearance to the building. The top floor penthouse will be recessed with a large terrace area.
Within the site, 70 car parking spaces are proposed to the north of the building (of which 18 are designated for disabled persons) and boundary landscaping extends to all sides. An ‘ecology’ pond is proposed to the north east and plant/service equipment and a service road is situated to the south. The main entrance to the hotel is on the north elevation of the building. Vehicular access to the site is from the existing Trafford Centre car park across the United Utilities corridor. The application site also includes a strip of land to the north of this corridor which will be planted with mature trees. The development will be designed to meet the requirements of a four star branded hotel operator.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Protected Linear Open Land
Wildlife Corridor
PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
OSR6 – Protected Linear Open Land
ENV5 – Community Forest
ENV7 – Nature Conservation
ENV10 – Wildlife Corridor
ENV11 - Nature Conservation and Assessment of Development
ENV15 – Community Forest
ENV16 – Tree Planting
TCA1 – Trafford Centre and its Vicinity
T9 – Private Funding of Development Related Highway and Public Transport Schemes
T17 – Providing for Pedestrians, Cyclists, and the Disabled
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
E6 – Tourism Related Development
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/45600 – Display of one externally illuminated freestanding 3 sided sign incorporating non-illuminated individual tenant display panels. Approved with conditions 5 June 1998.
H/45649 – Construction of bridge over the easement and pathway to form emergency pedestrian access to parkway, landscaping of the site. Approved with conditions 13 July 1998.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The applicant has submitted a portfolio of documents in support of the planning application which includes a Planning Statement, Ecological Survey and Report, Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement and Market Demand Assessment. A range of CGI visuals have also been provided from various viewpoints. The main documents are summarised below:
Planning Statement
• The proposed development would make beneficial use of a vacant and neglected site in an accessible urban location;
• The hotel would meet an outstanding need for additional bedroom accommodation in the local out-of-centre hotel market area and provide an appropriate scale of development on the only suitable available and viable site in this catchment area;
• The proposal would provide a landmark building for a four star hotel operator and would have clear economic benefits for the local economy.
Transport Statement
• The site is reasonably well located in terms of bus connections with a number of services running along Barton Dock Road and from the Trafford Centre Bus Station;
• 70 car parking spaces provided within the site will cater for the majority of demand for the hotel. Overflow car parking within the Trafford Centre will meet any additional demand;
• Development traffic, assuming worst case scenario on the A5081Parkway, is minimal and likely to be within the day-to-day variations of traffic flows on this road. The impact on the M60 and Junction 9 will also be insignificant.
Ecological Survey and Report
• The site has limited ecological interest with plant species that are common and widespread in urban areas. The isolated location and the surrounding highways and car parks have severely limited its potential wildlife value;
• Proposed biodiversity enhancement proposals will enhance the wildlife corridor function of the site and provide new and enhanced habitats for increased numbers of flora and fauna.
CONSULTATIONS
Built Environment (Drainage): Conditions relating to drainage should be imposed including one which states that the emptying/cleaning of the swimming pool should be limited to 5 litres/sec.
LHA: In accordance with the Council’s Car Parking Standards the provision of 514 car parking spaces are required. It is accepted that there may be a link between those staying at the hotel and those using the conference facilities and a reduction to 414 car parking spaces is therefore accepted. Whilst these car parking space standards are seen as a maximum, the 70 car parking spaces proposed fall well below this requirement. The applicant states that the Trafford Centre overflow car park will be available. Following concerns about demand for parking at peak times the applicant has submitted a strategy which outlines how this area would be managed at peak times. On the basis of the proposed strategy, and given the location of the development, which is well away from any nearby residential properties, it is considered to be acceptable in this respect.
In respect of traffic generation, most vehicles will arrive/leave the site via Junction 9 of the M60. The applicant states that this would have only a minimal impact on both Junction 9 of the M60 and Parkway and would not be noticeable within day to day variations of traffic flows on these roads. It is accepted that the proposal would have only a minimal impact on the local highway network and motorway and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in his respect.
Renewal and Environment Protection: The application site falls within Trafford’s Air Quality Management Area. The applicant should agree in writing with the Pollution and Licensing Section measures to mitigate the exposure of occupants of the development to poor air quality. The application should also ensure that internal noise levels within bedrooms are reasonable providing appropriate resting/sleeping conditions as defined within BS8233.
The site is situated on brownfield land. The applicant has submitted a Ground investigation report which is acceptable however it refers to the need for further gas monitoring. A condition is therefore recommended in this respect.
Strategic Planning and Development: Comments have been incorporated into the Principle of Development Section below.
Economic Development: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.
Highways Agency: No objection in principle, subject to conditions requiring the submission and agreement of a comprehensive travel plan, details of parking numbers for the site and a comprehensive implementation matrix to illustrate how the various Travel Plan measures, timescales, targets and reviews fit together.
Environment Agency: No objection in principle, subject to conditions relating to drainage and storage of materials on site.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit: The site lies partly within a Wildlife Corridor in the Revised Trafford UDP. An Ecology Assessment outlining mitigation and enhancement measures to ensure the integrity of the corridor is not destroyed has been submitted. The measures outlined are generally acceptable subject to conditions requiring the use of native plant species in the landscaping scheme, no tree felling during the bird breeding season; provision of bird and bat boxes and the submission of a management scheme covering ecological mitigation and enhancement measures proposed.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit: State that car crime has been an issue at the other hotels in the vicinity of the Trafford Centre and the car park should have appropriate lighting and should be effectively monitored at all times. Within the building appropriate security measures should also be introduced to provide security for legitimate users of the building. The development should be built to a Secured by Design Standards and a condition should be imposed requiring the submission and agreement of crime mitigation measures.
United Utilities: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report
REPRESENTATIONS
181 letters of objection have been received from local residents. The main objections are summarised below:
• The surrounding roads are already congested due to the Trafford Centre and this proposal will only exacerbate the existing situation. The applicant’s Transport Statement states that approximately 2000 vehicle movements will be attracted by the development on a busy day, dramatically increasing traffic in this busy area;
• Concerned about lack of public consultation with the local community from both Peel Holdings and the Council. Insufficient information has been circulated to local residents;
• The proposed hotel will directly overlook a number of primary school playgrounds and will cause privacy and child protection issues;
• The proposed development will also directly overlook a number of private residential properties in the surrounding area;
• A modern 15 storey glass structure will be visible over a wide area and from many properties, radically altering the skyline. It will be a blot on the landscape and is completely unsympathetic to its current surroundings comprising 1930’s and 1960’s residential properties;
• Residents have had enough of Peel Holdings. They continue to build their ‘Peel City’, regardless of local resident’s views. The Council seem to have little regard for tax payers who are concerned that this is a ‘done deal’;
• The car parking proposed is totally inadequate and as the Trafford Centre car parks are already busy at particular times in the year, this will result in an acute shortage of parking spaces and further traffic jams on the surrounding highways;
• Existing bus services in the local area are a substantial distance from the application site and are unlikely to be used by many staff/visitors;
• Only a small proportion of staff at the Trafford Centre cycle to work (survey of existing cycle facilities carried out by resident). It is likely to be a similar story for the new hotel;
• The applicant has not carried out an Air Quality Assessment. The implications for the development should be assessed in this respect;
• The development will occupy Protected Linear Open Land and result in the loss of this green space;
• Proposed commercial building will impact on the ‘feel’ of this residential area. This type of development is better suited to Manchester City Centre;
• There is already a serious litter problem in this area. The proposed hotel will only exacerbate this;
• Previous tall buildings in this area have affected TV reception. This development will severely affect a number of residents in this locality;
• Proposal represents ‘overdevelopment’. A lower development would be more appropriate and less imposing;
• The proposal will generate 100 jobs, however these are unlikely to go to local residents;
• Light and noise pollution from the development will impact on local residents;
• Do not need another hotel, there are already four hotels in this vicinity;
• Proposed development is too tall, it will stick out like a sore thumb;
• A Tree Survey of the site is required. This has not been submitted;
• Application site currently acts as a visual buffer to the Trafford Centre;
• The junction already regularly floods. The proposed hotel will only make this situation worse;
• There is land available to the north of the Trafford Centre which could be purchased and redeveloped. The proposal would have far less of a visual impact and be less obtrusive to neighbours and schools in this alternative location;
• The applicant does not consider sustainability or eco-friendly matters in their submission;
• The tower will block sunshine and light to the surrounding properties and the school playing fields.
Lostock Community Partnership: Object to development for the following reasons:
• Proposed hotel would overlook many houses and schools in nearby residential areas;
• The proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding development;
• The proposal constitutes overdevelopment of this site;
• There will be a detrimental impact on TV reception in this area due to the height and location of the building;
• The existing drainage system will be unable to cope resulting in local flooding;
• The proposed development is sited on Protected Open Land;
• Conference delegates (up to 500) and guests (211 bedrooms) are unlikely to use public transport and will therefore result in an increase in air pollution;
• Proposal will result in a loss of trees and disturbance to wildlife; and
• Proposed building will cause possible turbulence/cross winds on the motorway.
Circle Court Residents and Tenants Association: Object to development due to the loss of this Linear Land and support those views of the Lostock Community Partnership (outlined above).
Kingsway Primary School and Nursery: Object due to concerns that the proposal will directly overlook school playgrounds allowing people to watch children playing. Also concerned that development will generate an increase in traffic, noise and air pollution which already has an impact on this area.
Rt Hon Beverley Hughes has written to support a number of her constituents’ concerns. The matters raised have been included in the objections summarised above.
Applicant Consultation Event: The applicant held a public consultation event at the George Carnall Leisure Centre on the 2nd and 4th September 2008. At this event 20 comment forms were completed by local residents. These can be summarised as follows:
• Height of hotel is out of keeping and will be an eyesore. It will interrupt the pretty suburban skyline of this area. Architecturally it does not blend into the area and will stick out;
• Additional traffic will be generated on already busy local roads. The Traffic Survey submitted ignores congestion on surrounding roads;
• Concerned about proximity of development to nearby schools allowing guests to observe pupils;
• Proposal will generate a number of jobs which are much needed in this area;
• Development will create noise and dust pollution;
• Hotel should be located in Trafford Park away from residential properties;
• There is no need for another hotel, there are already 4 hotels in this area; and
• Local residents are suspicious of Peel’s long term plans for this area.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVLOPMENT
1. Guidance in PPS6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ and the policies of the UDP states that that commercial development, including hotels, should be focussed towards town centres and sustainable locations. The site is not within a designated town centre and in accordance with PPS6, the applicant must demonstrate that there is a need for the development; that the development is of an appropriate scale; that there are no more sequentially preferable sites; and that there would be no unacceptable impacts on existing town centres.
2. The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement and Market Need Assessment which seek to address these tests. These statements conclude that there is a strong and stable hotel market in Manchester which is generally underprovided for. They also maintain that there are no sequentially preferable sites in any nearby town or district centres which could serve this identified need. It is considered that the applicant’s PPS6 statement adequately establishes the need for a four star hotel development and addresses the issue of locating it outside a designated town centre. On this basis the proposed hotel is considered to be acceptable in principle in relation to PPS6, and Proposal S11 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
3. The North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) outlines the broad vision for the region and priorities for growth and regeneration over the next 15 to 20 years. Policy W6 ‘Tourism and the Visitor Economy’ of the RSS seeks to promote tourism activity in the North West where it is recognised as a contributory component of the economy. Furthermore, Proposal E6 ‘Tourism Related Developments’ of the Revised Trafford UDP seeks to encourage and support further tourism related developments within the Borough. The proposed hotel would comply with the development plan policies in this respect.
IMPACT ON WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AND LINEAR OPEN LAND CORRIDOR
4. The site falls within a Wildlife Corridor and Protected Linear Open Land designations in the Revised Trafford UDP. Policy ENV10 ‘Wildlife Corridors’ of the Revised Trafford UDP does not prevent new development within Wildlife Corridors but seeks to ensure that it contributes to their effectiveness whenever possible through appropriate siting/design of buildings and landscaping measures. Whilst the development would occupy a large proportion of the site, there is a good degree of tree planting and landscaping proposed within the site and to the boundaries. The applicant also proposes a number of habitat measures to enhance the wildlife biodiversity of the site. In particular, the podium will have a green roof; an ‘ecology’ pond is proposed to the north of the building; and bird/bat boxes will be provided within the site. The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit does not object to the proposals, subject to the submission and agreement of a detailed landscaping scheme and implementation of the habitat creation measures proposed. On this basis the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Proposal ENV10 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
5. Policy OSR6 ‘Protected Linear Open Land’ states that these areas shall be safeguarded as mainly undeveloped areas of open land in public and private ownership which will provide linear greenways for visual and access links. This site forms part of a linear tract of open land referred to as the North Trafford Linear Open Land. The applicant maintains that the application site makes only a limited contribution to this designation. It is accepted that it is inaccessible and isolated by the surrounding highways and motorway. It is also seen primarily in the context of the Trafford Centre and Trafford Park developments to the north and has only a limited visual link with open space to the east or west. Given the landscaping and habitat creation measures outlined above, the proposal is also considered to be acceptable in this respect.
DESIGN AND EXTERNAL APPEARANCE
6. The proposed 15 storey hotel comprises a two storey podium at its base which would house the hotel reception area, meeting and conference rooms, leisure facilities and a bar and restaurant. This base feature would be roughly triangular in shape following the boundaries of the site with curving elements and would measure approximately 13m in height and 93m in width. The main entrance to the hotel is on the north elevation, facing the Trafford Centre car park. This elevation would be clad in a combination of clear and coloured (light and dark green) vertical glazed panels. A projecting glass canopy would extend over the main entrance and brise soleil would wrap around the glazing at first floor level, providing interest to the elevations and an element of protection on sunny days. In contrast, the south elevation facing the service yard would be clad almost entirely in reconstructed stone panels. There are several service doors and window openings including those serving the ground floor swimming pool. This element of the building has been designed to face inwards towards the Trafford Centre, with its back facing the surrounding highways. Nevertheless, its design and appearance is considered to be acceptable as the south (rear) elevation and the associated service yard area would be screened by raised landscaped bunds extending along the north side of the motorway slip road and the west side of Parkway. It also allows a clear focal point to be created facing the vehicle and pedestrian site entrance from the Trafford Centre car park. A green roof is proposed on the podium and this element will just be visible to passing motorists on the M60 helping to soften the appearance of this part of the building.
7. Above the proposed podium, a thirteen storey oval shaped tower would project upwards. This element would comprise 211 bedrooms with a service core on the west elevation. All hotel bedrooms would face outwards and the elevations would be clad in vertical clear and coloured glazed panels with glazed balconies. This tower element would extend over only part (centre) of the footprint of the podium base and would measure 22m in width and 50m in depth. An inclined steel pole rises from the ground up the full height of the tower across its southern elevation. This pole is linked to the main structure by the projecting balconies on each floor creating a twisted appearance to the building and making it appear to lean towards the roundabout. The top ‘penthouse’ floor has a smaller footprint than the lower floors as it is recessed at its northern and southern ends.
8. Local residents have raised concerns that the contemporary building design proposed would be out of keeping with the 1930’s and 1960’s residential properties to the south. However, the proposal is clearly separated from these properties by the M60 and Parkway. Instead the development would primarily be seen in the context of the neo-classical Trafford Centre development to the north west, and the 1960’s circle court development to the south east. A similar contemporary design approach with curtain glazing was used on the 8 storey Venus office building to the west of the Trafford Centre and it is considered that this design approach has been successful in this context.
9. Due to its position, the development will be seen from all sides. The tower responds to this by providing active frontage around all sides of the building ensuring that there is no ‘rear’ elevation. Furthermore, the projecting balconies which wrap around the elevations and the leaning column provide a good degree of interest and depth. Vertical curtain glazing panels with elements of colour tie in with the proposed green roof and glazing used in the podium.
10. The applicant has redesigned the building following lengthy negotiations with planning officers. The original design when submitted proposed a relatively functional and bland building which had little interest and did not utilise materials of sufficient visual quality. The amended drawings submitted instead propose a building which has a much improved design with interest in the elevations and high quality materials. The architectural design approach and the appearance of the development are considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
VISUAL IMPACT ON SKYLINE
11. The proposed development would extend to 15 storeys in height and would be situated adjacent to the roundabout of Junction 9 of the M60. By virtue of its height, size, and position, the proposal would be visible from a wide area, and would be particularly prominent to passing motorists on the M60 and residential areas to the south, west and east.
12. With the exception of the 15 storey Circle Court development on the opposite side of the roundabout, there are no other developments similar in size and scale in this locality. The surrounding residential areas are characterised by two storey residential properties and similar low-scale civic buildings. Extending along the north side of the M60 corridor, the Chill Factore, Trafford Centre, Barton Square and several tall office developments provide a different context which is considerably greater in scale. However, the proposal at 60m in height would still be taller than these and the impact of the development would be emphasised by its relatively isolated position at the south east corner of the Trafford Centre complex, adjacent to the overflow car park. It must therefore be considered whether a building of this height and size is appropriate in this context.
13. Guidance published by CABE states that tall buildings in the right place and with the right design can make a positive contribution to the area and the skyline. In particular, they should be of excellent architectural quality and designed in full cognisance of likely impacts on the immediate surroundings.
14. The proposed hotel would be located at junction 9 of the M60 and will rise above the elevated motorway. In this position it will act as a landmark feature to the Trafford Centre and Trafford Park Industrial Estate for passing motorists on the M60 and Parkway and would exemplify the modernist architectural ideal of a tower in isolation. From these viewpoints the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its design, height and siting. However, it will also be clearly visible from residential areas to the south, west and east. Residents have raised concerns that the building will ‘stick out like a sore thumb’ and will be ‘imposing’ in the skyline. As with Circle Court, it will dominate the skyline from these surrounding areas and will form a distinctive landmark. However, due to its distance from the nearest residential properties and its position on the opposite side of the M60 and Parkway, it will not appear unduly overbearing. Furthermore, with its contemporary design and use of high quality materials, the development would be considerably more attractive than Circle Court. Skylines are constantly changing and whilst this development would be undeniably big, it has been carefully composed with attractive architectural detailing. It is therefore considered that the building, due to its design and use of high quality materials would not unduly impact on the character of the surrounding area and is considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
IMPACT ON NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
15. Several residents have objected to the development on the basis that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy and would overshadow their properties and gardens. Concern has also been raised that external lighting to the building will cause glare and that television reception will be affected.
16. The nearest residential properties are situated to the south, on Audley Avenue (250m away), Lostock Road (250m away) and Kingsway (370m away). The proposed hotel at 60m in height will be visible from windows within properties in these areas facing towards the development and from their garden areas. However, at these distances it would not unduly overshadow properties or result in a significant loss of light. Furthermore, the development would not appear overly intrusive and future guests of the hotel would not have a detailed view of these properties. Only a small number of balconies (on the north west and south east elevations of the hotel) will be accessible to guests, further restricting views for hotel guests to the surrounding area.
17. It is understood that the hotel will be lit at night and illustrative lighting schemes have been provided with the planning application. These illustrations relate to the original building design and propose a range of alternatives using strip coloured lighting. Any lighting scheme must be agreed with Council officers and the Highway Agency to ensure that it would not result in undue glare to local residents and passing motorists and a condition requiring the submission and agreement of a lighting scheme is therefore recommended below. Furthermore, the strength/brightness of any future external lighting scheme will be controllable and can be varied to ensure that glare is not a problem to occupants of residential properties in the surrounding area.
18. The applicant has submitted a Television Reception Survey with the planning application which identifies a number of properties to the south east which may potentially experience problems with television reception if the development proceeds. The report also identifies a number of measures which can be introduced to address any such interference. It is considered appropriate to attach a condition requiring the applicant monitor the situation and carry out remedial action where required to ensure these residents are not unduly affected.
19. The impact of the development on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties is considered to be acceptable subject to appropriate conditions. The development therefore complies with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan in this respect.
IMPACT ON LOCAL SCHOOLS
20. A local primary school and several local residents have also raised concerns that the proposed development, due to its design, height and siting would provide future guests of the hotel with direct views over school playing fields, allowing them to watch children playing. Overlooking to school playgrounds is a sensitive issue; however there are no advisory height restrictions for developments close to school playing fields or similarly children’s playgrounds. Notwithstanding this, as the closest school playing fields (Kingsway School) are situated approximately 115m from the proposed hotel, it is not considered that it would result in a significant loss of privacy or would raise safety concerns for nearby schools.
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
21. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Assessment which concludes that the site has only limited ecological interest and is colonised by common and widespread plant communities. In particular, the site is covered by a mix of native and non-native woodland trees (area measuring 290sq.m) and grassland/scrub vegetation (area measuring 10,300sq.m). A large proportion of these two habitats would be lost as a result of the development, and a number of habitat enhancement measures are proposed to mitigate for this loss. This includes planting a new woodland area, measuring 1,850sq.m on the opposite side of the United Utilities easement (currently hardstanding) and sowing 3,000sq.m of species rich wildflowers and grassland. A pond will also be created to the north of the hotel with marginal planting (measuring 540 sq.m); a sedum roof is proposed on the podium and bird/bat boxes will be installed within the site. The mitigation measure are aimed at attracting specific bird species which have become uncommon in the Greater Manchester area and which are being targeted through national, regional and local initiatives. The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have confirmed that the proposed development is acceptable subject to conditions requiring the use of native plant species in the landscaping scheme; no tree felling during the bird breeding season; the provision of bird and bat boxes and submission of a management scheme covering the ecological mitigation and enhancement measures proposed.
CAR PARKING AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS
22. The Council’s car parking standards as set out in the UDP advise that 414 car parking spaces (maximum) should be provided for a development which includes 211 hotel bedrooms and conference/meeting room facilities for up to 500 people. The applicant proposes only 70 car parking spaces within the application site, well below this requirement but states that the Trafford Centre overflow car park will be available when needed and the use of this area will be managed in peak times. The LHA have raised concerns that on recent site visits there has been evidence of parking on paths and traffic islands within the Trafford Centre car parks at the busiest times and the proposed hotel would only compound these issues further. Furthermore, information submitted by the applicant states that the overflow car park adjoining the site was fully occupied on 16 days during 2007. However, the LHA conclude that as the site is accessed from the Trafford Centre and that there are only limited residential properties in close vicinity, the proposal is unlikely to result in harm to residential amenity.
23. The site has poor pedestrian links to the surrounding residential areas and it is relatively remote from bus services at the Trafford Centre and along Barton Dock Road. The applicant has submitted a draft Travel Plan with the application however the Highways Agency and LHA have requested that the applicant review the submitted Travel Plan incorporating measures to promote sustainable travel to the site. This matter will be covered by condition.
24. The applicant’s Transport Statement states that the proposal would result in an additional 1,901 vehicle trips to the site. Most of these vehicles will arrive/leave the site via Junction 9 of the M60. The applicant states that this would have only a minimal impact on both Junction 9 of the M60 and Parkway and would not be noticeable within day to day variations of traffic flows on these roads. The proposal would not therefore have a significantly detrimental impact on the surrounding highway network in this respect and the Highways Agency and LHA do not object to the proposal on this basis.
25. The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect subject to several conditions in accordance with the provisions of Policies D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
26. The Council’s SPD, ‘Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes’ was adopted on 6 March 2007 and applies to all major developments such as this. Contributions will be used by the Council and GMPTE to implement public transport and highways improvement schemes within the locality of the new development. The site falls within an ‘Accessible’ area as defined by the SPD and therefore the relevant contribution based on the floorspace of the development would be £114,150.00. This would be split between a highway network contribution (£39,512.00) and a public transport contribution (£74,638.00). If committee members resolve to grant planning permission, this matter should be secured through a S106 legal agreement.
27. The Council’s SPG29 – ‘Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest’ was adopted in September 2004 and seeks to further the establishment of the Red Rose Community Forest. Under the terms of this guidance, the development falls within a category for which a financial contribution towards off-site tree planting is normally appropriate. In this case, the size of the development would create a requirement for the provision of 211 trees. The applicant intends to accommodate these trees within the site and a financial contribution will not therefore be sought in this respect.
CONCLUSION
28. The application seeks consent for a 15 storey hotel building on a small undeveloped site adjacent to Junction 9 of the M60. The site currently forms part of the North Trafford Linear Open Land and a Wildlife Corridor. However, its contribution to both designations is limited in its present form and the proposed development is considered to be acceptable subject to the implementation of a range of habitat creation measures and a detailed landscaping/tree planting scheme. The applicant has also submitted information justifying the principle of a hotel in accordance with PPS6. This information has been assessed and is considered to be sound. The principle of the proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable.
29. This 15 storey building is situated on a relatively open site and there are no buildings in close proximity. Due to its height, it will dominate views along the M60 and will interrupt the residential skyline. However, this is considered to be an appropriate location for a tall building, providing a gateway feature to Trafford Park. Furthermore, amendments to improve its architectural design and use of high quality materials have addressed officers’ concerns in this respect. The proposal would not result in a significant loss of privacy or appear unduly overbearing to occupants of nearby residential properties and local schools and concerns regarding television reception can be addressed by condition. Suggested conditions also require the applicant to implement a car parking management scheme and provide a detailed Travel Plan. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the relevant policies of the Revised Trafford UDP. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards Highway Network and Public Transport Improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT
A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and such legal agreement be entered into to secure a financial contribution of £114,150.00 towards public transport and highway improvement schemes (to be split between a highway network contribution of £39,512.00 and a public transport contribution of £74,638.00).
B) That upon completion of the legal agreement referred to at (A) above, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. Standard condition;
2. Materials condition;
3. Landscaping condition including requirement to provide 211 trees within the site;
4. Landscape maintenance condition;
5. Amended Plans condition;
6. Provision of access facilities condition 2;
7. Retention of access facilities condition;
8. Surface water drainage condition;
9. Submission of Lighting Scheme;
10. The applicant shall with regard to television reception, provide the Local Planning Authority with studies that:
a) Identify, before the development commences, the potential impact area in which television reception is likely to be adversely affected by the development. The study shall be carried out either by the Independent Television Commission (ITC), or by a body approved by the ITC and shall include either an assessment of when in the construction process an impact on television reception might occur.
b) Measure the existing television signal reception within the potential impact area identified in a) above before development commences. The work shall be undertaken either by an aerial installer registered with the Confederation of Aerial Industries or by a body approved by the ITC, and shall include an assessment of the survey results obtained.
c) Assess the impact of the development on television signal reception within the potential impact area identified in a) above within one month of the practical completion of the development or before the development is first occupied, whichever is the sooner, and at any other time during the construction of the development if requested in writing by the Local Planning Authority in response to identified television signal reception problems within the potential impact area. The study shall identify such measures necessary to maintain at least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified in the survey carried outlined in b) above. The measures identified must be carried out either before the building is first occupied or within one month of the study being submitted to the Local Planning Authority, whichever is the earlier.
Reason. To provide an indication of the area of television reception likely to be affected by the development to provide a basis on which to assess the extent to which the development during construction and once built will affect television reception and to ensure that the development at least maintains the existing level and quality of television signal reception, as advised in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 Telecommunications, having regard to Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
11. Implementation of habitat creation measures outlined;
12. Submission of 10 year management strategy for ecological mitigation measures;
13. Travel Plan condition;
14. Implementation of agreed management scheme for overflow car park;
15. Air Quality protection measures for hotel;
16. Crime prevention measures condition;
17. Gas risk assessment condition;
18. Environment Agency surface water drainage;
19. Outside storage condition.
VM
|WARD: Hale Barns |H/70503 |DEPARTURE: Yes |
|EXTENSION OF EXISTING ROOF TERRACE OVER EXISTING HIPPED ROOF TO SINGLE STOREY PART OF CLUB HOUSE, NEW DOOR OPENING INTO TERRACE IN |
|EXISTING WINDOW POSITION AND PROVISION OF EXTERNAL STAIRCASE TO TERRACE TO FORM REAR PATIO AREA. |
|Ringway Golf Club, Hale Road, Hale Barns |
|APPLICANT: Ringway Golf Club |
|AGENT: Michael Hyde & Associates Ltd. |
|RECOMMENDATION: GRANT |
SITE
Ringway Golf Club is located within the Green Belt to the north and east of Hale Barns. The application concerns the single storey part of the existing club house which is a predominantly two storey building located to the south west of the golf course and fronting Hale Road.
PROPOSAL
The application seeks permission to extend the existing first floor roof terrace on the north west side of the building. The proposal would extend over the existing hipped roof which skirts around the edge of the pro shop for a width of approx 2m. The extended terrace would be enclosed by 1.1m high glazed panels and stainless steel balustrades and the terrace itself would have a paved surface. The terrace adjoins the club room from which a new door opening is proposed in the position of an existing window. An external staircase at the rear is also proposed.
The Design and Access Statement also refers to a single storey extension to the pro shop but this does not form part of this application.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Adopted Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Green Belt
Area of Landscape Protection
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT PROPOSED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
C1 – Green Belt
C4 – Green Belt
C5 – Development in the Green Belt
C7 – Extensions to Buildings
C11 – Recreation and Tourism
ENV17 – Areas of Landscape Protection
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Extensions/alterations to club house:
H/43116 - Erection of a single storey extension to the existing professional shop and enlargement of the first floor balcony at the rear of the clubhouse. Approved 13/11/96
H/24922 - Retention of temporary buildings for use as clubroom toilet accommodation and changing rooms. Approved 23/04/87
H/23579 - Demolition of smoke and billiard rooms and erection of a single storey rear extension to form new smoke and billiard room. Approved 15/07/86
H/16297 - Erection of new pitched roof over existing flat roof to members dining room.
Approved 10/06/82
H/9236 - Erection of extensions to form new kitchen and ladies toilet and new roof on existing single storey extensions. Approved 28/06/79
Other applications:
H/67473 - Erection of a storage building to accommodate three-wheeler buggies.
Approved 17/09/07
H/66140 – Erection of a storage building to accommodate three wheeler electric buggies. Refused 20/02/07
H/66668 - Erection of a storage building to accommodate three wheeler buggies.
Refused 14/05/07
H/65177 - Erection of single storey extension to existing storage building to accommodate course machinery and materials. Approved 24/10/06
H/54015 - Erection of a storage building to accommodate course machinery and materials (total floorspace proposed approximately 142 sq.m). Approved 23/08/02.
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester Airport – No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT / GREEN BELT
1. The site is within the Green Belt where national guidance in PPG2 presumes against inappropriate development. Buildings and extensions required for ‘essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation’ may be appropriate provided that they comply with paragraph 3.5 of PPG2 which states that:
“Essential facilities should be genuinely required for uses of the land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Possible examples of such facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport, or small stables for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation.” Possible examples of such facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport. Proposals C4 and C5 of the Trafford UDP reflect this advice.
2. PPG2 and Proposal C5 of the Trafford UDP are therefore clear in that extensions to buildings used for sport and recreation in the Green Belt must be essential and genuinely required for the sport/recreation use of the land. In support of the proposal the agent has stated that the proposal would improve circulation of the external space and provide a more appropriate environment for smokers on the bar/dining area level. Whilst these improvements would be desirable, it is not considered they could be described as essential and genuinely required for the sport/recreation use of the land as it relates to the social and entertainment aspect of the Golf Club rather than being directly related to the playing of golf. No evidence has been put forward to suggest that the long-term viability or well-being of the club depends on extending the terrace area. The proposal must therefore be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which PPG2 advises is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances and it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted.
3. The extent of new built-form that the proposal would introduce into the Green Belt is the increase in the height of the walls to the pro shop by approximately 1m, the erection of a 1.1m high glazed balustrade around the edge and an external staircase to the rear. These proposals concern a relatively small area that in the main (with the exception of the staircase) already forms part of the existing building. The extended roof terrace would retain a strong sense of openness as it would not be covered and is only enclosed at the sides by 1m high glazed panels. Furthermore the proposals would also be seen entirely in the context of the existing club house building. As such the proposals would have minimal impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt.
4. In conclusion it is considered the proposal does not amount to an essential facility that is genuinely required for outdoor sport and recreation and therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is acknowledged however, that the nature and scale of the development are such that it would have limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt and it would not conflict with any of the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt. It is considered that these factors constitute very special circumstances and outweigh any harm caused to the Green Belt.
DESIGN AND APPEARANCE
5. The proposal would essentially continue the existing roof terrace to the edge of the building with no increase in footprint. The removal of the pitched roof sections and their replacement with a higher brick wall and balustrade above would not materially change the appearance of the building, having regard to its size relative to the remainder of the building and being well set back from the front. In terms of its size, design and materials, it is considered the proposal would be compatible with the existing building and appropriate to its location.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
6. The proposal would bring the roof terrace closer to residential property on Shay Lane but given the distance it would retain to these dwellings (approx 55m at its closest) it is not considered it would have any adverse impact.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT, subject to the following conditions:
1. Standard 3 year time limit
2. The materials to be used for the enclosure of the roof terrace hereby permitted shall be in strict accordance with those specified in the application unless alternative materials are first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason. In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory standard of external appearance, having regard to Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
RG
|WARD: Altrincham |H/70541 |DEPARTURE: No |
|ERECTION OF A THREE STOREY STAND ALONE SCIENCE BLOCK ON AN EXISTING SECTION OF SCHOOL GROUND |
|North Cestrian Grammar School, Dunham Road, Altrincham. |
|APPLICANT: North Cestrian Grammar School |
|AGENT: Pozzoni LLP |
|RECOMMENDATION: GRANT |
This application has been called in for determination by the Planning Development Control Committee by Councillor Williams who objects to the proposal.
SITE
North Cestrian Grammar School is situated on the north side of Dunham Road in between Loreto Preparatory School and Loreto Grammar School. The school site backs onto the rear of properties on Hartley Road with tennis courts at the rear of the school site.
The proposed siting of the new science block is on a currently grassed area adjacent to the playground and to the rear of all existing buildings.
PROPOSAL
It is proposed to erect a new three storey science block of approximately 600 sq m over three storeys. The building would be positioned lengthways adjacent to the boundary with Loreto Grammar School, partly adjacent to an existing three storey building and tennis courts at this adjoining site.
The science labs and offices will be situated either side of a glazed entrance, staircase and main circulation area. The building is to be rendered with a brick base with metal composite cladding to the roof. The maximum height of the building is approximately 10.8 metres.
The new build proposals provide much needed improved science facilities which meet current curriculum requirements that the existing facilities cannot provide. The proposals are not intended to cater for an increase in pupil numbers.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
None
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/64995 – Creation of new pedestrian access from Dunham Road.
Approved 17th August 2006
H/52096 – Erection of a single storey general purpose school hall.
Approved 28th August 2001.
H/45238 – Erection of two single storey classroom extensions at the rear of the premises.
Approved 16th February 1998
H/36555 – Erection of 6.0m pole to support a microwave antenna on roof of main school building.
Approved 17th March 1993
H/25001 – Erection of a new entrance porch and alterations to existing window openings.
Approved 24th April 1987
H/00423 – Erection of sports hall
Approved 7th November 1974
H/00339 – Erection of extension to classroom block
Approved 8th August 1974
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The proposed site for the new Science Block sits to the North West corner of the school campus, off Dunham Road which is a busy main road situated on the northern edge of Altrincham town centre.
The large majority of buildings located in the immediate neighbourhood comprise of large detached Victorian houses which were built during the Industrial expansion of Manchester, and have either been retained for residential uses (in some instances converted into flats) or converted into small business or Educational facilities. North Cestrian Grammar School sits adjacent to Loreto Girls School, which is another well established educational institute serving Trafford. There are also a small number of Church buildings adjacent to the site which add to the typically Victorian palette of materials comprising of brick facades and slate coloured tiled roofs.
On the opposite side of Dunham Road, building uses become more mixed and varied as one approaches the town centre.
The school is located between two education sites the massing of which varies between two and three storeys. A three storey brick school building currently sits behind the proposed location building. Large detached residential properties make up the rest of the site boundary.
In addition to meeting curriculum demands, the school wants to create a modern facility that is suitable for 21st Century learning, yet sits sympathetically within its architectural surroundings.
The school is located in an area which boasts a number of successful and well established educational facilities, and the school are conscious that they need to continue to maintain and upgrade facilities in order to maintain healthy competition with these neighbours.
The new building is approximately 600 sq m over 3 levels. The design of the building is essentially 2 solid elements sitting either side of a full height glazed section which houses the entrance, staircase and main circulation area. The solid elements (housing labs) are ‘punctured’ with window voids which have been designed so as to appear to turn the corners.
The façade materials comprise of:
- A through coloured render to all facades with a brick base
- Aluminium framed windows with a composite board panel between as indicated on the drawings
- Aluminium framed curtain walling system to the central circulation and entrance area
- Glazed canopy over the main entrance.
The roof of the building has been designed as a mono pitch which is masked with a parapet detail running around the front and side elevations, and capped with an aluminium capping section.
Access to the Science building will be achieved by utilising existing external pathways and automatic sliding entrance doors provide access into the building. Internal access through the science building will be achieved via a new staircase located within the central circulation area. Provision has also been made for the future installation of a DDA compliant lift, should the need arise.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Protection – The application site is situated on brownfield land. Conditions relating to contaminated land reports are requested.
Sport England – comments to be reported as additional information.
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Williams objects to the proposal on the following grounds:
• Appearance. The surrounding residential properties are Victorian in appearance and the proposed new science block is to be made from aluminium, PPC and coloured rendering with a mono pitched roof. Clearly, such a building would be out of keeping with both the existing school buildings as well as the surrounding residential properties;
• Massing. The proposed building is 3 storeys and 10.5 metres high and will have a significant impact on the amenity and privacy of the neighbouring properties 9 to 11 Groby Place. In particular, the proposed science block would significantly impact on the light into the back garden of 10 Groby Place, impacting on the occupant’s quality of life. The effect on the privacy of 9 to 11 Groby Place would be equally significant. No proposals for the screening of neighbouring properties appears to have been included in the application;
• It appears that the siting of the science block could be moved closer to the existing school buildings and that this would lessen the impact on neighbouring properties. It is not clear whether the applicant has considered this alternative;
• Car parking. The proposed new science block appears to be for the purpose of attracting additional pupils to the school. If this happened, additional traffic congestion is likely to result on the already congested Dunham Road;
• The building will remove recreational land currently available to the school pupils.
Letters of objection have been received from 5 neighbouring residents raising the following issues:
• Detrimental to the character and appearance of the area;
• Out of keeping;
• Overly high and will dominate the landscape;
• Adverse impact on residential amenity with overlooking;
• Loss of light and loss of privacy;
• Inadequate parking facilities at the school to cope with the increased number of pupils, flow of traffic and general congestion;
• Loss of grassed play area;
• Concern re what is to happen to the existing laboratories;
• Area is subject to restrictive covenants;
• Concern re how the building will be financed;
An additional letter has been received raising no objection to the proposal.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
1. The application seeks to improve facilities at North Cestrian Grammar School by providing a new purpose built science block. As an extension to the existing school facilities, there are no policy issues and the application falls to be considered against Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
2. The closest residential properties are to the rear of the site on Hartley Road and to the east of the site on Groby Place with rear gardens backing onto the school site. The boundaries of the properties on Hartley Road are in excess of 35 metres from the proposed building (in excess of 50 metres to the dwellings themselves) and the boundaries of the properties on Groby Place are in excess of 45 metres from the proposed building (in excess of 65 metres to the buildings themselves). These distances far exceed what would be reasonably expected to ensure that there is no overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of light to neighbouring residential properties.
DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT
3. The design of the proposed building and in particular the flat roof keeps the height of this three storey building to a minimum (10.5m). The proposal is not considered to be overly high and is in keeping with the height of other buildings within the vicinity, in particular the existing three storey building immediately adjacent to the site at Loreto Grammar School. It is considered that the building when viewed from neighbouring residential properties will be viewed primarily against the backdrop of existing school buildings and facilities.
4. Whilst a number of the surrounding residential properties are Victorian in character, there are a number of modern school buildings which already exist on both the North Cestrian and Loreto school sites. For example a new school hall has recently been built at North Cestrian facing onto the playground and adjacent to the existing grassed area (ref H/52096 approved 2001). This has been built using a buff coloured brick. Subject to the colour of the render being agreed by the Local Planning Authority, it is considered that the proposed materials would not be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area.
LOSS OF GRASSED AREA
5. The grassed area on which the proposal is to be built is a soft landscape edge between the formal play area and the adjacent site. As such the proposal would not result in the loss of any playing field or hard playing area. The proposal has been sited to retain the 2 no. existing trees within this grassed area and the surrounding area between the proposal and existing school buildings will be retained.
PARKING
6. The agents have confirmed that the proposals are not intended to cater for an increase in pupil numbers and as such no additional parking or cycle spaces are proposed. There will be no increase in the number of staff as a result of the proposal.
OTHER MATTERS
7. Restrictive covenants that the area may be subject to and the question of how the building will be financed are not material planning matters relevant to this application.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions and standard reasons
1. Standard;
2. Materials (notwithstanding submitted details);
3. Tree Protection no.2;
4. Contaminated land
JE
|WARD: Hale Barns |H/70612 |DEPARTURE: Yes |
|ERECTION OF CANOPIES TO REAR OF EXISTING NURSERY BUILDING |
|Woodlands Day Nursery, 28, Ridgeway Road, Timperley |
|APPLICANT: Mrs. Stephanie Molnar |
|AGENT: N/A |
|RECOMMENDATION: GRANT |
SITE
Two storey detached building in use as a day nursery. Fields adjoin the site to the east and west with residential properties beyond. The site is adjoined by predominantly open land to the south although there are some glasshouse structures associated with the plant nurseries to the south and south west. There are residential properties on the opposite side of Ridgeway Road, to the north.
There is a mature hawthorn hedge around the boundaries of the site, varying from approximately 1.5 metres to 2 metres in height. The area to the rear of the building is used for outdoor play for the children. The parking and access are located to the front of the building.
PROPOSAL
Erection of 2 no. adjoining canopies fixed at ground floor level to the rear of the nursery building. The canopies are made of a flexible manmade fibre membrane which would have a convex shape. One of the canopies would be 6.5 metres in length x 2.45 metres in depth, the other 4.8 metres in length x 2.45 metres in depth. The maximum height of the canopies above the patio would be 3.1 metres.
The application also initially proposed to extend the hours of operation of the nursery by an additional hour in the morning and evening (from 0700-1900 hours). However the applicant has withdrawn this part of the application and it now relates solely to the proposed canopies.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Green Belt
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
C4 – Green Belt
C5 – Development in the Green Belt
C7 – Extensions to Buildings
D1 – All New Development
D8 – Day Nurseries and Playgroups
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
7/1/6396 – Outline planning permission for erection of a dwelling – Approved January 1970
7/1/6499 – Erection of detached dwellinghouse – Approved March 1970
H/41907 – Retention of dwellinghouse without complying with an agricultural occupancy condition (condition 02 on application 7/1/6499) – Approved March 1996
H/62236 - Change of use of residential property to form daycare nursery together with single storey side/rear extension and associated parking – Approved July 2005
CONSULTATIONS
Sure Start Early Years - In support of the above application to erect sun canopies to the rear of the building, the following information is submitted with regards to the importance of the access to outdoor provision for children attending full daycare childcare provision in all weather conditions including protection from the sun. This day nursery has a south facing garden and little natural shade.
From September 2008 the introduction of the new Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) came into place. This document is the legal and statutory document all childcare providers will need to pay regard to in order to complete successful registration and inspection processes laid down by OFSTED. Within the statutory framework, under the heading of ‘Organisation’ the document clearly states “providers must ensure that there is a balance of adult-led and freely-chosen or child initiated activities, delivered through indoor and outdoor play” for all children attending the setting.
Being outdoors has a positive impact on children’s sense of well being, and supports child development. A child having the opportunity to go outdoors enables them to do things in a different way that is not always possible when indoors. Playing and learning outdoors allows children to have first hand contact with weather, seasons and the natural world. Research clearly shows that fresh air and the opportunity to move more freely in a less restrictive environment aids development. For some children they will explore different learning opportunities outside that they may not feel confident to do inside.
Outdoor play opportunities should be available constantly to support a child’s daily environment and life. Some children have very little opportunity for play outdoors and to enable this to happen it is essential it is on offer regularly.
Trafford Sure Start Early Years is working closely with all childcare providers across the borough to assess and plan their outdoor spaces to ensure all children have access to outside play in all weathers. Trafford Council has a new Capital Grant Scheme in place, funded directly be government, to support plans for enhancing provision with specific regard to outside play, Woodlands Day Nursery are in the process of applying for funding to support this proposal.
LHA – No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Neighbours: In relation to the application as originally submitted (including the proposed extension of hours) 17 letters of objection from 15 properties and a petition comprising 9 signatures were received. 5 of the signatories of the petition had also written the letters. Much of the content of these letters relates to concerns over the existing operation of the nursery in terms of staff behaviour, in particular staff parking on-street causing congestion on Ridgeway Road. The concerns raised in relation to the proposed extension of hours application are summarised as follows:
– The proposed extension of hours would increase the existing traffic, noise and loss of privacy already experienced by local residents
– Ridgeway Road is very busy first thing in the morning and again in the evening – the very time that the nursery wishes to open. The proposals will simply extend the hours of congestion and nuisance.
– Children of nursery age should be at home at 7am and 7pm not at nursery.
Following the withdrawal of the extended hours aspect of the application, neighbours were re-notified of the amended description, relating solely to the erection of the canopies. One letter of objection was received in relation to this notification. Grounds of objection as follows:
– The canopies will allow the children to be brought outside in the warmer weather and the noise from this will affect all of the surrounding homes.
– If allowed, there should be a restricted time, which should be kept to a minimum that this should be allowed to take place and homeowners should be notified of the set time
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The applicant has confirmed that the aspect of the application relating to extending the hours of operation of the nursery has been withdrawn. However they wish to advise the Committee that the intention of extending the window of time over which parents could drop off their children was to thin out the traffic and thus help traffic volume over time and support local residents and that the neighbours who have objected have missed an opportunity to improve the situation. However she is willing to withdraw this aspect of the application if that is what neighbours of Woodlands Nursery feel is of greater benefit to them.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The application site lies within the Green Belt where national guidance in PPG2 presumes against inappropriate development. Proposals C4 and C5 of the UDP reflect this advice. As the proposal does not fall within any of the categories set out in PPG2 and Proposal C5 as being considered acceptable in principle in the Green Belt, the proposal must be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which PPG2 advises is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Proposals D1 (All New Development) and D8 (Day Nurseries and Playgroups) and the Council’s Adopted Planning Guidelines for Day Nurseries and Playgroups are also relevant.
NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
2. Proposal C5 refers to the fact that if very special circumstances can be demonstrated even extensions that are considered to increase the impact on the Green Belt will be allowed. It is considered that in this instance a case can be made that very special circumstances apply to this application. Woodlands Day Nursery is an established and successful business. The application has the support of the Sure Start Early Years Manager. From September 2008 the introduction of the new Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) came into place. This document is the legal and statutory document all childcare providers will need to pay regard to in order to complete successful registration and inspection processes laid down by OFSTED. Within the statutory framework, under the heading of ‘Organisation’ the document clearly states “providers must ensure that there is a balance of adult-led and freely-chosen or child initiated activities, delivered through indoor and outdoor play” for all children attending the setting. Outdoor play opportunities should be available constantly to support a child’s daily environment and life. Trafford Sure Start Early Years is working closely with all childcare providers across the borough to assess and plan their outdoor spaces to ensure all children have access to outside play in all weathers. This day nursery has a south facing garden and little natural shade and therefore the canopies are required to allow constant outdoor play opportunities in line with the Early Year Foundation Stage. This document was not in place when the nursery was initially granted planning permission and in 2005 it could not have been foreseen by the owners of the nursery that the focus on constant opportunities for outdoor play would become a requirement. It is therefore considered that as the canopies are a best practice requirement set out in the Government’s Early Year Foundation Stage document, the need to allow outdoor play for children while safeguarding them from the elements at an existing nursery constitutes a very special circumstance as without these canopies the nursery cannot meet best practice requirements.
IMPACT ON THE GREEN BELT
3. Proposal C7 (Extensions to Buildings) states that ‘Rebuilding or extending buildings in a manner or to an extent, which significantly affects their character or increases their impact on the Green Belt or Protected Open Land will not normally be permitted’. The proposed canopies would be single storey only and open sided and largely sited over an existing hardsurfaced patio area. They would be located to the rear of the property and not obvious from the road frontage. The colour of the fabric could be conditioned to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority so that it does not have an obtrusive impact on the Green Belt. Due to the size, design and materials of the proposed structures and their location within the site it is considered that they would not have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
4. One of the objections received relates to the fact that the canopies will allow the children to play outside in the warmer weather which will cause a noise nuisance for surrounding homes. The nursery site benefits from being adjoined on both sides by fields, providing a buffer of 57 metres to the side boundary of the nearest property to the east and 32 metres to the side boundary of the nearest property to the west. There is also a mature hawthorn hedge around the site, in excess of 2 metres in height. There are fields and glasshouses associated with the adjacent plant nurseries to the rear and the nursery building itself lies between the outdoor play area and houses opposite on Ridgeway Road. The proposed canopies would be situated entirely to the rear of the property in the existing childrens play area. It is not therefore considered that the erection of the canopies would have a material impact on the amenity of local residents and therefore the proposal is considered to be compliant with Proposals D1 and D8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
OTHER MATTERS
5. As indicated under the ‘Representations’ section of the report, the vast majority of the neighbour objection letters set out objections in relation to the proposed extended hours of operation as indicated on the application as originally submitted. The proposed canopies are to shade the children from exposure to the elements and would not result in any increase in the numbers of children attending the nursery. Consequently the proposal would not impact on the amount of traffic accessing or egressing the site or the times at which that traffic arrives or departs.
CONCLUSION
6. It is considered that the proposed canopies would have limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with any of the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt. It is considered that the factors set out above constitute very special circumstances and outweigh any harm caused to the Green Belt.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:
1. Standard Time
2. Notwithstanding the details submitted to date, no development shall take place until samples, including colours, of the materials to be used in the construction of the canopies hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason. To ensure satisfactory external appearance in the interests of visual amenity, having regard to Proposals D1, C5 and C7 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The development hereby permitted, shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the applications as amended by the additional plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 15th January 2009 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason. For the avoidance of doubt because amended plans were submitted subsequent to the receipt of the application in order to protect the visual amenities of the area having regard to Proposals D1, C5 and C7 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
JJ
|WARD: Gorse Hill |H/70659 |DEPARTURE: No |
|ERECTION OF EXTENSION TO EXISTING HIGH-BAY WAREHOUSE (TO 39 METRES IN HEIGHT) |
|Procter & Gamble Ltd., Trafford Park Road, Trafford Park |
|APPLICANT: Procter & Gamble Ltd. |
|AGENT: Clark smith Partnership |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT, SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT |
SITE
The Procter & Gamble site comprises 10ha of land within Trafford Park bound to the north by the Manchester Ship Canal and Salford district beyond and with industrial/warehouse buildings on all other sides. The former 20ha site of Procter & Gamble was sub-divided in July, the other half is now used by the SCA company – manufacturing similar goods to those when it was owned by Procter & Gamble.
The site comprises a mix of production, storage and office buildings (including high level warehouse buildings). There are also internal access roads and HGV parking bays, car parks and landscaping.
PROPOSAL
Planning permission is sought for an extension to the existing high-bay warehouse. The existing high-bay measures 145m x 35m and 25m in height. The proposed extension would lie to the south of the existing high-bay and would measure 145m x 17.5m and a height of 39m with a flat roof. The proposed extension would provide additional storage accommodation and would increase the floor area of the high bay warehouse by almost 3,000 sq.m. The existing high bay warehouse has 4 crane aisles, the proposed extension would provide an additional 2 crane aisles. It would be constructed in profiled metal cladding (goose wing grey in colour) in a design to match the existing building. This building is located towards the centre of the site and the proposed extension would be on an existing grassed area, adjacent to an existing internal lorry park.
The premises would remain a 24 hour operation and the number of employees would remain unchanged.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Trafford Park Core Industrial Area
Main Industrial Area
PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
TP1 – Trafford Park Core Industrial Area
E7 – Main Industrial areas
D1 – All New Development
D4 – Industrial Development
ENV15 – Community Forest
ENV16 – Tree Planting
T9 – Private Funding of Development Related Highway and Public Transport Schemes
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There have been a large number of applications on this site in order to replace aging building stock and to accommodate new and improved methods of manufacture.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
High Bay Warehousing is a fully automated storage and retrieval system allowing high density product storage.
P&G do not have sufficient storage on the Trafford Park site for the products currently manufactured. External rented warehouses are used to store and dispatch a significant proportion of the product manufactured at this site, adding to increased complexity and costs. Additional on-site storage is therefore required to maintain affordability, reduce logistical complexity, ensure continued and possibly increased production and sustain employment at the site.
This site at Trafford Park has limited development area available. As such and to achieve the density of storage required the only viable solution is the extension of the existing high bay. Whilst the proposed extension is undoubtedly high there are other buildings on Trafford Park and in the immediate area that are significantly higher. The proposed extension would be set well within the site away from the Canal Corridor and behind an existing warehouse.
The construction of additional on-site storage removes the need for off-site storage therefore reducing HGV movement and associated vehicle emissions.
A separate contaminated land assessment has been submitted (including a remediation and implementation strategy).
Design and Access Statement
For a High Bay Warehouse, design and access is determined by function; the storage rack itself forming the structure followed by the cladding which is a colour and material to match the existing and blend with the skyline (goose wing grey). There is an existing 38m high building on the former P&G (now SCA) site and the former 45m high building (next to Centenary Way) has recently been demolished. The ‘Allied Mills’ building located across the canal in Salford stands at 54m in height.
As the high bay is fully automated, human access is very limited. Access onto and around the site remains unaffected by the proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposed development and no comments to make.
Manchester Ship Canal Company – Any comments to be reported as additional information.
Salford City Council – Any comments to be reported as additional information.
Local Highways Authority – It is considered that the increase in floorspace will not generate any further traffic movements as it is a storage warehouse and the existing car parking and servicing areas are unaffected by the proposal. There are no highway implications to the proposals and therefore no objections on highways grounds.
Environmental Protection Division – Any comments to be reported as additional information.
Built Environment – Any comments to be reported as additional information.
Main Pipelines - No objection. The special requirements for safe working and the covenants contained in the Deed of Grant should be adhered to.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The application site lies within the Trafford Park Core Industrial Area and within a Main Industrial Area on the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and therefore the proposed extension to the existing high bay warehouse is acceptable in principle and is considered to comply with Proposals TP1 and E7 of the UDP.
DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT
2. The proposed extension to the existing high bay warehouse would stand at 39 metres in height. As such the proposed extension would be visible from many vantage points from within Trafford Park and beyond. The existing high bay warehouse stands at 25m and is located centrally within the site some 160m from the boundary with the Manchester Ship Canal. The proposed extension would lie to the south of the existing high bay warehouse and as such, from the Canal and Salford, it would be partly screened by that high bay which would lie to the north of the extension however, the 14 metres above would still be visible when viewed from the north. Notwithstanding this, the application site lies within Trafford Park – an industrial location where many similar buildings can be found.
3. Located to the south of the existing high bay warehouse, the proposed extension would be far less visible when viewed from the north than if it had been located close to the canal bank. This, along with its design, materials and colour (goose wing grey) to match the existing high bay warehouse and blend with the skyline, reduces its visual impact in the surrounding area.
4.
There are many other high buildings within in the immediate vicinity including within the Procter & Gamble site, the adjacent SCA site, within Trafford Park generally and on the opposite side of the canal. There is an existing 38m high building on the former P&G (now SCA) site located to the south of Trafford Park Road, also the former 45m high warehouse building (next to Centenary Way) has recently been demolished. The ‘Allied Mills’ building located across the canal in Salford stands at 54m in height. As such, it is considered that the proposed high bay warehouse extension (to 39 metres in height) would be acceptable in this industrial location where there are other high buildings in the vicinity.
5. The proposed extension would be constructed on an existing grassed area, adjacent to a lorry park within the Procter & Gamble site. Therefore, the proposal would not displace any internal parking areas or service roads.
TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING
6. The proposed extension is expected to result in a reduction of HGV’s to/from the site given the provision of additional on-site storage. Also, the applicant claims there will be no impact of other traffic (personnel etc) on the site. The existing car parks/HGV parking bays will be unaffected by the proposal. The LHA raise no objection to the proposal.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
7. Proposal ENV16 of the UDP ‘Tree Planting’ and the Council’s Supplementary Planning guidance ‘Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest’ (adopted in September 2004) seeks to further the establishment of the Red Rose Community Forest. Under the terms of this guidance, the additional floorspace of the extensions would result in a requirement for the provision of 37 trees within the site alternatively a financial contribution must be made towards off-site provision of £8,803.69. The applicant has indicated that a financial contribution will be made, as such the developer would need to enter into a legal agreement for the payment of this financial contribution. The applicant has also stated that following further technical drawings it may be possible to achieve some planting on site (depending on the location of specific services) which will be carried out in addition to the financial contribution.
8. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Document 1 ‘Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes’ was adopted on 6 March 2007 and applies to developments such as this. Under the terms of this guidance, the additional floorspace of the extensions would result in a requirement of contributions to the sum of £4,705 towards the Highway Network Provision and £9,291 for Public Transport giving a total of £13,996. As such the developer would need to enter into a legal agreement for the payment of this financial contribution
CONCLUSION
9. The proposed extension to the existing high-bay warehouse at the Procter & Gamble site would be acceptable in principle given the location of the site within the Trafford Park Core Industrial Area and the Main Industrial Area. The extension, whilst high in appearance and therefore visible from many public vantage points, would be acceptable in terms of the functional design which would match the existing high bay warehouse. Given the central site location of the proposed extension and the other surrounding high buildings, it is considered that the extension would be satisfactory and would not have an unduly detrimental visual impact. As such the proposal complies with the Policies and Proposals of the Revised Trafford UDP and related SPG’s and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement for the financial contributions and subject to the suggested conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT, subject to:-
A. That the application will propose satisfactory extensions upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such legal agreement be entered into to secure:-
- A financial contribution of £8,803.69 towards off-site provision to the Red Rose Forest
- A financial contribution of £4,705 towards highway infrastructure
improvements
- A financial contribution of £9,291 towards public transport improvements.
B. That upon the satisfactory completion of the legal agreement referred to at A above, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1) Standard time limit
2) Materials to be submitted for prior approval
3) Landscaping Condition
4) Contaminated Land
AC
|WARD: |H/70328 |DEPARTURE: No |
|Davyhulme East | | |
|CHANGE OF USE FROM EXISTING DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE (USE CLASS B8) TO A MUSEUM (USE CLASS D1) |
|Argos Distribution Warehouse, Barton Dock Road, Trafford Park |
|APPLICANT: Peel South East Ltd |
|AGENT: Rapleys LLP |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT |
This application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on the 8 January 2009 to allow consideration of measures to ensure a Hackney Carriage taxi rank is provided within the application site. The report has been updated at Paragraph 10.
SITE
The application relates to the existing Argos storage and distribution depot situated on the north east side of Barton Dock Road in Trafford Park. The site measures 7.6 hectares in size and comprises a large industrial building with hardstanding extending to the north and west. The site is bound on three sides by highways, to the south is Barton Dock Road, to the east is Mercury Way and to the west is Phoenix Way. Access is provided for vehicles from both Mercury Way and Phoenix Way.
The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of retail and commercial developments. To the west is the recently completed Barton Square development, a bulky goods shopping development whilst to the south and east are a mix of industrial and storage and distribution developments. There is a vacant site to the north.
PROPOSAL
The application seeks consent to change the use of the existing 31,000 sq.m (gross internal area) storage and distribution depot into a museum (Class D1). No external alterations to the building are proposed at this stage, consent is sought only for the change of use. Planning permission will be required in future for any external alterations to the site. The applicant also does not provide any information about the type of exhibits for the proposed museum, although this may include items associated with the history of the Manchester Ship Canal.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Trafford Centre and its Vicinity
Special Health and Safety Development Control Sub-areas
PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
TCA1 - The Trafford Centre & its Vicinity
S2 – The Trafford Centre
E6 – Tourism Related Developments
T6 - Land Use in relation to Transport and Movement
T9 – Private Funding of Development related Highway and Public Transport schemes
T17 – Providing for Pedestrians, Cyclists, and the Disabled
A1 – Priority Regeneration Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/50500 – Change of use of vacant manufacturing factory (B2) in part or whole to distribution/warehousing (B8). Approved 23 March 2001.
H/51468 – installation of 7 additional loading doors under existing canopy; extension top vehicle service yard. Approved 24 May 2001.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The applicant has submitted a Sequential Test Exercise and Transport Report in support of the proposed development. These can be summarised as follows:
Sequential Test
There are no alternative sites available within the defined search area which could accommodate the proposal. The site satisfies the sequential test and its scale is commensurate with the Trafford Centre area and will complement existing facilities.
Transport Report
Traffic generation will be less than currently generated by the existing distribution warehouse (B8) operation. Barton Square is well served by buses and cycleways. The proposal will complement the existing Trafford Centre and many joint trips are expected.
CONSULTATIONS
LHA: To meet the Councils parking standards the provision of 1550 car parking spaces based on the Councils standard of 1 car parking space per 20 sq m and 103 cycle parking spaces should be made for the use. The proposals include the provision of 954 car parking spaces (based on illustrative plans provided), a rate of 1 space per 32 sq m.
The proposed car parking falls well below the Councils standards, therefore the applicant has provided evidence of the parking provision of other museums which include:
• the National Space Centre - 1 space per 20 sq m standard.
• The RAF museum - 1 space per 25 sq m.
• The Imperial War Museum North - 1 space per 62 sq m
Although it is clear that lower levels of parking are provided at the Imperial War Museum, concern remains that at this location during peak periods parking may be inadequate. It is felt however, that an objection on residential amenity grounds would not be appropriate due to the lack of residential properties in the vicinity of the site.
The trip generation modelling data provided demonstrates that the proposals will result in a decrease in peak hour traffic to and from the site, with the largest decrease being for inbound traffic in the am peak, and the lowest decrease being for outbound traffic in the pm peak. Due to the difference in the uses there will clearly be a reduction in the number of HGV's accessing the site.
Coach drop off and parking points should be provided within the site and improvements carried out to link the development with existing pedestrian and cycle links in the area. These matters should be covered by condition. The proposed Hackney Carriage taxi rank condition is also considered to be acceptable. On this basis there is no objection.
Strategic Planning and Development: Comments are incorporated into Principle of Development section below.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cllr Rigby: Requests the developer construct a Hackney Carriage taxi rank within the car parking for use by members of the public arriving/leaving by taxi.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The Argos storage and distribution depot falls within the ‘Trafford Centre and its Vicinity’ in the Revised Trafford UDP. Policy TCA1b states that this area is suitable for the consolidation, improvement and modernisation of existing businesses, industry and storage and distribution uses. The justification text states that the Council wishes to build upon the high quality facilities which have been developed in a way which is sustainable and achieves a high quality of urban development.
2. Policy E6 of the Revised Trafford UDP states that in relation to tourism development, the Council will need to be satisfied that developments can be accommodated on the development site without having an adverse affect on the environment and amenity of adjoining areas; would have direct or ready access to public transport facilities; and would not adversely affect the revitalisation of and regeneration of the Priority Regeneration Areas listed in Policy A1. It is considered that the proposed development complies with each of these criteria and therefore complies with Policy E6 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
3. Policy W7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West seeks to improve the region’s overall tourism offer in order that the area can compete effectively, not just with other parts of the UK, but also with international attractions. This could include meeting the needs of a diverse range of people, in locations easily accessible by sustainable means or which extend the visitor season.
4. The Government’s Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006) not only considers the value that tourism developments can add to the national, regional and local economies but also the key planning issues which may arise in considering proposals for individual tourism development. In choosing the best location, this guidance acknowledges the need to choose sites that are accessible to visitors and design their developments in such a way that visitors can readily and conveniently enjoy the attraction or facility. In particular it acknowledges the planning authorities’ objective to maximise accessibility by sustainable modes of transport.
5. The Trafford Core Strategy has been through its Preferred Options consultation stage and the application site falls within the Trafford Centre Rectangle Strategic Site which is identified as a mixed commercial, retail and leisure area. In response to the Preferred Options consultation document, the landowner prepared a Development Framework for this area. Within this document a number of neighbourhoods were identified, including one in which this site falls, ‘Kratos and Parkway Approaches’. Although this area is identified in this document as a potential commercial led neighbourhood, the applicant states that this was not designed to define rigid boundaries for land uses; instead it should be considered a general framework. Furthermore, the applicant considers that this area will add to the general mix of uses and will, in turn support the redevelopment and regeneration of the adjoining sites.
6. It is considered that the proposed development complies with the policies outlined above in both the Revised Trafford UDP, and the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West.
7. Guidance in PPS6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ and the Policies of the UDP states that that leisure development, such as this, should be focused towards town centres and sustainable locations. The site is not within a designated town centre and in accordance with PPS6, the applicant must demonstrate that there is a need for the development; that the development is of an appropriate scale; that there are no more sequentially preferable sites; and that there would be no unacceptable impacts on existing town centres. The applicant has submitted a Sequential Test Statement (based on a 30 minute drive time from the site) which seeks to address these tests. The assessment submitted considers 135 alternative sites within this drive time area and concludes that none of these alternative sites are available.
8. In view of the information provided and the thrust of the tourism policies both within the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Revised Trafford UDP, it is considered that the proposal would complement the existing facilities and is acceptable in principle.
CAR PARKING AND ACCESS
9. The proposed museum would occupy the full floorspace of the existing storage and distribution depot (31,000sq.m). Existing hardstanding to the north and west is currently laid out as vehicle car parking for staff and servicing for HGV’s. However, it is the applicant’s intention to rearrange this area to provide circa 900 car parking spaces. Indicative plans have been submitted which outline how this number of car parking spaces could be accommodated. The Council’s car parking standards indicate that 1,550 car parking spaces and 103 cycle parking spaces should be provided for a museum of this size. As only indicative Site Layout Plans have been submitted with the application, a condition is recommended below (Condition 2) which would require the submission and approval of full details for the means of access and the areas for the movement, loading, unloading and parking of vehicles, the provision of cycle links and cycle parking facilities and the provision of pedestrian links. Such areas shall be provided, constructed and surfaced in accordance with the approved plans prior to the commencement of the use.
10. Following discussions at the planning committee meeting on the 8 January 2009, officers within the Council’s Legal, Highway and Planning Departments have agreed the wording of a valid and robust condition with the applicant which would require the submission of details for a Hackney Carriage taxi rank (for a minimum of 3 vehicles), its implementation prior to the commencement of the use, and its retention thereafter. This condition is outlined in full below (Condition 6).
11. A condition requiring the submission of a travel plan is also recommended. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
12. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes’ SPD1 was adopted on 6 March 2007 and applies to major developments such as this. Contributions required from a D1 non-residential institution use are not specified within SPD1 but need to be determined through separate negotiation. These contributions will be used by the Council and GMPTE to implement public transport and highway improvement schemes within the locality of the new development. In this instance it is not felt appropriate to seek a financial contribution towards highway network improvements as the building is currently in use as a storage and distribution depot which generates a higher level of traffic than the proposed use. The application site falls within an ‘Accessible’ area as defined by SPD1 and the relevant contribution based on the floorspace proposed for public transport improvements would be £300,000.00.
13. If committee members resolve to grant planning permission, this matter should be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement.
CONCLUSION
14. In conclusion, the proposed museum is considered to be acceptable in principle and would provide an opportunity for further linked trips in the Trafford Centre area. The proposal complies with Government Guidance in PPS6 and all relevant Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan Policies and Proposals and is recommended for approval accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT
(A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and such legal agreement be entered into to secure a financial contribution of £300,000.00 towards public transport improvements.
(B)That upon completion of the legal agreement referred to at (A) above, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. Standard condition;
2. Provision of access facilities condition 1;
3. Retention of access facilities condition;
4. Travel Plan condition;
5. No consent for external alterations to building;
6. Unless agreed otherwise with the local planning authority:
i) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of a dedicated rank for the exclusive use of at least 3 Hackney Carriages have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;
ii) The approved dedicated rank shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to commencement of the use hereby permitted and thereafter shall be made available for use by Hackney Carriages only.
Reason. To facilitate access to the site and to ensure that satisfactory provision is made within the site for the accommodation of Hackney Carriage vehicles attracted to or generated by the proposed development, having regard to Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
VM
|WARD:Bowdon | H/70698 |DEPARTURE:No |
|ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE TO REAR OF TALL TREES AND OAKLEIGH WITH NEW DRIVEWAY AND SHARED ACCESS WITH OAKLEIGH TO DUNHAM |
|ROAD. |
| |
|Tall Trees/Oakleigh, Dunham Road, Bowdon. |
|APPLICANT: Greenlink Estates Ltd |
|AGENT: ARC Design Services Ltd |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT subject to Section 106 agreement |
SITE
The application site is located on the south side of Dunham Road near to the junction with Bradgate Road. The site forms what was previously the rear garden areas of two separate residential sites Oakleigh and Tall Trees which are both within the ownership of the applicant. Both these properties are still insitu. Oakleigh is a large unoccupied detached Victorian dwelling which has recently had planning approval for various small alterations and extensions. Tall Trees to the north east side of Oakleigh currently comprises a detached 1960’s detached dwelling which is in derelict state. Planning permission has recently been granted for a replacement dwelling on this site.
To the north east side of the application site is West Lynn a large apartment complex, its boundary treatment with the application site comprises a 2m high closed panel timber fence and a 4m high conifer hedge on the applicant’s side.
To the south east side of the site is Hurst Dale a large building converted into apartments and which also includes a linked Coach House which is positioned along part of the shared boundary with the application site. A number of mature trees are located within the application site adjacent to the shared boundary.
To the south west of the site is the rear garden of Chaseley a large detached period property with extensive garden area throughout; boundary treatment with the application site consists of a belt of mature trees and bushes/hedgerow.
The site is located with the Devisdale Conservation Area and is predominantly residential in nature, characterised by its spaciousness and mature trees along boundaries and within sites.
PROPOSAL
The proposal relates to the erection of a detached dwellinghouse with living accommodation over three levels including basement area. The new dwellinghouse will include an attached double garage, five bedrooms and a swimming pool which will be located within the basement area. Access to the site will be from new driveway using the same access as currently used by Oakleigh onto Dunham Road.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
The Devisdale Conservation Area
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES PROPOSALS
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
D3 – New Residential Development
ENV16 – Red Rose Forest
ENV21 – Conservation Areas
ENV23 – Development in Conservation Areas
H1 – Land Release for Development
H2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing Development
H3 – Land Release for New Housing Development
H4 – Release of Other Land for Development
OSR9 – Open Space in New Housing Development
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Oakleigh
H/69136 - Erection of new vehicular gates, alterations to existing access to include lowering existing boundary wall and relocating gate piers. – Refused 13/05/2008
H/69185 - Demolition of existing orangery, erection of replacement single storey side orangery, two storey side extension, single storey side and rear extension to form swimming pool. Various external alterations including new windows, doors, change to side bay windows and introduction of three new garage doors to side elevation of existing garage. Increase to basement area with formation of new lightwell, new entrance door feature and gable to side study area. – Withdrawn 20/05/2008
H/69587 – Demolition of existing orangery. Erection of single storey side extensions; increase to basement area to form swimming pool; alterations to existing garage; erection of side dormer and porch and various external alterations – Approved 18/07/2008
H/69609 - Erection of new vehicular gates, piers and associated walls and relocation of existing right hand stone pillar adjacent to highway to widen access. – Approved 28/08/2008
Tall Trees
H/CC/66399 – Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing house and garage – Approved 20/06/2007
H/66400 – Demolition of existing house and garage followed by erection of detached dwelling and detached garage with living accommodation above – Approved 20/06/2007
H/70285 – Erection of two and three storey detached house following demolition of existing house and garage – Approved 17/11/2008
H/CC/70286 – Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing house and garage – Approved 17/11/2008
APPLICANTS SUBMISSION
Housing Policy
RSS Policies do not rule out new housing development in the vicinity of the application site. The application proposal is for a single, general market dwelling of exceptional quality and high value. It is of a type not usually suited to an urban centre or inner city area but typical of a low density suburb. It will contribute to the supply of this sector of the housing market in an area of high demand.
Whilst the proposed development would not support a local regeneration strategy, the proposal is located in a sustainable location and proposes the use of previously developed land. Moreover the location adjacent to the A56, a main bus route, confirms that it is well served by public transport and only a short distance from the Altrincham Town Centre Priority Regeneration Area with its associated services.
As the proposal is small in scale and proposes the development of new high value family housing accommodation for the general market, it is considered that there is no conflict with RSS policies and that no harm would result to the RSS strategy.
Design and Access Statement
Following points made:-
- Site located in a low density residential suburb of mainly Victorian origin.
- Proposed new dwelling would be approximately 826sqm (8,888sqf)
- The overall size of the plot is 2892sqm (0.71 acres) with the overall footprint of the building at ground floor occupying approximately 320sqm (i.e just over 11% of the site area).
- Siting of new dwelling positioned to take into account relationship with neighbouring properties
- Height of dwelling lower than that at Oakleigh and the approved scheme at Tall Trees.
- Roof material to be reclaimed slate
- Natural stone used on cills, heads and mullions, timber painted windows
- Off road parking for a minimum of five cars
- Development will involve a mature and immediate high quality landscape setting.
Highways Report
Report prepared by Singleton Clamp & Partners to investigate and report upon the anticipated traffic and highway issues associated with the proposal to introduce an additional property on land at Oakleigh and Tall Trees.
Development proposals include:-
- Development of a new property on land at Tall Trees and Oakleigh with access taken through Oakleigh onto the A56 through the permitted improved access.
- Widening of the existing access to Oakleigh to 5m width (previously permitted)
- Setting back the access gates to a distance 6m from the back of footway (previously permitted)
- Improved visibility splays onto the A56 from the access.
It is concluded that the anticipated traffic associated with the application proposals to serve a new house using the previously permitted improvements to the existing access from Oakleigh onto the A56 can be safely accommodated onto the local highway network.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Planning and Developments – Comments incorporated into Observations section below.
LHA – To meet the Councils parking standards the provision of four car parking spaces should be made, the proposals include a double garage and it is considered that there is adequate space within the site to accommodate the further vehicles.
It is considered that the shared use of the access is acceptable due to the relatively low levels of traffic that are generated from residential properties. It is also noted that the widening of the existing access to 5m has been approved as part of previous proposals.
The applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.
There are no objections to the proposals on highways grounds.
Pollution and Licensing – The application site is situated on brownfield land and therefore a contaminated land condition is recommended.
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: - 12 letters of objection received from individual addresses regarding the proposal and one from the West Lynn Management Company Ltd , main points raised:-
Infilling not accepted at expense of the amenities of surrounding properties (Council Guidelines)
Tandem and background building not normally accepted where there is disturbance into formerly quiet garden areas (Council Guidelines)
• Will result in overlooking and being overlooked (from West Lynn)
• No adequate screening
• Proposed car parking will be a visually unpleasant view
• Noise from leisure amenities and cars from occupants/visitors and swimming pool.
• Concern regarding overloading of drainage system
• Proposal will devalue property prices
• Proposal is not for affordable housing
• Loss of views of neighbouring trees and lawns
• Development inappropriate for a Conservation Area
• The site is garden area and has never been built upon
• No buses travel along the Dunham Road section of the A56 south of Altrincham town centre.
• Additional traffic onto Dunham Road inappropriate
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The application proposes a development of one detached dwellinghouse on the site and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy published by the Secretary of State in March 2008 – and now formally published (in September 2008) – must carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the former published Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.
2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, new RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.
3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the new RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.
4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant new RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.
Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -
“Development should be focused in and around the centres of the towns and cities. Development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on addressing regeneration and housing market renewal and restructuring.”
Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.
Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.
Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in locations that are accessible by public transport to areas of economic growth should be proposed. Emphasis is placed on proposing a high level of development in inner areas to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured to support economic growth.
Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -
“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”
Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -
“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs and support agreed local regeneration strategies.”
5. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the RSS criteria (set out in Policy L4 and Policy MCR3): -
a) Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy;
b) Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,
c) Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport.
In terms of criteria (a) the proposal is located some 760metres (0.4miles) from the boundary of the Altrincham Town Centre Priority Regeneration Area and can be a development considered to be supportive of a local regeneration strategy.
In terms of criteria (b) the proposal can be agreed to be acceptable as it proposes the re-use of previously developed brownfield land.
In terms of criteria (c) the section of Dunham Road that the application site is located on does not have a public bus service. The nearest bus routes are located at Park Road and Oldfield Road 830metres and 590metres from the application site respectively therefore the merits of the proposal in terms of the site being in a location well served by public transport is less clear.
6. The strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the new RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration and to meet affordable housing needs.
7. Whilst the proposal does not strictly align with the development focus set out in RSS Policies L4 and MCR3 it is modest in scale and cannot be said to conflict with the development focus set by these Policies (the application site being located within the southern part of the city region as defined in the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document of July 2008).
8. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) it is considered that it would not be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4.
9. As such it is considered that in principle the proposed residential development of the site for one detached dwellinghouse is acceptable.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
10. The proposed new dwelling will form part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the Oakleigh and Tall Tree sites which involves the extensive refurbishment of Oakleigh and a new replacement dwelling at Tall Trees. The application site includes part of the rear garden area from both Oakleigh and Tall Trees and measures approximately 2892sqm (0.71 acres) in size.
11. The proposed new dwelling will measure 9.1m from ground level to ridge height this is lower than the existing property at Oakleigh which measures 10.8m and the new replacement dwelling at Tall Trees as approved under planning Ref:H/70285 which measures 12.1m. The area of the site that the proposed new dwelling is to be located is at a lower level than the existing dwelling Oakleigh, thereby further reducing the overall scale and massing of the proposed dwelling as viewed from within and outwith the site.
12. The front elevation of the dwelling will face north eastwards towards the shared boundary with West Lynn and their communal rear garden area beyond. The footprint of the proposed dwelling is ‘L’ shaped with the single storey double garage positioned nearest to this shared boundary with West Lynn retaining a distance of 8.4m. The main two storey front elevation will retain a distance of 15m to the shared boundary at the nearest point (from blank gable). At first floor level there will only be one habitable room window facing the boundary with West Lynn (Bedroom 5) which will retain a distance of 18.4m to this shared boundary, a first floor landing window retains a distance of 19.6m to the shared boundary.
13. At the nearest point the new dwelling will retain a distance of 7m to the shared boundary with Hurst Dale apartments which are positioned to the south west side of the site. There are no first floor habitable room windows proposed on this elevation, two en-suite windows would be conditioned to be obscured glazed. Hurst Dale Cottage which is a former Coach House and part of the Hurst Dale development is situated along the shared boundary with the proposal site. The cottage has no side facing windows on the elevation facing towards the proposal site, it has however six roof lights on the roof plane facing the application site. The main Hurst Dale apartment complex is positioned further away from the boundary (Approx 5m from the boundary) and has no main habitable room windows facing towards the site. It should be noted that the Hurst Dale site including Hurst Dale Cottage is on a higher level than the proposal site and therefore the proposed new dwelling will have a ridge height in line with the ridge height of the adjacent property Hurst Dale Cottage.
14. A distance of approximately 44.4m will be retained to the rear boundary of the site which is a shared boundary with the property Chaseley to the south west side of the site. The property will retain a distance of approximately 7m to the new side boundary with Oakleigh and Tall Trees. Three secondary bedroom windows are proposed on the north west elevation facing towards this boundary therefore these windows would be obscured glazed by condition as there is a shortfall in the minimum privacy distance of 10.5m normally required in these situations.
IMPACT ON CONSERVATION AREA
15. The proposal site is located within the Devisdale Conservation Area Sub Area A. The Conservation Area guidelines for the area indicate that buildings in this sub-area are mainly Victorian built in individual styles with steep pitched slate roofs with varied roof lines, gables and bays. The overall impression is of a relaxed and affluent spaciousness with landscaping dominant.
16. The proposed dwelling has been designed in order to replicate the general style of the existing Victorian dwelling Oakleigh which also influenced the design of Tall Trees. Materials proposed to be used include natural slate, reclaimed brick, natural stone, painted timber windows and black aluminium rain water goods this palate of materials is in line with similar approved at Oakleigh and Tall Trees. The proposal site as well as the Oakleigh and Tall Tree sites also involves a comprehensive soft landscaping scheme which involves additional tree, hedge and shrub planting throughout which is in line with the general character of these sites within the Conservation Area which would have a general wealth of planting within the sites. It is considered that the proposed house design is appropriate and would serve to enhance the Devisdale Conservation Area and that the siting of the dwelling is also appropriate and in keeping with the prevailing character of large properties glimpsed through planting.
TREES
17. A number of trees have been removed throughout both the Oakleigh and Tall Tree sites which has been undertaken following consultation with the Council’s Arborculturalist officer. There are however a significant number of mature trees retained along site boundaries and within the site and form part of the proposed landscaping scheme for the overall site.
ACCESS AND CARPARKING
18. Access to the proposed dwelling will be along a shared private driveway with Oakleigh, accessed from Dunham Road. Previous planning applications (See planning history section of report) at the Oakleigh site have included works to widen the existing access onto Dunham Road and to set vehicular gates further back into the site to improve highway safety into the site. Car parking within the site will involve two spaces within a double garage and an area of hardstanding to the front of the dwelling which could accommodate a further 4-5 cars.
CONTRIBUTIONS
Red Rose Forest
19. The Council’s approved SPG for developer contributions towards Red Rose Forest (September 2004) sets out where developments should contribute to tree planting in the Red Rose Forest area. A residential site requires 3 new trees per dwelling and tree planting is normally required to be on site. The development proposes 1 dwelling and should therefore provide 3 trees, preferably on site. It is considered that in this location it would be preferable for the tree planting to be on site to enhance the visual amenity of the area and to supplement the loss of some trees removed from the site previously. The proposal site is a large plot with plenty of scope for planting along boundaries and within the site. The cost of three trees is £705 and therefore a sum of £705 less £235 for each that is provided on site will be required.
Open Space
20. The Council’s approved SPG on Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities provision and Commuted Sums (September 2004) sets out when developers will be expected to contribute to such provision. For residential development, there is a set method of calculating the contributions based on the number of dwellings and number of bedrooms. In this case, the number of dwellings is known (1) and the application states that this will be a five (5) bedroom house. On this basis the contribution would be £1942.82 towards open space provision and £922.37 towards outdoor sports provision, a total of £2865.18.
RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT subject to Section 106 Agreement
A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and such legal agreement will be entered into to secure:-
• A financial contribution of £705 towards Red Rose Forest/off-site tree planting less £235 for each tree provided on site.
• A financial contribution of £2865.18 towards informal/childrens playing space and outdoor sports facilities.
B) That upon completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. Standard Condition
2. Submission of materials
3. Landscaping condition
4. Tree Protection Condition No.1
5. Withdrawal of rights to alter
6. Prior to the first occupation of the building hereby permitted the first floor windows in the north west and south east elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be retained at all times in obscure glazing.
7. Contaminated Land Condition
CM
|WARD: St Mary’s |H/70660 |DEPARTURE: NO |
|CONVERSION OF DWELLINGHOUSE INTO TWO DWELLINGS |
|26 Tavistock Road, Sale |
|APPLICANT: Mr. Ronnie Davies |
|AGENT: N/A |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT |
SITE
The application site lies to the south of Tavistock Road, close to its junction with Okehampton Crescent in Sale. The property is a red brick two storey detached dwelling which has an existing two storey side extension, with a bay window to the front elevation which mirrors the design of the original dwelling. A double porch with two entrance doors exists to the front of the property and a single storey extension exists to the rear.
Semi-detached dwellings No.22 and No.24 bound the site directly to the west. No.s 22, 24 and 26 are the only three properties within this part of the street which front directly onto Tavistock Road. An area of hard-standing measuring 12.2m in width and 6.2m in length exists to the front of the property, which is capable of accommodating four cars.
PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks consent for the subdivision of No.26 Tavistock Road into two separate dwellings, to create one two bedroom dwelling and one three bedroom dwelling, giving the appearance of a pair of semi-detached properties. The internal alterations have been completed prior to the receipt of the application and the applicant has advised that the two storey side extension (which forms the two bedroom dwelling) has in the past been used as a granny annex. The front porch is proposed to be divided internally to form separate entrances to each of the properties to complete the conversion.
Alterations to the existing area of hard-standing to the front of the property are proposed to introduce landscaping to the off-road parking area. Three car parking spaces are proposed to be retained; two to serve the three bedroom dwelling and one to serve the two bedroom dwelling in accordance with the Council’s Car Parking Standards. A separate pedestrian route is proposed to provide access to the dwellings, with an associated grassed area to the front of the two bedroom dwelling. A row of limited height conifers will serve as a division between the two dwellings.
To the rear, the existing garden will be divided with the introduction of a 1.2m - 1.8m fence.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
No notation.
PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
L4 – Regional Housing Provision
MCR1 – Manchester City Region Priorities
MCR3 – Southern Part of the Manchester City Region
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
D3 – Residential Development
H1 – Land Release for Development
H2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing Development
H3 – Land Release for New Housing Development
H6 – Sub Division of Houses
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
The property benefits from a porch to the front elevation with two separate entrance doors. No planning history exists for this porch.
H/54774 – Erection of two-storey side extension for additional living accommodation (Approved November 2002).
H/55542 – Erection of two-storey dwelling attached to existing house (Refused January 2003).
- The application was refused on the grounds of its design, the narrowness of the site in terms of accommodating an additional dwelling and the detrimental impact of accommodating parking and pedestrian access on a relatively small frontage.
H/60711 – Amendment to application ref: H/54774 to allow two storey side extension and single storey rear extension (Approved January 2005).
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The applicant has submitted a Design and Access statement with the application. This states that there would be little demand for what would be a five bedroom dwelling in this particular location and that the two and three bed properties are more suited to the demand in the area. The statement also suggests that the three bedroom property is rented out on a long term basis to an elderly tenant and a relative of this tenant would be willing to occupy the two bedroom dwelling to offer caring assistance.
CONSULTATIONS
Local Highways Authority: Have indicated that the application is acceptable subject to the provision as proposed of three off-road parking spaces and separate pedestrian access.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The application proposes the development of 1 new dwelling that would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the Regional Spatial Strategy (published in September 2008) must now take precedence both over the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.
2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, new RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.
3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the new RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.
4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant new RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.
5. Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Sale). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -
“Development should be focused in and around the centres of the towns and cities. Development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on addressing regeneration and housing market renewal and restructuring.”
6. Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.
7. Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.
8. Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in locations that are accessible by public transport to areas of economic growth should be proposed. Emphasis is placed on proposing a high level of development in inner areas to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured to support economic growth.
9. Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -
“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”
10. Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -
“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs and support agreed local regeneration strategies.”
11. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the RSS criteria (set out in Policy L4 and Policy MCR3): -
10. Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy;
11. Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,
12. Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport.
12. In relation to criterion (a) the merit of the proposal as a development supportive of a local regeneration strategy is not clear given its relatively distant location (approximately 2500m) from the edge of the Sale Town Centre Priority Regeneration Areas.
13. However, in terms of criteria (b) and (c) the proposal can be agreed to be acceptable as it proposes the re-use of previously developed brownfield land and the site is in a location that is relatively well served by public transport.
14. The strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the new RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration and to meet affordable housing needs.
15. Whilst the proposal does not strictly align with the development focus set out in RSS Policies L4 and MCR3 it is modest in scale and cannot be said to conflict with the development focus set by these Policies (the application site being located within the southern part of the city region as defined in the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document of July 2008).
16. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) it is not considered that it would be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4. Nevertheless, in the current context, it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in policy terms.
DESIGN, STREET SCENE AND AMENITY
17. The acceptability of the proposal in terms of design has been established under application refs: H/54744 and H/60711, which relate to the two storey side extension. In these respects, the reason for refusal in terms of design of application ref: H/55542, which relates to the proposal for a new dwelling, has been overcome and superseded by the subsequent planning approval. The design of the extension mirrors that of the original dwelling, with bay window to front and results in the appearance of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The two storey side extension which forms the two bedroom dwelling is marginally narrower than the original dwelling.
18. Planning application ref: H/55542 was also refused on the basis that the provision of parking and pedestrian access to the front would appear cramped and congested. The frontage of the property has been altered under permitted development rights and is entirely an area of paved hard-standing. In its current state, this significantly large paved area to the front of the property with no boundary treatment is detrimental to the character of the area and the street scene. The proposed alterations to this area of hard-standing will improve the appearance of the property. The introduction of landscaping will further soften the appearance of the off-road parking area and will ameliorate the present detrimental impact on the street scene.
19. The provision of bin storage facilities for the new dwelling will be located behind a fenced area away from the front boundary of the property. This is in accordance with Proposal D3 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
20. The Council’s SPG entitled ‘New Residential Development’ suggests that a three bedroom dwelling should provide 80 square metres of private garden area. The proposal provides approximately 75 square metres of private garden area for the three bedroom dwelling and approximately 65 square metres for the two bedroom dwelling. This is considered to be an acceptable level of private amenity space for both the current and potential occupiers.
ACCESS, HIGHWAYS AND PARKING
21. Off road parking for three cars would be provided within the curtilage of the site, with two spaces allocated for the three bed house and one for the two bed house, with associated landscaping and separate pedestrian access routes. This is considered to be acceptable for this type of development.
22. Access to the off-road parking spaces is currently directly from Tavistock Road. The landscaping of the frontage will serve to define three parking spaces which will in turn improve highways and pedestrian safety, as it will be clear as to where cars will both enter and leave the site. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
23. The Council’s SPG28 – ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’ was adopted in September 2004 and applies to all new residential development which results in a net increase in dwellings. The site lies within an area that is deemed to have insufficient provision of children’s play space within the SPG and the relevant contribution based on the net increase in housing units and number of bedrooms is £1,855.96. This would be split between a children’s play space contribution (£1,153.55) and an outdoor sports contribution (£702.41).
24. The Council’s SPG29 – ‘Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest’ was adopted in September 2004 and seeks to further the establishment of the Red Rose Community Forest. In this case, the net increase of one additional dwelling would create a requirement for the provision of 3 trees. The applicant has submitted a landscaping scheme which proposes the provision of 3 standard size trees of native species within the curtilage of the site.
25. If committee members resolve to grant planning permission, these matters should be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement and a landscaping condition.
CONCLUSION
26. The subdivision of 26 Tavistock Road would result in a net increase of one dwelling and would make a valuable contribution to the stock of accommodation available in the Borough in accordance with Proposal H6 of the Revised Trafford UDP. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the completion of a legal agreement covering financial contributions and conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT
A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure a total financial contribution of £1,855.96 towards both open space (£1,153.55) and outdoor sports (£702.41); and a sum of £705 towards Red Rose Forest tree planting off site to be reduced by £235 per tree planted on site as part of an agreed planting scheme;
B) That upon satisfactory completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: -
1) Standard time limit;
2) Off road parking;
3) Landscaping scheme to include provision for planting of a minimum of 3 additional tress within the application site.
DR
|WARD: Flixton |H/69811 |DEPARTURE: Yes |
|ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE A CLUBHOUSE/ TRAINING CENTRE; CREATION OF 8 NO. PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED WORKS. |
|Land at Ambleside Road, Flixton |
|APPLICANT: Urmston Angling Association |
|AGENT: N/A |
|RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE |
SITE
The application relates to an undeveloped area of land measuring approximately 3 hectares on the south side of Ambleside Road to the west of Flixton. The site comprises a fishing lake at its south west corner with a central island. A pedestrian pathway leads down to this lake from the end of Ambleside Road. A line of mature trees and shrubs extend around the lake screening it from the surrounding area whilst to the north the land open ups into an area of grassland adjacent to Ambleside Road. A timber post and railing fence bounds the site to the north.
To the north east, the site is overlooked by a number of three storey detached modern residential properties (even no. s 76 to 86 Ambleside). To the north, west and south there is further open land and to the east are a mix of semi-detached and terraced two storey residential properties on Lansdowne Road North, Merwell Road and Vale Avenue. There is also a small single storey scout hut building directly adjoining the site to the north east. The Liverpool to Manchester train line extends along the southern boundary of the site.
PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks consent for a single storey detached clubhouse/training building at the north east corner of the site. This building would be rectangular in shape, measuring 18m in length and 7.5m in width. It would have a pitched roof with gable ends and windows along its east and west elevations. Internally the building would provide a student classroom with 20 work stations, storage, a kitchen, a manager’s office, and toilets. It would measure 2.3m in height to the roof eaves and 4.4m in height to the roof ridge. The building would sit on a concrete base which extends between 1.2m and 1.8m in width around the building footprint. To the west of the building a car park is proposed providing space for 8 vehicles to park. Access to this car park would be provided from Ambleside Road.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
Green Belt
Wildlife Corridor
New Open Space Outdoor Sports Recreation Proposals
Protection of Landscape Character
Areas of Nature Conservation Value
PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
C1 – Green Belt
C4 – Green Belt
C5 – Development in the Green Belt
ENV1 - Flood Risk
ENV3 – Landscape Protection
ENV7 – Nature Conservation
ENV9 – Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation
ENV10 – Wildlife Corridors
ENV11 - Nature Conservation and Assessment of Development
ENV14 – Tree and Hedgerow Protection
ENV17 – Areas of Landscape Protection
OSR5 – Protection of Open Space
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/41848 – Erection of perimeter fencing with associated gate and stiles and surfacing of footpath. Approved 14 February 1996.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement and various supporting letters relating to the development proposed. The content of these letters is summarised below:
• Urmston Angling Association (UAA) was established in 1974 and has 500 members in the Trafford area. The UAA have been attempting to introduce a youth programme to provide a community based angling and coaching programme for local children, schools and community groups in the Trafford region. £14,000 has been secured from the BIG Lottery funding and Local Network funding to deliver a project which seeks to engage more young people in the sport of angling;
• Classes need to be undertaken close to the waters edge for practical reasons. Attempts to contact the adjoining scout group to discuss shared facilities have been unsuccessful and their building is not suitable as it is not DDA compliant. Alternative classrooms in local schools are too remote from the site;
• Approximately 3 or 4 taster sessions, lasting 1 hour each, would be held in the building every week during the summer months (April to October) and 2 lessons a week during the winter months (November to March). Taster sessions are aimed at young people and there would be maximum of 10 students per class;
• The proposal would be an essential facility for outdoor sports and recreation and by virtue of its size, scale and appearance does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt;
• The proposed building is modest in scale and the materials are appropriate to the surroundings. In visual terms, the site is viewed as part of the urban area rather than as part of the open area beyond the pool so the development is considered to be appropriate here;
• The building has been designed to minimise overlooking to adjacent properties and to provide off road car parking to limit its impact on the local roads.
CONSULTATIONS
LHA: No objection. The car parking layout and access proposed is acceptable in principle on the basis that the new facility is not leased/hired out to other user groups which could result in additional on-street car parking to the detriment of residential amenity and the convenience of road users.
Built Environment: No objection, subject to conditions relating to drainage.
Renewal and Environmental Protection: The site is a former landfill site and a standard contamination condition is therefore recommended.
Parks and Countryside Services: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report
GMEU: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report
REPRESENTATIONS
6 local residents have submitted objections to the proposed development. These can be summarised as follows:
• Residents of Ambleside Road bought their houses on the understanding that this land would not be built on in future;
• The proposed development is overly large and will be an eyesore;
• There is currently enough parking for all visitors on Ambleside Road without developing a new car park;
• Residents have had problems with youths hanging around this area. Building a structure which is unoccupied for a vast majority of the time will attractive more youths to this area at night and wanton vandalism;
• The building will remain largely unused. There are numerous other classroom facilities which are available to hire in the local area on an occasional basis. The Urmston Angling Association have not seriously considered other alternatives;
• The Urmston Angling Association have not previously been sympathetic to local residents. In particular, for over 12 months they failed to clear up several piles of earth which were attracting youths and anti-social behaviour. These problem areas were only addressed once complaints were made to Trafford Council. Residents feel more problems will occur if the building is developed;
• There has never been a need for such premises before. This will set a precedent for further development;
• Due to the nature of the development, more fishing vehicles will be arriving at unsociable hours and there will be a significant increase in traffic on this quiet no-through road putting children at risk;
• This site is part of a nature haven of great habitat value. The Chief Executive recently encouraged residents to support an application to the Peoples Millions charity to develop it into a proper nature reserve. How can the Council now allow a large structure to be built on this same nature reserve?
• The proposed classroom is not an ‘essential facility’ and is therefore inappropriate development in the green belt. No evidence is provided to the contrary by the applicant;
• Fishing theory can be taught in any classroom, a building dedicated to teaching only six months of the year is unnecessary;
• Residents are concerned that the true purpose of the facility is to provide a private bar for anglers;
• Whilst the plan shows generous landscaping, residents are concerned these saplings will take several years to mature
The Urmston and District Scout Council have also submitted a letter in response to the consultation process which states as follows:
The applicant states that discussions have been held with the 1st Flixton Scout Group regarding shared use of the neighbouring scout hut for training facilities. This is not correct and the Scout Group are concerned that this statement may be misleading. There have been no such discussions. The anglers have made requests to use the toilets and storage facilities in the past however this could not be accommodated due to space requirements.
OBSERVATIONS
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
1. The site is located within the Green Belt. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 ‘Green Belts’ states that the five purposes for including land in the green belt are to check the unrestricted sprawl of built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into each other; to assist safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the character and setting of historic towns; and to encourage recycling of derelict and other urban land. Within green belts there is a presumption against ‘inappropriate development’ which should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and includes the construction of new buildings which do not fall within those exceptions listed in PPG2 (Paragraph 3.4). Essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation is one of the listed exceptions.
2. PPG2 further states that ‘essential facilities’ should be genuinely required for uses of land and should preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Possible examples include small changing rooms or small stables. Policies C1, C4 and C5 of the Council’s Revised UDP reflects the advice given in PPG2 and lists the same types of development considered appropriate in the Green Belt.
3. The angling club clearly needs storage and toilet facilities at the site for members to use. They currently have only a small metal container situated behind the substation to the north east corner of their site which provides temporary storage, but there are no toilets. These facilities could easily be accommodated in a small building situated amongst existing mature landscaping within the site, maintaining the current openness of the Green Belt. The proposal however seeks consent for a large building adjacent to Ambleside Road with hardstanding extending to the west providing off road car parking for 8 vehicles. The proposed building, in addition to toilet and storage facilities, will also provide a kitchen, office accommodation and a classroom with up to 20 workstations. The largest element of the proposed building is the classroom, which in itself would measure 8.8m by 7.5m.
4. The angling club states that the proposed classroom is needed to provide classes on fishing techniques to young people within the Trafford area. These one hour classes would be held three or four times a week during the summer months and two times a week during the winter months. The club states that there would be a maximum number of 10 students per class and that part of the hour long lesson will be taught outside at the lake. The facility would also be used for the UAA Annual General Meeting and other club meetings held throughout the year. Council officers have outlined their concerns about the size of the development proposed and its intended use and have asked the club to consider reducing the size of the development. In particular, the proposed classes could easily be accommodated within a smaller building or could be held at several other existing classroom facilities within the local area. There are several local schools within walking distance of the site and a small scout hut adjoining the site to the east. The club states that they have been unsuccessful in contacting the local scout group to discuss dual use of their building; that this facility is unsuitable for them as it is not DDA compliant; and that there would be a conflict in use particularly during the busy summer months. The scout group however dispute this and are concerned that the evidence put forward by the applicant is misleading. The club also state that they can not use any of the local school facilities identified as lessons must take place close to the waters edge for practical reasons.
5. The club has, up until now, operated without the existence of a classroom facility and this part of the building would remain unused most of the time as classes would be held at only limited times during the week. Furthermore, there is already plenty of car parking available along the side of Ambleside Road currently used by anglers. The provision of a classroom facility and dedicated off-road car parking is not therefore considered to be essential to the main use of the site. Furthermore, the proposed development would be located at the northern edge of the green belt, adjacent to Ambleside Road. An evergreen hedgerow is proposed along the northern boundary of the site, however this would provide only limited screening and the building would still be clearly visible from the surrounding area. The proposed development, due to its size and siting would therefore clearly fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would be contrary to guidance in PPG2 and the Council’s Policies in the Revised Trafford UDP.
6. Whilst the club’s intention to engage with young people in the Borough should be encouraged, it is felt that the proposed training classes could easily be carried out within an existing building close to the site without harm to the Green Belt. Furthermore, the essential storage and toilet facilities required by the club could be accommodated within a smaller building on this site, if it is sensitively located. It is therefore considered that there are no very special circumstances which would warrant approval of the current planning application as an exception to established Green Belt policy and on this basis the application is recommended for refusal.
7. The proposed building/car parking area also falls within a designated Area of Nature Conservation Value and Area of Landscape Protection. Policy ENV11 ‘Nature Conservation and Assessment of Development’ applies and states that the Council will seek to ensure that wildlife features and habitats are retained where appropriate. The proposed building would be situated on an existing area of grassland which has little habitat value. No trees or shrubs within the site will be removed and existing trees along the east boundary of the site could be protected during the construction period. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be contrary to the guidance in Policy ENV11.
8. Meanwhile Policy ENV17 ‘Areas of Landscape Protection’ states that the Council will protect and enhance the distinctive landscape character and quality of these areas. The site falls within an area which is categorised as ‘River Meadowland’ and key features include medium scale pastoral landscape with patches of wet grassland and semi regular enclosure patterns marked by hedgerows and post and wire fences. Pressures on River Meadowland landscapes include, amongst others, urban encroachment. Proposal ENV17 states that where development is acceptable in principle, the Council will assess the suitability of development proposals in terms of their design, construction materials, degree and quality of landscaping and impact on the landscape. It has been concluded above that the proposed development is contrary to Green Belt policies and as such it is not considered to be acceptable ‘in principle’. Whilst the suitability of the proposal in terms of its design, landscaping and impact on the landscape is considered in the ‘Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area’ below, the proposal would be contrary to Proposal ENV17 of the Revised Trafford UDP in this respect alone.
IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF SURROUNDING AREA
9. Paragraph 3.15 of PPG2 states that the visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development which may be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design. Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP further states that developments should be compatible with the character of the surrounding area and should not adversely affect the streetscene by reason of its scale, elevational treatment or materials used. The proposed single storey building is situated at the edge of the urban area on the south side of Ambleside Road. Due to its size (measuring 18m in length, 7.5m in width and 4.4m in height to the roof ridge) and position next to Ambleside Road, the proposal would be clearly visible from the adjoining highway, the surrounding properties and the Green Belt. It would be plain in its design with no architectural detailing and would be constructed in brick with concrete interlocking roof tiles. Due to existing antisocial problems at the site, it is likely that the club will want to install security roller shutters to doors and windows. The poor design of the development combined with its size and siting adjacent to Ambleside Road would detract from the visual amenities of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Furthermore, hardstanding to the west of the building providing dedicated car parking for club members would result in the loss of additional open grassland at the site when there is considered to be no specific need for this parking. The proposal would is therefore considered to be contrary to Proposals D1 and ENV17 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and PPG2 ‘Green Belt’.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
10. The proposed clubhouse/training centre building would be situated 24m from residential properties on the opposite side of Ambleside Road. The land rises to the north and these properties are situated approximately 1m above the ground level of the proposed building. Due to their elevated position and orientation, these properties will have a clear view of the proposed development. However, as the proposed building is only single storey in height and there are no windows on the side elevation facing towards these properties, it would not result in a loss of privacy or appear overbearing to the occupants of these properties.
11. Some residents have raised concerns that the proposal will attract additional traffic creating more noise and disturbance. Given the timing and frequency of training sessions envisaged and the number of students planned to attend these lessons, it is considered that the proposal will generate only a slight increase in traffic and would not result in a significant increase in the amount of noise or disturbance associated with the existing use. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.
PARKING AND MEANS OF ACCESS
12. The applicant proposes a car park to the west of the building which would be accessed from Ambleside Road. This area will provide 8 car parking spaces and will be laid out with a porous paving system. The proposed car parking layout and access complies with the Council’s standards and is considered to be acceptable in this respect. The site is also situated in a relatively sustainable location, well served by public transport services and close to Flixton Local Centre and the surrounding residential areas. The Council’s LHA department have raised no objection to the development proposals on the basis that the new facility is not leased/hired out to other user groups which could result in additional on-street car parking to the detriment of residential amenity and the convenience of road users. This matter could be addressed by condition if planning permission is granted.
CONCLUSION
13. The proposed development, due to its size, and position is considered to be inappropriate development falling within the Green Belt. In particular, the proposal does not comply with any of the exceptions listed in Paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 and it would have a harmful impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt. The applicant has not demonstrated that very special circumstances exist to justify approval of the proposal as a exception to established Green Belt policy. Furthermore, the proposal, due to its size, siting and design would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the visual amenities of the Green Belt and is therefore contrary to Proposals D1 and ENV17 of the Revised Trafford UDP. The application is recommended for refusal on these grounds.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE, for the following reason:
1. The proposed development is located within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development and where development will only be allowed if it is for an appropriate purpose or where special circumstances can be demonstrated. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are any such special circumstances to permit the type, scale and form of development proposed and as such the development is contrary to Government advice contained in 'PPG2: Green Belts' and to Proposals C1, C4 and C5 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development by virtue of its siting, size, design and external appearance would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the visual amenities of the Green Belt and this Area of Landscape Protection. As such it is contrary to Proposals D1 and ENV17 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and PPG2 'Green Belt'.
VM
|WARD: Brooklands |H/70655 |DEPARTURE: No |
|DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF A THREE STOREY BUILDING TO FORM SIX SELF CONTAINED FLATS AND DEVELOPMENT ANCIALLRY |
|THERETO. |
|221 Marsland Road, Sale |
|APPLICANT: Williams Tarr Construction |
|AGENT: Mr Stephen Bollard, Street Design Partnership |
|RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO A S106 AGREEMENT |
SITE
The application relates to a brownfield site situated on the southern side of Marsland Road, on the eastern corner with Brooklands Crescent. The site previously contained a large two storey detached dwelling, which has now been demolished. The site is situated in a predominantly residential area and is close to the Brooklands Metrolink stop. Residential dwellings bound the site to the south and east.
PROPOSAL
The application proposes the erection of a three storey detached building to form six self contained flats, each containing two bedrooms. The application is a revision of an extant permission on the site (H/60750) which proposed an identical building forming five self contained flats; four flats over the ground floor and first floor containing two bedrooms and one flat on the second floor containing three bedrooms. This scheme also contained associated car parking and landscaping.
The building would measure 13.1m wide and a maximum of 17.2m in length with a maximum height of 17.3m to the ridge. The building would have a gable pitched roof and main habitable windows would be situated on all elevations. Car parking for residents would be situated to the rear of the site and areas of landscaped amenity space would be situated to the front and rear of the building.
REVISED TRAFFORD UDP
The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.
PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION
None
PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS
D1 – All New Development
D2 – Vehicle Parking
D3 - Residential Development
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
H/55994 - Demolition of existing property and erection of three-storey building to form 5 apartments; car parking with access onto Brooklands Crescent and widening of footway along part of Brooklands Crescent – Approved with conditions 5th June 2003.
H/60750 – Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three storey block of 5 apartments: provision of 8 car parking spaces with access from Brooklands Crescent and widening of footway along part of Brooklands Crescent. (Revision to planning permission H/55994) – Approved with conditions 11th February 2005.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
The applicants have submitted a Design and Access statement which is summarised as follows:-
- The apartments will contribute to an alternative type of accommodation to the surrounding houses and will provide a cross section of occupants of different ages, sex and gender which will help to maintain a balanced community.
- It is considered that the site coverage and density proposed are suitable for the site.
- The footprint follows the existing building line to Marsland Road and is set further back from Brooklands Crescent than the existing.
- Additional to vehicular access, a separate pedestrian gated entrance off Brooklands Crescent is introduced, further improving the safety of pedestrians.
- The side of the proposed building is staggered so as to not encroach on the visibility splay of the adjacent property.
- The car parking is located to the rear of the site to maximise the amount of safe, useable, landscaped areas and improves the visual amenity of occupants.
- The apartments have been designed to have both front and rear aspects enabling all occupants to police the main road and self police the car parking and amenity space.
- The overall impact of the scale of the building relates well to the surrounding houses in the area.
- Feature elements break up the elevations and provide aspects of interest and depth to the facades.
- The development is in keeping with the traditional theme of Marsland Road, where many buildings comprise of two primary levels of accommodation supplemented by occupied roof spaces with dormer or gable windows.
- The height, width and length of the building have not changed to the previously approved building (H/60750).
- Local facilities, amenities and good public transport links are within walking distance.
CONSULTATIONS
LHA – To meet the Council’s car parking standards the provision of 6 car parking spaces should be made and therefore the provision of 9 car parking spaces is acceptable on highways grounds. The site layout dimensions meet the Council’s standards and the access arrangements are acceptable. The provision of 2 secure cycle parking lockers needs to be made as part of the proposals for residents also. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the need to gain further approval from Trafford Council’s Streetworks Section for the construction, removal or amendment of a pavement crossing and they must ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used in the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.
Built Environment (Drainage) - No objection.
Built Environment (Highways) – No objection.
Built Environment (Street Lighting) – No comment.
Built Environment (Public Rights of Way) – No comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
None.
OBSERVATIONS
INTRODUCTION
1. As the site has an extant planning permission (which expires on the 11th February 2010) for a building containing five residential apartments, which is of the same size and design to that which is proposed, one key consideration is whether there have been any material changes in circumstances that would mean that the proposed development would not be acceptable. Another key consideration is whether an increase from five to six apartments on the site is acceptable. Since the previous permission was granted, the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan has been adopted in June 2006, although the relevant policies are largely unchanged. The Revised Regional Spatial Strategy has also been adopted (September 2008). The implications of these changes are discussed below.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
2. The application would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the policies of the revised Regional Spatial Strategy, which was adopted in September 2008, must now take precedence over the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.
3. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, the RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.
4. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.
5. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.
6. Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -
“As far as possible growth should be focused in their centres and inner areas but development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on areas in need of regeneration (particularly the Housing Market Renewal areas).”
7. Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.
8. Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.
9. Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in public transport accessible locations with strong economic prospects should be encouraged to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured.
10. Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -
“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”
11. Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -
“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs, and any general market housing (in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport) should support agreed local regeneration strategies.”
12. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the Proposed Policy L4 criteria: -
a) Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy;
b) Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,
c) Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport.
13. In terms of criteria (b) and (c) the proposal can be agreed to be acceptable as it proposes the reuse of previously developed brownfield land and the site is in a location that is well served by public transport.
14. In relation to criteria (a), although the proposal is not situated within a Priority Regeneration Area, it would bring an area of brownfield, that has been such for many years, back into use, thus positively contributing to the surrounding area. It is also acknowledged that the previous planning permission (H/60750) for the same building creating five apartments has consent until February 2010.
15. The strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration and to meet affordable housing needs.
16. Whilst the proposal is for an apartment development it is relatively modest in scale and it is considered that it would not conflict with the development focus set in RSS Policy L4 (the application site being located within the southern part of the city region as defined in the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document of July 2008).
17. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) it is considered that it would be difficult to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development. It is also considered that the development would have localised regeneration benefits as a result of bringing a brownfield site back into use in a sustainable location. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable in policy terms.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
18. The external appearance, size, massing and siting of the proposed building has not changed from the previously approved scheme on the site (H/60750), other than to change a proposed second floor window on the east elevation from serving a bathroom to a kitchen. Although there are clear glazed windows serving kitchens proposed to the eastern side elevation of the building, there are no clear glazed and/or opening windows on the side elevation of the adjacent property No. 219 Marsland Road. This relationship is therefore considered acceptable. A distance of 22m would remain between the proposed building and the rear boundary with 1 Brooklands Crescent; a distance of 26.4m would remain between the rear habitable room windows and No.1. It is considered that the proposal would not result in any undue overlooking, additional to the approved scheme.
19. Five of the proposed car parking spaces would be situated adjacent to the boundary with 1 Brooklands Crescent; although a landscaping strip 1.1m in depth would lie between the parking spaces and the boundary. It is therefore considered that this relationship would be acceptable.
19. The proposed development would also provide over 18 square metres of private outdoor amenity space per apartment as recommended in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, New Residential Development. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of residential amenity.
DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY
20. As previously stated, the external design, size, massing and siting of the proposed building has not changed from the previously approved scheme on the site. An additional car parking space to the approved scheme has been created through relocating the pedestrian access and bin store, although a clear buffer of vegetation would lie between the car parking bays and the highway. A landscaping condition is recommended requiring the applicant to submit a detailed scheme for hard and soft landscaping on the site. There have been no material changes in the appearance of the surrounding street scene and neighbouring properties since the previously approved scheme. It is therefore considered that the design of the proposal is acceptable and would not adversely impact on the existing street scene or character of the surrounding area.
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND PARKING PROVISION
21. The application proposes the creation of nine car parking spaces on the site. Following comments received from LHA, the car parking provision proposed would be 50% greater than the minimum that LHA would require on the site for six apartments. The size and layout of the car parking spaces provided and the access arrangements into the site are also considered acceptable. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable on highways grounds.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THE RED ROSE FOREST
22. Financial contributions were not previously sought from the developer in regards to the existing extant permission on the site for five residential apartments. It is therefore considered inappropriate to require financial contributions for all six apartments proposed, as the previous scheme for five could still be implemented. All contributions sought will therefore be based upon one additional residential apartment.
23. The site is within an area of deficiency in children’s play space and outdoor sports provision and therefore the proposal requires a financial contribution towards open space and outdoor sports provision. The relevant contribution in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’ would be a commuted sum of £1,855.96 split between a contribution of £1,153.55 for open space and £702.41 for outdoor sports.
24. The proposal also requires a contribution towards the Red Rose Forest. This is in accordance with Proposal ENV16 of the UDP and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Developer Contributions Towards Red Rose Forest’. The UDP states that in considering development proposals throughout the Borough, the Council will impose planning conditions or negotiate planning obligations with applicants to secure the planting of trees, hedges and woodlands in a way that is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. The total contribution for a development of this scale should be 1 tree. If the applicant is unable to provide this tree on site, a financial contribution of £235 is required.
25. These financial contributions to open space, outdoor space and Red Rose Forest will form part of the S106 obligation.
CONCLUSION
26. The provision of six residential units on the site is considered to be acceptable given that the Borough no longer has a ten year supply of housing land and the site is currently brownfield land and in a sustainable location. The proposal differs only to the extant permission on the site by the creation of an additional apartment through converting the second floor from a single apartment to two apartments. There is also the creation of an additional parking space and minimal alterations to the landscaping layout. There would be no greater impact on the street scene and the relationship to the surrounding residential properties would be the same. The proposal is thus considered to comply with all relevant Policies and Proposals in the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and related Supplementary Planning Guidance. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the necessary S106 agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
MINDED TO GRANT, subject to the legal agreement and conditions set out below:
A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and as such a legal agreement be entered into to secure
(i) a contribution to children’s play space and outdoor sports provision of £1,855.96 split between a contribution of £1,153.55 for open space and £702.41 for outdoor sports in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’.
(ii) a contribution to the Red Rose Forest of £235 towards tree planting in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Developer Contributions towards the Red Rose Forest’.
B) That upon satisfactory completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:
1. Standard Time Limit
2. Materials
3. Landscaping
4. Landscaping Maintenance
5. Provision of access, parking and turning areas
5. Retention of access, parking and turning areas
6. A scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters to be submitted and approved.
7. No development shall be commenced until a detailed investigation has been carried out to ascertain the need for surface water attenuation and on-site storage facilities. Details of any measures necessary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the measures as approved.
8. Details of cycle parking provision to be submitted and implemented.
9. Details of drainage scheme to run off/porous material for car parking.
VL
-----------------------
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
LOCATION PLAN FOR APPLICATION No: - H/58904
Scale 1:9500 for identification purposes only.
Chief Planning Officer
PO Box 96, Waterside House, Sale Waterside, Tatton Road, Sale M33 7ZF
Top of this page points North
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- how to develop a business plan
- how to develop a mission statement
- how to develop a mission statement worksheet
- how to develop research question
- how to develop a mission statement work
- steps to develop a curriculum
- how to develop customer relationships
- how to develop a research question
- how to develop writing skills
- permission to give child medication
- don t have permission to windows apps
- permission to give medication form