Application Number Date of Appln Committee Date Ward ... · 100263/OO/2012/S2 Date of Appln 20 th Aug 2012 Committee Date 22 nd Nov 2012 Ward Woodhouse Park Proposal Outline planning

Manchester City Council Item 13 Planning and Highways Committee 22 November 2012

Application Number 100263/OO/2012/S2

Date of Appln 20th Aug 2012

Committee Date 22nd Nov 2012

Ward Woodhouse Park

Proposal Outline planning application for a World Logistic Hub comprising B8 logistic space with ancillary B1 office (131,000 m²) with ancillary amenity/retail space and landscaping and ecology mitigation area

Location Land Bounded By M56 And A538 To The South West Of The World Freight Terminal, Manchester, WA15 8XL,

Applicant Manchester Airports Group, Olympic House, Manchester, M90 1QX

Agent Manchester Airports Group, Olympic House, Manchester, M90 1QX

DESCRIPTION As this application is of more than local significance it was placed before the Wythenshawe Area Committee at its meeting on 25th October 2012 in order that their views could be sought before the application was placed before the Planning and Highways Committee. At the meeting the Wythenshawe Area Committee resolved that it was minded to approve the application subject to a fuller analysis of the highways issues and footpath diversions and to any additional conditions suggested by the Planning and Highways Committee. This application relates to a site, 51.7 hectares in size, located to the south of junction 6 of the M56 motorway. The north-western boundary of the site runs along the M56 motorway, while the north-eastern and eastern boundaries of the site are formed by Wilmslow Road (A538). The southern and south-western boundaries of the site border areas of woodland and farmland, including Cotteril Clough, Sunbank Wood and Castle Mill Farm. Cotteril Clough and Sunbank Wood are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Biological Interest (SBI) respectively. The site is within Manchester Airport’s Operational Area and is the southern component of Airport City, as well as being a part of the Manchester Enterprise Zone. The majority of the site consists of fields used for grazing in connection with Oak Farm, which is located at the northern tip of the application site. The fields are enclosed by hedgerows and within the fields are approximately 12 ponds, a number of which are known to be occupied by Great Crested Newts. Sunbank Lane runs through the site, connecting Wilmslow Road (A538) to the residential areas of Halebank and Hale, the latter of which is located to the north of the M56 motorway within the boundaries of Trafford Council. In addition to Oak Farm, there are four other residential properties within the application site, namely Keepers Cottage in the west of the site and nos. 1-4 Oak Farm Cottages which are located centrally. All of the dwellings are accessed off Sunbank Lane. All bar Keepers Cottage are occupied by tenants of the applicant. The River Bollin is located at its closest point approximately 400 metres to the south-west of the development site, while Cotteril Clough Brook is located 40 metres to the south. A number of waterbodies are present throughout the site.


This application is seeking outline planning permission for the construction of an airport related freight logistics hub (Class B8) with ancillary office accommodation (Class B1) on 36.9 hectares of the site. In addition to the main logistic use, the development will also include retail and amenity facilities, in the form of two pavilions, to meet the needs of the future workforce. 1,473 car parking spaces and 134 cycle spaces are proposed. While consent is not being sought for the detail of the various buildings proposed, the applicant has confirmed that they will be between 10 to 15 metres in height. The remainder of the site, namely 14.8 hectares, is proposed to be used as a landscape and ecological mitigation area between the logistics park and Keepers Cottage, Sunbank Wood, Cotteril Clough and the M56 motorway. This landscape and ecological mitigation area will comprise of a landscape and ecological buffer zone and an extended mitigation area. This will incorporate the following features:

• 21 new or newly restored existing ponds

• 21 hibernacula

• enhancement of the retained hedgerows through additional planting and management to improve structure

• planting of close to 1 km of new native hedgerows

• conversion of the heavily improved grazed pasture to rough grassland meadow

• planting of native woodland and scrub The only matter that is detailed is the proposed access to the logistics park. This will take the form of a realigned Sunbank Lane and new junction off Wilmslow Road. The appearance, landscaping, layout and scale associated with the logistics park are to be dealt with as reserved matters. NOTIFICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

The applicants’ pre-application consultation exercise began on 25th July 2012 and public exhibitions were held on 31st July at Greggs Bakery, Building 308, World Freight Terminal (between 7.30am to 10.30am) and at The Romper Public House, Wilmslow Road (between 4.00pm to 7.00pm). Following submission of the proposal the City Council issued 456 notification letters to local residents and businesses within the area edged black overleaf (application site is edged red). The proposal has also been advertised in the Manchester Evening News and site notices have been erected throughout the site as the application is a major development, affects public rights of way and was submitted with an Environmental Statement.

The applicants have further held two public consultation events in Hale Barns on 3rd October 2012, at lunchtime and in the early evening at two separate venues. Over 100 people attended these events.


Local Residents and Businesses – 114 letters have been received from local residents and businesses, the comments are outlined below:

• The pre-application consultation process was unrepresentative of many of those who are likely to be affected by such a development as it omitted the village of Hale Barns. The result is that many residents who would have been affected by any proposed development have been denied a say in the consultation process. This consultation process is invalid and should be disregarded as an input to any planning decision.

• No specific details of the layout, scale, access and appearance are identified. How can any planning application be judged without sufficient details.

• The applicants’ traffic projections for the Altrincham-Wilmslow road are incredible. Their numbers suggest only "19 additional vehicles per hour at peak" would use Hale Road, to reach and leave the proposed facility. Notwithstanding that this road is already beyond peak capacity at these times, how can this number be accurate? Rough numbers: facility would have ~2500 jobs, assume only 20% are 'office hours', that suggests only around 3.8% of their office staff would live and drive from Hale Barns, Altrincham, Hale, Bowden, Timperley, etc. This doesn’t include the applicants’ projections for traffic in the Wilmslow direction, but if the numbers are similar, this further displays incompetence in their planning calculations.


• The A538 (Wilmslow Road) is already very busy, this proposal will exacerbate the situation. The road already serves very high volumes of passenger, commuter and freight traffic connecting Altrincham with the junction 6 of the M56 motorway. At and around peak times traffic is frequently at a standstill through congestion.

• The proposal will result in airport workers and other commuters trying to find alternative routes through Hale Barns to avoid the congested road A538.

• The additional traffic along Hale Road will add to the problems of trying to get out from High Elm Road and other junctions at busy times. Sunbank Lane has provided an alternative route from Warburton Green to the A538 to avoid the dangers of crossing Hale Road and this route will be lost with the proposed development.

• How can a complete and comprehensive traffic survey have been carried out when the airport has no idea what companies will occupy the new development and how much extra movement they will add to the A538.

• On the M56 carriageway from Manchester towards the M6 motorway, traffic exiting the Manchester Airport spur has to merge with and/or cross four lanes of high speed traffic travelling westwards. At evening peaks, this exit route is already a major bottleneck and safety hazard. Adding substantial volumes of freight and passenger traffic to serve the hub would either generate daily chaos along this stretch, or if reworked, would necessitate such large traffic flows joining, merging, crossing or leaving the motorway in such a limited length of carriageway that public safety would be subject to great risk.

• The applicants claim that the site is well served by public transport. However, the only buses currently serving this section of the A538 are the no. 88, which runs just once an hour between Altrincham and Wilmslow and not at all on Sundays, and the no. 200 which runs every 30 minutes between the airport viewing park and the airport station. If the site is well served by public transport why are the applicants proposing a 1,500 space car park?

• The new Waters development near Wilmslow on the A538, with its 500 parking spaces, could well make this road inoperable, necessitating much public expenditure to widen it.

• The development is proposed on fields which border an area of outstanding natural beauty and until July was part of the Green Belt. Residents of Hale we were not made aware of the release of this Green Belt land. To turn farmland into an ugly traffic filled logistics park cannot be the best way to improve Manchester and its environs. There are many brownfield sites around the airport which could be considered for this kind of development. Releasing Green Belt land for this purpose is completely unacceptable.

• The existing landscaping is not of medium landscape value as suggested by the applicants’, on the contrary it is of high value given the setting of the airport and motorway.

• A major flaw in the methodology of the visibility review is that it was carried out when the trees and hedges have their foliage. It should also been carried out in the autumn and winter months when their screening ability is greatly reduced.

• The layout of the development on the indicative plan is based on a grid system and fails to incorporate existing tree stock and linear corridors. The landscape


value, amenity, ecology, sense of place and cultural value of the trees enjoyed by local residents and visitors would be decimated. The existing tree stock should be protected by tree preservation orders.

• The maturity of the trees within the application boundary cannot be replaced within a human lifetime and the compensatory buffer planting would do little to mitigate the removal of such historic and significant mature tree stock from the wider landscape around Oak Farm, Sunbank Lane, Oak Cottages and Keepers Cottage.

• The existing trees form a vital link between the designated SSSI and SBI areas and their removal would severely damage the integrity of these designated nature conservation sites.

• The design of the development has yet to be decided, therefore, how can an assessment be made if this project is to fulfil the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) objective of good design. Based on the artist’s impression this will be a large eye-sore which will destroy the current and beautiful farmland views available at the site.

• The proposal contravenes Core Strategy policy EN9 which states that new development will be expected to maintain existing green infrastructure in terms of quantity, quality and multiple function. It also contravenes policy EN10 which concerns the safeguarding of open spaces, sports and recreational facilities. Furthermore the proposal is contrary to policies EN4 (reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by enabling low or zero carbon developments) and EN8 (adaption to climate change).

• The proposed development has too large a footprint with 36.9 hectares set aside for logistics activity and only 14.8 hectares for the proposed buffer zone. A greater parity between the amounts of land set aside for each would be an expected requirement considering the amount of existing land which is under threat of being lost forever.

• The assertion that there will be a neutral effect on air quality makes an unsafe assumption that nitrogen dioxide emissions will fall due to improved engine technology in 2023. The applicants appear to be relying upon the fact that engine technology will improve to counterbalance the undoubted increase in traffic and pollution such a development will have.

• The development should be built between the airport and Wythenshawe where it will not erode the countryside as that is already a built up area. In addition, Woodford Aerodrome is empty and the Ferranti site in Sharston has hugh potential and both are brownfield sites. The brownfield land to the north of the airport should be developed in preference to this area and all airport related activity should be contained by the A538 and not expand over it.

• Expanding the existing cargo centre on Avro Way would be more practical and economical.

• The applicants’ plans for growth are based on calculation completed in 2007. These calculations are out-dated and should be re-done to take into account current economics. These recalculations should either be carried out, or at least verified, by an independent body and should reflect the 2012 economy and forwards, not a hockey-stick growth on 2006 figures.

• The site borders Cotteril Clough, an SSSI, which comprises of wood anemones and bluebells, classic indicators of ancient woodland. This proposal


is bound to be negatively affected by the proposed development, leading to a loss of local biodiversity.

• The application site forms an important habitat for a multitude of mammals (including bats and badgers), amphibians and birdlife (rare and migratory – sparrow hawks, oyster catchers, partridges and many more). Unquestionably these habitats will be irreversibly lost with the shameful destruction of this rural space. The loss of this landscape will severely affect the quality of life for people who come to this area. Whilst public rights of way may be maintained following construction, clearly this development would have devastating effects on the recreational use and enjoyment of people due to the effects of the development of the landscape.

• A comprehensive tree protection plan needs to be provided for retained trees and hedges.

• No invertebrate survey has been undertaken, this is a major omission as invertebrate assemblages form the basis of all terrestrial ecosystems, are vital pollinators and represent important biodiversity in their own right. No detailed survey of flora in lane verges and farmland has been submitted.

• The bat reports are very limited and fail to make a thorough search/comprehensive investigation of all brick barns, cattle sheds, outbuildings and storage barns associated with Oak Farm and Oak Cottages. Bats are particularly sensitive to light and the potential impacts of development on this species (Myotis sp) are not dealt with satisfactorily in the survey.

• The proposed replacement of hedges in the southern landscape zone does nothing to help bats commute and feed in the hotspots of activity around Oak Far, Oak Cottages, Keepers Cottage and along Sunbank Lane

• There will be a major loss of hedgerows, individual trees and grazing pasture, this loss of habitat is unsustainable. Loss of extensive pasture would have serious adverse impact on foraging habitat and food supplies available to badgers. Removal of their feeding habitats is highly likely to result in badger fatalities and road accidents as they are forced to cross busy roads in search of food.

• There will be a severe loss of important bird nesting and feeding habitat. It will be well over 10 years before new planting will provide sufficiently dense scrub, hedge and tree habitat similar to that available now. All nesting habitats in man-made structures will be destroyed by demolition. Swallow, House Sparrow and House Martins are dependent on buildings and are on the red and amber list of species in severe decline. Failure to provide mitigation is a serious omission and the artist’s impression of the development show generic buildings and landscaping devoid of any niches capable of supporting biodiversity associated with the human built environment.

• Very little rough grass land is to be retained for raptors to hunt voles and mice. This will have a particularly detrimental effect on highly endangered barn owls, tawny owls, sparrow hawks and buzzards. Every effort must be made to accommodate the habitat needs of barn owls.

• Increased water run-off and increased risk of pollution of tributaries of the River Bollin is discussed as a likely risk, especially given increasingly common extreme weather events and heavy rainfall.


• The proposal would lead to the eviction of five local residents and the destruction of green space valuable to local residents and wildlife.

• Sunbank Lane is a public right of way and no obstructions can be permitted. Statutory rights of way exists across the site, these will have to be maintained.

• Sunbank Lane will see an increase in traffic. As it is a narrow country road will inevitably pose a threat to the safety of the numerous cyclists, walkers and horse riders who currently enjoy the use of the lane. Children play on the land at Bankside/Chapel Lane (Hale), the increased traffic using Sunbank Lane will pose a threat to their safety.

• It would be preferable to close Sunbank Lane at the junction of Bankside and Chapel Lane to prevent it being used as a through road should the logistics hub be constructed.

• The scale of operations is far in excess of what is required to store goods for transit by air.

• The area will be subjected to high levels of artificial lighting, increasing the levels of light pollution experienced by local residents.

• The applicants wish to enhance its standing as an international transport hub and encourage increasing freight capacity with this proposal. Notwithstanding their doubtful claim that this will not drive increased flight numbers, due capacity on existing passenger flights (despite a recent fall in passenger flight numbers), the proposal will worsen carbon emissions due to increased freight mass, as well as the construction process and the loss of green space. Surely this is against the NPPF principle of supporting the transition to a low carbon future.

• Aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions and any growth in this sector is undermining efforts to limit climate change. Any development which enables further growth in aviation capacity is, as a matter of plain fact, not sustainable and to claim so is simply absurd.

• The airport already has a poor record of noise management and has reporting and recording systems for noise nuisance tracking and management which often bear little relationship with truth or accuracy. The proposed development would be active and bustling around the clock, to allow this development to go ahead and to inflict such continuous and unmanaged noise on the local population would be harmful in the extreme. The applicants’ own documents state that this proposal, along with the M56 motorway development and Air Freight Transit Unit “have the potential to raise the future baseline of noise climate”.

• The populous of Hale Barns are all affected by airport and motorway traffic noise, this noise is predominantly from 6.00am to 11.00pm. The proposal will add considerably to this noise level and will of course be 24 hours a day in operation.

• The overall plan for a 10 year construction phase is too long and fails to take into account the degree of disruption this will cause to the local residents, cyclists and motorists of Wilmslow Road.

• The airport claims that new jobs will be created. However, many of these jobs will not be new but simply displaced as existing firms relocate from other areas


of Great Manchester to take advantage of the cheap business rates on offer in this Enterprise Zone.

• There is a risk that the proposal will drag jobs to this area which are desperately needed in the inner city areas such as Beswick, Ardwick, Ancoats, Openshaw, Miles Platting, Cheetham Hill, Hulme and Harpurhey, all of which are deprived areas which have a much greater need for employment than Wythenshawe. Concentrating economic activities to the airport area could have disastrous consequences for the unemployed in these old inner city areas which will still further decay and generate more social problems than they have already.

• The applicants state in their supporting documentation that there is an immediate need for this additional cargo space. However, their own documentation states that it is not possible to accurately anticipate when all the proposed units will be delivered. If their internal market research shows that there is an immediate, unfulfilled need for extra floorspace it should be possible to be much more specific about the precise nature of the proposed development.

• Where is the extra air freight going to come from? The amount required to sustain this project is unobtainable. Peel Holdings are to develop Liverpool Docks and the Manchester Ship Canal with depots along its length to Salford. Swansea, Cardiff and Avonmouth on the west coast all have plans for dock expansion.

• Our political environment is not stable, have the planners considered the effect of a tax imposed on aviation fuel similar to other forms of transport by a greener focused future government?

• The proposal is not necessary as current capacity can satisfy current and future demand. The requirement for expansion of the World Logistics Hub is a fallacy based on outdated models of freight volume created prior to the 2008 global financial crisis. The OECD International Transport Forum has produced a number of documents, most recently July 2012, which reports an on-going decline in freight volume within the EU of -4% below the pre-crisis peak. This is due to three factors, firstly there is likely to be an end to asset inflation and debt derived consumption, secondly energy prices are going to remain high and trend upwards and thirdly an aging population is very likely to be less wealthy than expected as their two major assets (houses and retirement plans) will be worth much less.

• The area could suffer from a rise in criminal activity by virtue of bringing the port of Manchester to the very back door of the residents of Hale Barns. The proposed logistics hub would border directly onto the Bollin River and it is heavily wooded making it easy for criminals and stow-aways to hide out in and to make their way along the sign-posted footpaths to the backs of houses on Haslemere Avenue, Dobbhedge Close and Carr Wood.

• If the proposal is approved then it should be ensured that it does not intrude on Sunbank Wood; that Sunbank Lane be kept open to cycle and pedestrian traffic during and after construction; that Sunbank Lane is not used as a means of accessing the logistics hub; that HGV’s do not use Sunbank Lane; that the A538 is made a dual carriageway from Hale Barns centre through to the airport tunnels; that no high levels structures are built that would be used


by vehicles or heavy machinery and the hours of operation should be restricted to 7.00am to 10.00pm. The residents of Hale Barns should have a share in the taxes produced by halving their council taxes in perpetuity as compensation for the disruption.

• The enhancement of the pedestrian and cycle paths will only benefit the local workers as most people will no longer choose the area to cycle. This would have a severe detrimental effect to the locality, not the “moderate beneficial effect” the applicants state.

• There would be a substantial loss of farmland needed for substantial local food and dairy production, this is an unacceptable loss of local food security.

• The proposed retail facilities would deflect trade away from Wythenshawe’s town centre shopping precinct, putting businesses in Wythenshawe under threat and increasing car use for out-of-town shopping trips.

In addition to these letters, petitions containing 388 signatures has been received in objection to the proposal. Save Sunbank Residents’ Group – The Group object to the proposal on the grounds that it would result in serious loss of amenity and environmental damage, as well as the decision being unsound for procedural reasons. This is expanded upon below:

• Lack of opportunity for local residents to act upon their rights under the Localism Act to take proper advice and receive statutory support – the residents group wishes to be recognised as a Neighbourhood Forum under the provisions of the Localism Act and wrote to the City Council requesting statutory assistance. No substantive response has been received and to proceed with the planning procedure before such a response has been received would contravene the intentions of the Localism Act.

• Lack of proper consultation with local residents in a manner which renders the procedure unlawful – the applicants’ pre-application consultation exercise was insufficient and did not involve residents in Trafford; the Core Strategy policy for removal of the site from the Green Belt was not endorsed by Manchester residents or those in Hale Barns; the City Council’s consultation process did not allow sufficient time for objections to be submitted.

• The purpose to which the site is to be put is in opposition with previous strategy documents – there is conflict between the proposal and Manchester Airport’s “Master Plan to 2030” which states that the existing World Freight Terminal should be completely removed in order to provide extended apron and replaced by the proposed development on this site. The application as presented makes few if any references to the Masterplan.

• The grounds upon which the applicants identify the need for the development are flawed – the requirement for proposed development is a fallacy based on outdated models of freight volume created prior to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Freight movement in tonnes at Manchester Airport in 2008 stood at 141,781 tonnes, in 2009 it was 102,543 tonnes, in 2010 it was 115,922 tonnes and in 2011 it was 107,415 tonnes. The proposal is not required and the


existing World Freight Terminal, with some refurbishment and updating, should be adequate until at least 2030.

• Unsubstantiated claims in relation to employment and alleged creation of jobs – It is clear that it is anticipated many of the jobs would be relocation of employees from unsuitable existing premises within the World Freight Terminal. Since these jobs would be created gradually over 10-15 years there will not be sufficient critical mass for many years to economically justify public transport links and staff would therefore predominantly travel to work by car. This would mean that the jobs will not be accessible to those most in need of work from deprived wards in Manchester, Trafford or Cheshire East.

• Unsubstantiated claims in relation to potential occupiers – the location of the site south of the A538 makes no sense operationally if the purpose is genuinely to attract air freight business. In order for vehicles to reach aircraft on the apron they would have to follow a convoluted route though the highly congested A538/M56/Runger Lane roundabout. This would suggest that the Hub would not attract essential airport related businesses but more general companies which could better be accommodated remotely from the airport.

• Adverse impact upon traffic flows and lack of proper evaluation of the impact of the Hub when placed into the context of other developments in the area – Development at the current time, i.e. before SEMMMS and other highway improvements are undertaken, would result in severe pressure on the existing junctions at and around Junction 6 of the M56 . If the proposed development is to have 1,800 employees and nearly 1,500 car parking spaces, the combination of all of these movements (employees, van and lorry) are likely to add at least 2,500 traffic movements per day into a road network which is already very congested.

• Nearby large development with planning permission (Waters in Cheshire Easy, The Square in Trafford) are likely to add considerable number of traffic movements per day to this area and their impact seems to have been severely underestimated in the Traffic Impact Study. Sunbank Lane forms an important secondary route to A538 for residents on the south side of Hale Barns. Re-routing it through the Hub will inevitably increase traffic using it in both directions. It is a narrow road with many hairpin bends.

• Lack of compliance with planning procedure and established policy generally – Core Strategy policy MA1 states that the application site should be used for operational facilities, cargo facilities, car parking and landscape mitigation. The proposed major logistics development of warehousing, ancillary offices and retail are not consistent with this aspiration as it is a speculative development. The analysis prepare for the Core Strategy indicated a staggering abundance of employment land development opportunities in the City and surrounding authorities.

• Inability to sustain good design principles – as the site is within the Enterprise Zone normal planning rules are relaxed and many developments can go ahead without having to seek detailed planning permission. How can it be assumed that high standards of design could be implemented?

• Adverse impact upon local wildlife and ecology and lack of due consideration and process – The application site forms an important habitat for a multitude


of mammals (including bats and badgers), amphibians and birdlife (rare and migratory – sparrow hawks, oyster catchers, partridges and many more). Unquestionably these habitats will be irreversibly lost with the shameful destruction of this rural space. The loss of this landscape will severely affect the quality of life for people who come to this area. Whilst public rights of way may be maintained following construction, clearly this development would have devastating effects on the recreational use and enjoyment of people due to the effects of the development of the landscape.

• A comprehensive tree protection plan needs to be provided for retained trees and hedges.

• No invertebrate survey has been undertaken, this is a major omission as invertebrate assemblages form the basis of all terrestrial ecosystems, are vital pollinators and represent important biodiversity in their own right. No detailed survey of flora in lane verges and farmland has been submitted.

• The bat reports are very limited and fail to make a thorough search/comprehensive investigation of all brick barns, cattle sheds, outbuildings and storage barns associated with Oak Farm and Oak Cottages. Bats are particularly sensitive to light and the potential impacts of development on this species (Myotis sp) are not dealt with satisfactorily in the survey.

• The proposed replacement of hedges in the southern landscape zone does nothing to help bats commute and feed in the hotspots of activity around Oak Far, Oak Cottages, Keepers Cottage and along Sunbank Lane

• There will be a major loss of hedgerows, individual trees and grazing pasture, this loss of habitat is unsustainable. Loss of extensive pasture would have serious adverse impact on foraging habitat and food supplies available to badgers. Removal of their feeding habitats is highly likely to result in badger fatalities and road accidents as they are forced to cross busy roads in search of food.

• There will be a severe loss of important bird nesting and feeding habitat. It will be well over 10 years before new planting will provide sufficiently dense scrub, hedge and tree habitat similar to that available now. All nesting habitats in man-made structures will be destroyed by demolition. Swallow, House Sparrow and House Martins are dependent on buildings and are on the red and amber list of species in severe decline. Failure to provide mitigation is a serious omission and the artist’s impression of the development show generic buildings and landscaping devoid of any niches capable of supporting biodiversity associated with the human built environment.

• Very little rough grass land is to be retained for raptors to hunt voles and mice. This will have a particularly detrimental effect on highly endangered barn owls, tawny owls, sparrow hawks and buzzards. Every effort must be made to accommodate the habitat needs of barn owls.

• The interests of Manchester City Council in Manchester Airport Group renders its position as decision maker on the application in breach of the principles of natural justice and subject to potential Judicial Review.

• Strength of public opposition to the application – Save Sunbank, with Ringway Parish Council has collected a number of signatures for a petition that has already been submitted. In addition, an online petition has 661 signatures.


Ringway Parish Council – Correspondence has been received from the parish council as a whole and from a number of their members. The comments are detailed below:

• The consultation process was unrepresentative of many of the people who will be most affected by this proposed development. A large proportion of local people, i.e. Hale Barns, Hale, Ashley and Altrincham were not informed of any consultation or planning application.

• Ringway Parish Council and local residents of Ringway, Hale Barns and Hale were not informed of the removal of the site from the Green Belt.

• Cotteril Clough is an SSSI and has an abundance of flora and fauna.

• The application site has an abundance of wildlife on it, including badgers, brown hare, grey partridge, sparrow hawks and an assortment of bats. Buzzards are a regular feature of the site which indicates a very healthy ecosystem. Golden Plover have overwintered in fields at Oak farm for over 40 years and Warblers, Lapwings and Oystercatchers are also regular visitors.

• Two fingers of Sunbank Road, an SBI, are included with the application site. One of the proposed units is too close to the SBI and does not comply with the recommended stand-off distance of 20 metres.

• The applicants’ documentation identifies 114 individual trees and 16 groups of trees and categorises them as A, B, C and U. Within the construction area there are 19 category A trees and 33 category B trees, all of which need protection.

• Four trees are noted as being suitable for supporting roosting bats, 2 of these are located within the construction site. No exit survey or inspections of trees was carried out, this is not acceptable.

• The number of jobs to be created is vastly exaggerated. The Enterprise Zone means that businesses are re-locating from other areas in order to take advantage of the low rates. The economy is at an all time low, businesses are struggling in this economic climate and redundancies have already taken place at the airport, including the cargo centre.

• The applicants should look at other sites rather than develop further greenfield sites. Woodford Aerodrome is empty and the Ferranti site in Sharston has hugh potential and both are brownfield sites.

• The development will cause utter chaos and pollution on already congested roads in and around the M56 motorway and A538. The A538 and Hale Road are grid locked in rush hour traffic. Even with a spur road going from the development onto the M56 it will create congestion for commuters trying to get onto the motorway. Ashley village roads will be used as a rat-run.

• The proposed development is not in keeping with the area which is rural.

• Local residents and visitors use the fields and public rights of way for recreational purposes, these will be lost forever.

• The development represents overdevelopment. Wythenshawe Regeneration Team (WRT) – Support the outline planning application for a World Logistic Hub. As part of the continued development of Manchester Airport and a component of Airport City and Manchester Enterprise Zone, WRT view this proposal as a key opportunity to promote economic growth and


contribute towards the future prosperity of Wythenshawe through providing increased job opportunities for local residents. The rationale for Airport City is established in the Wythenshawe Strategic Regeneration Framework (2004) (SRF) which identifies the need to support the growth of Manchester Airport and its supporting industries as key economic drivers, making the most of the areas economic assets. Trafford Councillors – A letter of objection has been received from Cllr Patrick Meyers, the comments are outlined below:

• The land was removed from the Green Belt without consultation with the residents of Hale Barns.

• The residents of Hale Barns have not been consulted on the proposal.

• Particular attention needs to be paid to whether or not Sunbank Lane should remain as public highway both during construction as well as permanently.

Trafford Council – Trafford Council have confirmed that they are satisfied that the information provided for the proposed development is within the envelope of Airport Growth and that the additional trips associated with these proposals have been previously approved. The additional supporting information supplied also demonstrates that the level of parking at the development is consistent with the parking standards for this use class. In terms of Chapel Lane/Sunbank Lane, Trafford Council understands that the applicants do not consider that this route has the potential to be used as a ‘rat-run’ once the development road layout is open to general traffic. However, the applicants have confirmed that they are amenable to a condition being placed on any planning permission subsequently granted for this development that requires the applicant to fund consultation for and possible implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order by Trafford as the Local Highway Authority to restrict through- traffic using Chapel Lane in Hale Barns. It is therefore requested that an appropriately worded condition be applied to any planning consent granted. This condition should enable Chapel Lane in Hale Barns to be closed to through traffic, at the developer’s expense, following the opening of the development roads to general traffic, if required. Cheshire East Council (CEC) – CEC is content that the currently proposed development is unlikely to have a significant traffic impact upon settlements in Cheshire East, in particular Wilmslow, under normal traffic conditions. However, capacity issues related to potential diversions for site traffic through Wilmslow remain. CEC is also concerned that the proposed development may well have a lasting environmental and safety impact on Wilmslow, as well as such impacts with potential diversions away from the M56 and are not content that sufficient work has been undertaken to identify and potentially mitigate such an impact. This is particularly worrying if any environmental assessments have been based on the incorrect development assumptions outlined in the TA.


Wilmslow Town Council – The Town Council’s Planning Committee supports this scheme but has concerns as to the traffic impact for Wilmslow and request that the increase to traffic using the A538 be kept to a minimum. Graham Brady MP (Altrincham and Sale West) – The MP has forwarded copies of objection letters from his constituents.

Environmental Health (Public Protection) – Recommends a number of conditions regarding noise insulation, wheel washing, hours of construction and deliveries. Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) – Before any contaminated land conditions for this application can be discharged, the following information needs to be submitted to the Council for approval:

• Provision of a final risk assessment.

• Provision of a detailed remediation strategy.

• After completion of site works, a verification report is required to validate that the work undertaken conforms to the remediation proposals received and agreed by this Section.

• Provision of a site investigation report.

Highways Agency – Following consideration of the further information submitted the Highways Agency have confirmed that they do not wish to raise any in-principle objections to the application. However, the Highways Agency have requested that a condition requiring the submission and approval of a travel plan be attached to any approval notice issued. Highways Development Management – Have made the following comments:

• The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the principle of the development is acceptable in highway terms.

• The applicant has demonstrated that the site can accommodate parking provision in line with the maximum levels contained within the Core Strategy. Parking levels will be reassessed as each phase that comes forward and the applicant will be required to minimise the parking provision through effective travel planning and good sustainable access. However, it is recognised that the proposed parking provision needs to cater for the shift changes associated with this type of development and that this results in the maximum parking demand, which are typically off-peak.

• The traffic modelling has been developed in line with accepted best practice using the nationally recognised TRICS database. The technical note submitted illustrates how a development of this type, which includes warehousing, doesn't generate a peak in demand that coincides with the network peak typical of other developments. The development is located in an area that will see significant changes to the highway network such as the 'Rainbow' works. A condition requiring the reserved matters applications to include supplementary information, such as a transport study, will enable validation of the assessment conducted at the outline application stage. The subsequent


studies will need to establish the trigger point for the requirement for the junction to become signalised.

• The principle of the vehicular access on to Wilmslow Road is acceptable. The detailed design of the junction will be the subject of a s278. It is proposed that Sunbank Lane remains open for local access and although it is not expected that Sunbank Lane will see a significant increase in the number of vehicles using the lane it is recommended that a condition is attached requiring suitable traffic calming measures to be put in place to discourage anything other than local access.

• The developer proposes to include the logistics Hub within the Airport's travel plan, this is vitally important to ensure that access to the site is encouraged by sustainable means.

• A number of conditions are suggested concerning provision of a travel plan, a construction management plan and the provision of supplementary transport assessments as part of subsequent reserved matters applications for each phase.

City Arboriculturalist – Has made the following comments:

• The Root Protection Area of any trees retained must be adhered to.

• There are a number of trees located near ponds on the site and most of these will be lost, the trees are not in the best condition though they do provide habits around the ponds.

• Any replacement plantings should be of a suitable species and size.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) – No comments received.

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) – TfGM welcomes the proposals which will have clear benefits to the economy and to job creation for the North West and Greater Manchester in particular, with a range of employment opportunities for local people. However, in order to ensure that these employment opportunities are available to everyone and to reduce the number of car journeys generated by the development, it will be important to ensure that the proposed development is accessible by sustainable modes of transport.

Should the application be approved it is suggested that further development, submission, implementation and monitoring of a full Travel Plan be attached as conditions of any planning consent. Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) – No fundamental objections to the development on nature conservation grounds although it is recommended that a number of conditions and advisory notes are attached to any permission granted to protect nature conservation interests such as bats, great crested newts, badgers and the nearby SSSI and SBI. Natural England (NE) – This application is in close proximity to Cotteril Clough SSSI. However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the


proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. Natural England therefore advise that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. In terms of protected species, Natural England does not object to the proposed development. The proposed development is likely to affect great crested newts and bats through disturbance or damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place. However, the proposed mitigation would maintain the populations identified in the reports submitted with the application. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) – CPRE objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

• Loss of Green Belt, non-designated countryside and farmland – Manchester has a limited amount of remaining agricultural land which will be permanently lost if this development is permitted.

• Loss of important landscape value – The NPPF states that proposals that have an adverse impact on an SSSI should not normally be permitted, Cotteril Clough which is an SSSI borders the site. In addition Sunbank Wood SBI would be negatively impacted upon if the development proceeded.

• Increased traffic congestion – This development is entirely motor vehicle based. It will add significant amounts of heavy goods vehicles, service vehicles and commuter traffic to a local network that already experiences congestion. The only reasonable way to effectively deal with this problem is by reducing the need to travel altogether by locating such a major new development on existing highway and public transport networks within the wider Manchester city region. This would promote a modal shift on necessary journeys, in the case of freight from road and air to rail and where appropriate water.

• This proposal actively mitigates against sustainable development principles as it will increase pressure for new roads to be built. It would contribute to the spiral of increasing car use and road borne freight, increasing carbon emissions, air and noise pollution.

• The proposal does not take advantage of the new Metrolink line currently being extended to the airport.

• The proposed development would significantly increase noise levels from related traffic. Heavy goods vehicles have noisy hydraulic braking systems which would significantly impact on noise levels.

• The NPPF requires good design. From an urban design point of view the site layout, scale and design of the buildings does not in any way relate well to the surrounding context. The site forms a gateway into Manchester from the air and the M56 motorway therefore good design is essential. If buildings are to be developed in this location they should not only be green but be no more than two storeys high and should fit well into the natural environment. The highest standards of design should be encouraged utilising natural materials, landscape buffers, hedgerows, trees and water features.

• The proposed development includes significant hardsurfacing which increases flood risk through water run-off. More naturalised areas and tree replacement within the site is needed.


• As the site adjoins the M56 motorway it is just as likely that jobs will be taken by people who live at further distances and therefore not benefit those most disadvantaged.

• There is value in the protection of the potential Western Rail Link to Manchester Airport. If this development goes ahead without the proposed rail link being properly protected the access to a potential western rail link to the airport would be permanently lost.

• The air quality around the airport is already poor and it would become even worse with this development. The loss of the green area would remove this pollution filtering mechanism.

• The airport already has an adverse impact on light pollution locally and this development would worsen the problem.

Cheshire Wildlife Trust – Cheshire Wildlife Trust has strong reservations about some elements of the baseline surveys and about the genuine extent and effectiveness of the mitigation proposals in reducing the residual impacts of the loss of this site to development. In particular, Cheshire Wildlife Trust considers that:

• Sunbank Wood SBI should be fully buffered against the impacts of the development. It is not acceptable for one arm of the woodland SBI to be within the development boundary and bordered by development as indicated on the WLH masterplan. The SW boundary should be adjusted to exclude the whole of Sunbank Wood SBI.

• The proposed southwest boundary of the landscape and ecology buffer zone with the development site as shown on Figure 4.6 is somewhat arbitrary. It should be refined and redrawn to include groups of existing ponds along the southwest boundary; Sunbank Wood; and to incorporate the section of watercourse in the northwest corner of the site. This section of stream appears to be culverted as part of the World Logistics Hub masterplan – this would be unacceptable to the Environment Agency and to Cheshire Wildlife Trust.

• The true extent of land that is being offered as landscape and ecology buffer zone/mitigation for the development site is considerably smaller in area than the site, once the areas of existing SBI are discounted. It is therefore important that a similar area of land, including replacement hedgerow, is provided to compensate for the loss of the development site and that this is managed for wildlife, in order to ensure that this proposal results in net benefits for biodiversity, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 118.

Implementation of these adjustments to the World Logistics Hub masterplan and the provision of an increased area of mitigation land would allow Cheshire Wildlife Trust to view this proposal more favourably.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Manchester (RSPB) – During the winter Common Snipe are regular visitors along the stream to the west of Oak Cottages and Woodcock have also been seen here and to the west of Cotteril Clough. In the spring


and summer, Reed Bunting are regularly seen around the marshy area to the west of Oak Farm, while Grey Partridge were regularly seen to the east of Oak Cottages this summer. Both species are on the Red List of conservation concern. Badgers and Brown Hare also occupy this area. The proposed development would drastically affect all these species and the last patch of rural land would be lost in Manchester.

Aerodrome Safeguarding – The proposal has been assessed against Circular 1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosive Storage Area and the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002. There are no objections subject to the imposition of a number of conditions regarding landscaping and obstacle limitation.

Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposal if the mitigation measures set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment are implemented and secured by planning condition.

United Utilities – No objections to the proposal subject to the proposal being amended to show no buildings constructed over public sewers.

Manchester Jetline Limited – The Manchester Airport Pipeline crosses the area of the proposed development and it is understood that Manchester Airport are aware of this and will ensure that their development will not impact on the pipeline. The Ramblers Association – The association object to the proposal. Two footpaths run south from the A538, crossing Sunbank Lane and continuing south to reach the Bollin Valley. These two footpaths will be affected by the development and although it is understood that access to the Bollin Valley is to be maintained, albeit on diverted footpaths, the quality of walking will be adversely affected ISSUES The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – The NPPF was published on the 27th March 2012 and replaces and revokes a number of Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) previously produced by Central Government. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-makers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining planning applications. It does not change the statutory status of the development plan, i.e. the Core Strategy, as the starting point for decision making and it states further that development that accords with an up-to-date local plan, such as the Core Strategy, should be approved unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The Manchester Core Strategy was adopted on 11th July 2012 after having been found to be sound after an Examination in Public. It represents the most up to date planning policy position as will be outlined later on in this report. The NPPF states that the planning system must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there are three dimensions to this: economic,


social and environmental. It has introduced a set of Core Principle that should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking, these 12 principles are that planning should:

• Be genuinely plan-led,

• Not simply about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve places,

• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, businesses/industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs,

• Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity,

• Take account of the different roles and character of different areas,

• Support the transition to a low carbon future,

• Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution,

• Encourage the effective use of land,

• Promote mixed use developments,

• Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance,

• Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable,

• Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well being for all.

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) to 2021 (adopted September 2008) – In July 2010 the Secretary of State announced the revocation of RSS, although this decision was subject to a successful High Court Challenge, where it was subsequently reinstated. It is still the Government’s intention to abolish RSS but until such time it still forms part of the Development Plan The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for North West England provides a framework for development and investment in the region over the next fifteen to twenty years. It establishes a broad vision for the region and its sub-regions, priorities for growth and regeneration, and policies to achieve sustainable development across a wide range of topics – from jobs, housing and transport to climate change, waste and energy. The following policies are considered to be of relevance in this instance: Policy DP1, Spatial Principles – The following principles underpin the RSS

• promote sustainable communities;

• promote sustainable economic development;

• make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure;

• manage travel demand, reduce the need to travel, and increase accessibility;

• marry opportunity and need;

• promote environmental quality;

• mainstreaming rural issues;

• reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.


Policy RT 5, Airports – This policy states that plans and strategies should support the economic activity generated and sustained by the Region’s airports, in particular, the importance of Manchester Airport as a key economic driver for the North of England. The future operational and infrastructure requirements, surface access demands and environmental impacts for each airport should be identified and measures to address and monitor them included in Airport Master Plans and other relevant plans and strategies, based on the strategic framework for the development of airport capacity set out in the White Paper ‘Future of Air Transport’. Airport boundaries, as existing or as proposed, should be shown in Local Development Documents. In determining requirements for the expansion of an airport beyond its existing boundary, plans and strategies should take account of:

• the scope for intensification and rationalisation of activities and facilities within the existing boundary;

• the scope for relocating existing activities or facilities off-site;

• the scope for developing proposed activities or facilities off-site. . In considering applications for development at airports, account will be taken of:

• the extent to which surface access and car parking arrangements encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling;

• the effect of the proposed development on noise and atmospheric pollution, and the extent to which this can be mitigated;

• the effect of the proposed development on the health and wellbeing of local communities; and

• the adverse effects on sites of national and international nature conservation importance to ensure that these effects are avoided, mitigated or compensated as appropriate.

The policy concludes by stating that in formulating plans and strategies, account should be taken of the contribution general aviation makes to the regional and local economies. Policy RDF4, Green Belt - This policy states that Local Development Frameworks may provide for detailed changes in Green Belt boundaries to accommodate the expansion of Manchester Airport. It identifies this as an exceptional purpose to meet the operational infrastructure requirements at Manchester Airport. For reasons to be outlined below, it is considered the proposal accords with these policies. Draft Aviation Policy Framework, Department of Transport – The Government introduced its draft aviation policy on 12th July 2012 and sent it out for consultation, with the consultation period expiring on 31st October 2012.


The framework states that the Government’s primary objective is to achieve long term economic growth, that the aviation sector is a major contributor to the economy and that growth is supported within a framework which maintains a balance between the benefits of aviation and its costs, particularly climate change and noise. It continues stating that the Government recognises the very important role airports across the UK play in providing domestic and international connections and the vital contribution they can make to the growth of regional economies. In referring specifically to Manchester, the framework points to the designation of an Enterprise Zone around Manchester Airport and states that the “proposed Airport City is a £659 million, 150-acre development which will transform the airport into an international business destination and create up to 20,000 new jobs over the next 15 years. Manchester Airport is a key component of the Greater Manchester Strategy

and contributes £3.5 billion to the UK economy, providing direct employment to 26,000 people and supporting a further 50,000 jobs” Enterprise Zone – Enterprise Zones were announced by the government in the 2011 budget. There are a number of Enterprise Zones across the country and their aim is to stimulate business growth in designated areas by providing financial incentives and simplified planning arrangements to businesses and to councils. The aim is that they will provide jobs and drive local and national growth. The Greater Manchester Enterprise Zone is a set of linked sites around Manchester Airport, Wythenshawe Town Centre, 'Medipark' at University Hospital South Manchester Foundation Trust and Roundthorn Industrial Estate. A development and planning framework, namely the Manchester Airport City Enterprise Zone Framework Plan, has been produced to provide a structural policy context for development across the Enterprise Zone, explaining the role of each site and outlining development requirements across the Enterprise Zone. This framework was approved by the Executive Committee on 24th October 2012 and it was resolved that it would be a material consideration in decisions the City Council makes as local planning authority. Core Strategy Development Plan Document – The Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2012 -2027 ("the Core Strategy") was adopted by the City Council on 11th July 2012. It is the key document in Manchester's Local Development Framework. The Core Strategy replaces significant elements of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as the document that sets out the long term strategic planning policies for Manchester's future development. A number of UDP policies have been saved until replaced by further development plan documents to accompany the Core Strategy. Planning applications in Manchester must be decided in accordance with the Core Strategy, saved UDP policies and other Local Development Documents unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Relevant policies in the Core Strategy are detailed below:


Policy SP1, Spatial Principles – This states that the key spatial principles which will guide the strategic development of Manchester to 2027 are:

• The Regional Centre will be the focus for economic and commercial development, retail, leisure and cultural activity, alongside high quality city living.

• The growth of Manchester Airport will act as a catalyst for the regional economy, and will also provide the impetus for a second hub of economic activity in this part of the City.

• Beyond these areas, the emphasis is on the creation of neighbourhoods of choice, providing high quality and diverse housing around district centres which meet local needs, all in a distinct environment. The majority of new residential development in these neighbourhoods will be in the Inner Areas, defined by the North Manchester, East Manchester and Central Manchester Regeneration Areas.

• The City is covered by regeneration areas including the City Centre. All development should have regard to the character, issues and strategy for each regeneration area as described in the North, East, Central and South Manchester and Wythenshawe Strategic Regeneration Frameworks and the Manchester City Centre Strategic Plan.

• The City's network of open spaces will provide all residents with good access to recreation opportunities. The River Valleys (the Irk, Medlock and Mersey) and City Parks are particularly important, and access to these resources will be improved.

• New development will maximise the potential of the City's transport infrastructure, in particular promoting walking, cycling and use of the public transport. The extension to the Metrolink network through the Oldham and Ashton lines will create key corridors for new development.

Core Development Principles, Development in all parts of the City should:-

• Make a positive contribution to neighbourhoods of choice including:- i) creating well designed places that enhance or create character. ii) making a positive contribution to the health, safety and wellbeing of residents iii) considering the needs of all members of the community regardless of age, gender, disability, sexuality, religion, culture, ethnicity or income. iv) protect and enhance the built and natural environment.

• Minimise emissions, ensure efficient use of natural resources and reuse previously developed land wherever possible.

• Improve access to jobs, services, education and open space by being located to reduce the need to travel and provide good access to sustainable transport provision.

Policy DM1, Development Management – This policy states that all development should have regard to the following specific issues for which more detailed guidance may be given within a supplementary planning document:-


• Appropriate siting, layout, scale, form, massing, materials and detail.

• Impact on the surrounding areas in terms of the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development. Development should have regard to the character of the surrounding area.

• Effects on amenity, including privacy, light, noise, vibration, air quality, odours, litter, vermin, birds, road safety and traffic generation. This could also include proposals which would be sensitive to existing environmental conditions, such as noise.

• Accessibility: buildings and neighbourhoods fully accessible to disabled people, access to new development by sustainable transport modes.

• Community safety and crime prevention.

• Design for health.

• Adequacy of internal accommodation and external amenity space.

• Refuse storage and collection.

• Vehicular access and car parking.

• Effects relating to biodiversity, landscape, archaeological or built heritage.

• Green Infrastructure including open space, both public and private.

• The use of alternatives to peat-based products in landscaping/gardens within development schemes.

• Flood risk and drainage.

• Existing or proposed hazardous installations.

• Subject to scheme viability, developers will be required to demonstrate that new development incorporates sustainable construction techniques as follows (In terms of energy targets this policy should be read alongside policy EN6 and the higher target will apply):-

a) For new residential development meet as a minimum the following Code for Sustainable Homes standards. This will apply until a higher national standard is required: Year 2010 – Code Level 3; Year 2013 - Code Level 4; Year 2016 - Code Level 6; and (b) For new commercial developments to demonstrate best practice which will include the application of the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) standards. By 2019 provisions similar to the Code for Sustainable Homes will also apply to all new non-domestic buildings.

Policy DM 2, Aerodrome Safeguarding – This policy states that development that would affect the operational integrity or safety of Manchester Airport or Manchester Radar will not be permitted. Policy EC1, Employment and Economic Growth in Manchester – This policy states that key locations for major employment growth showing indicative distribution figures will be the Regional Centre and Manchester Airport and the surrounding area.


Policy EC10, Wythenshawe – This policy states that Wythenshawe is expected to provide 55 hectares of employment land within the office, research and development and light industry (Class B1) and logistics and distribution (Class B8) sectors. The majority of economic development will be focused on four sites, one of which is Manchester Airport. The policy continues stating that Manchester Airport and specifically Manchester Airport Strategic Site and Airport City Strategic Employment Location are suitable for aviation related development and a mix of economic development uses including offices, high technology industries, logistics, warehousing and airport hotels. Policy MA1, Manchester Airport Strategic Site – This policy, which designates the Airport as a Strategic Site, states that growth of Manchester Airport to 2030 will be supported and sets out the policy context for development at the Airport. It identifies areas for expansion and shows the amendments to the Green Belt required to deliver that expansion. It specifically identifies the application site as being suitable for "Operational facilities, cargo facilities and car parking and landscape mitigation." It states further that all development proposed as part of the Airport expansion should seek to ensure that any environmental effects of development are assessed at the planning application stage to ensure any impact is acceptable. It will be necessary to mitigate or compensate any negative effects. In particular, development should:

• minimise any adverse impact on areas of international or national conservation, ecological and landscape value. In particular, development should avoid the Cotteril Clough SSSI. Where it is not possible to avoid harm, mitigation measures to compensate for any adverse impact will be necessary. Development within the expansion areas must implement the mitigation measures agreed with the Council,

• be informed by an up to date environmental assessment,

• support the retention and preservation of heritage assets. Detailed proposals which impact upon heritage assets within or close to the site, including listed buildings, will be required to show they have met the tests within PPS5. Development which has a detrimental impact on heritage assets should be necessary to meet operational capacity requirements, taking account of the availability of preferable development options within the Airport site.

• retain or relocate the allotments.

• include surface access and car parking arrangements which encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling, and satisfactorily manage impacts on the highway network,

• seek the maximum possible reductions in noise through compliance with the Manchester Airport Noise Action Plan and Manchester Airport Environment Plan.

• demonstrate that the number of people affected by atmospheric pollution is minimised and the extent to which any impact can be mitigated.

• improve access to training and job opportunities, particularly for people in Wythenshawe.


Policy EN13, Green Belt –The extent of Green Belt in Manchester will be amended in the vicinity of Manchester Airport, in accordance with policy MA1. Policy EN1, Design Principles and Strategic Character Areas – This policy states of the “Airport & urban fringe Character Area” that much of this area is open in character, including a significant area of agricultural land. It states further that built development is mainly associated with the Airport and associated uses, often large scale but height limited by flight path requirements and that other built development is small scale and takes the form of individual or small clusters of houses. This element of the policy concludes by stating that development in this area needs to accommodate the future operational needs of the Airport, whilst retaining the area’s open character as far as is possible. Policy EN8, Adaption to Climate Change – this policy states that all new development will be expected to be adaptable to climate change in terms of the design, layout, siting and function of both buildings and associated external spaces. In achieving developments which are adaptable to climate change developers should have regard to the following, although this is not an exhaustive list:

• Minimisation of flood risk by appropriate siting, drainage, and treatment of surface areas to ensure rain water permeability

• Reduction in urban heat island effect through the use of Green Infrastructure such as green roofs, green walls, increased tree cover and waterways

• The need to control overheating of buildings through passive design

• The opportunity to provide linked and diverse green space to enhance natural habitats which will assist species adaptation

• Developers will be permitted to use green infrastructure elements such as green roofs, green walls, street trees and waterways to contribute to compliance with CO2 mitigation under Policy EN6, subject to sufficient evidence to quantify their contribution to compliance.

Policy EN9, Green Infrastructure – This policy states that new development will be expected to maintain existing green infrastructure in terms of its quantity, quality and multiple function. Where the opportunity arises and in accordance with current Green Infrastructure Strategies the Council will encourage developers to enhance the quality and quantity of green infrastructure, improve the performance of its functions and create and improve linkages to and between areas of green infrastructure. Where the benefits of a proposed development are considered to outweigh the loss of an existing element of green infrastructure, the developer will be required to demonstrate how this loss will be mitigated in terms of quantity, quality, function and future management. For reasons to be outlined below, it is considered the proposal accords with these policies. A number of policies have been cited by members of the public, particularly Policies EN4 and 10:


Policy EN4, Reducing C02 Emissions by Enabling Low and Zero Carbon Development – this policy primarily concerns itself with energy efficiency through construction practices. Policy EN10, Safeguarding Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation Facilities – this policy states that the Council will seek to retain and improve existing open spaces, sport and recreation facilities and provide a network of diverse, multi-functional open spaces. It primarily concerns itself with recognised sport and recreational facilities and open spaces like parks and wood, such as Sunbank Wood and Cotteril Clough, rather than open farm land such as that around Oak Farm and off Sunbank Lane. Wythenshawe Strategic Regeneration Framework (2004) – The Wythenshawe Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) provides a strong vision for Wythenshawe over the next 10-15 years. It provides a guide for the improvement of public services for Wythenshawe residents, and aims to shape future investment. The rationale for Airport City is established in the Wythenshawe SRF. It identifies the East-West Wythenshawe ‘Economic Development Corridor’ linking Sharston/ Northenden in the east and University Hospital South/Roundthorn in the west – with Manchester Airport as the pivotal link. A key opportunity identified within the SRF is the continued development of Manchester Airport as this will contribute towards the future prosperity of Wythenshawe through providing increased job opportunities for local residents. The SRF identifies the need to support the continued growth of Manchester Airport as one of the UK’s premier business locations, capable of attracting corporate end users on an international scale to the conurbation. Manchester Tree Strategy – This Tree Strategy was developed in response to community interest about how trees are managed across Manchester. It is a key environmental strategy of the City Council and as such will influence all of the City Council’s policies and operations that affect trees. One of the key fundamental policies of this strategy is the requirement for a 10% net increase in new tree planting on all new developments. Manchester Airport City Masterplan – Prepared by MAG in 2011, the Airport City Masterplan is focussed on delivering the buildings and infrastructure to attract businesses drawn to the region by the unique opportunity of direct proximity to an International Airport. The Masterplan provides a comprehensive framework within which the development of the World Logistics Hub will be brought forward, including details on phasing of development, transport and utilities requirements, environmental protection and enhancement measures to be put in place and flood risk prevention and drainage measures. Environmental Impact Assessment – The applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.


During the EIA process the applicant has considered an extensive range of potential environmental effects in consultation with Natural England, the Environment Agency, English Heritage, the Highways Agency, the City Council, GMEU, Cheshire Wildlife Trust, Cheshire Bat Group, Greater Manchester Bird Recording Group, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit and United Utilities. As a result of this scoping exercise it was considered that the issues that could give rise to significant impact are:

• Ecology and nature conservation

• Archaeology and built heritage

• Landscape and visual amenity

• Air quality and dust

• Noise and vibration

• Water quality and drainage

• Land quality (contaminated land)

• Land uses and public rights of way These issues will be covered below. Principle of the Proposal – The proposals to create a World Logistics Hub at the Airport have been developed over number of years and were included in their draft Masterplan that was published in 2006. This document identified proposed extensions to the Airport’s Operational Area and identified areas of land that may require a review of the Green Belt boundary. The Masterplan’s proposals were considered in preparation of the City Council’s Core Strategy and this considered the options in respect of the extensions of the Operational Area and the review of the Green Belt. The proposals to extend the Operational Area and review the Green Belt boundary were tested at an Examination in Public in November 2011. The Government Inspector appointed to examine the soundness of the Core Strategy concluded that its policies for Manchester Airport are up to date and justified and that the exceptional circumstances for an alteration to the Green Belt boundary had been demonstrated. Given the findings of the Inspector and the subsequent adoption of the Core Strategy in July 2012, in particular Policies MA1 and EN13 outlined previously, it is considered that the principle of this development is acceptable. Notwithstanding this, consideration must be given to the proposal's impact upon existing levels of visual and residential amenity, the highway network and ecology/nature conservation. These issues and others will be addressed below. Justification for the Development – Evidence submitted in support of the Core Strategy (Need for Land) updated and advanced the approach of the Manchester Airport Masterplan. It referred to detailed market evidence, the scale of demand and that the lack of land was holding back growth. It stated further that the Operational Area, even after its extension and airport growth was not big enough for the market demand and so there was still an unmet market opportunity. Furthermore, it stated


that sites in the vicinity could be well placed to take advantage of this opportunity, with extra jobs and economic growth it would deliver. Following the release of the Government’s UK Aviation Forecast in August 2011, the Core Strategy was revised to reflect the findings of that forecast, namely that Manchester Airport passenger numbers are anticipated to grow to 35 million per annum by 2030 and 55 million per annum by 2040 (current passenger numbers stand at 19 million for 2011). As the majority of freight is carried by passenger planes it is anticipated that freight tonnage will also grow. Despite these Government findings, concerns have been raised that the current financial situation will mean that the forecasted passenger numbers are unlikely to be achieved. However, evidence submitted as part of the Core Strategy shows that previous drops in passenger numbers did not significantly change the number of passenger plane movements, therefore freight tonnage transported will not necessarily be reduced by the same percentage. Finally, the justification for the proposed development was established through the successful Enterprise Zone bid process and the Core Strategy process, with the latter being independently assessed by a Government Inspector who accepted the need for the Airport to expand in order to meet the updated national forecasts and fulfil its potential as an economic driver in the region. Increased Airport Activity - The overall growth of the Airport to 30 million passengers, the extra flights, and the environmental impact, was considered as part of the permission for Runway 2. The preparation of the Core Strategy included consideration of airport expansion; which was found to be consistent with the Council’s approach to sustainable development and climate change. Freight-only air traffic constitutes a small number of movements at Manchester Airport as the majority of freight is transported in the holds of passenger planes. The scheme does not include any increase in passenger aircraft handling capability. Additional freight will be absorbed into the Airport’s existing operations. Therefore the proposal would not give rise to a disproportionate rise in emissions associated with plane movements. Given this it is not considered that the development of the site as a logistics hub will in itself generate an increase in aircraft movements. Green Belt – For the purposes of clarity, adoption of the Core Strategy confirmed the removal of the application site from the Green Belt. It should be noted that the Inspector stated in her report that the “...need for the Airport to expand in order to meet the updated national forecasts and fulfil its potential as an economic driver in the region provides exceptional circumstances for an alteration to Green Belt boundaries...” Neighbourhood Forums – This is an issue raised by Save Sunbank Residents Group. The Localism Act, which received Royal Assent on November 15 2011,


introduced new rights and powers to allow local communities to shape new development by coming together to prepare neighbourhood plans.

Neighbourhood planning can be taken forward by two types of body - town and parish councils or 'neighbourhood forums'. Neighbourhood forums are community groups that are designated to take forward neighbourhood planning in areas without parishes. Neighbourhood forums and parish councils can use new neighbourhood planning powers to establish general planning policies for the development and use of land in a neighbourhood. These are described legally as neighbourhood development plans.

Neighbourhood development plans do not take effect unless there is a majority of support in a referendum of the neighbourhood. They also have to meet a number of conditions before they can be put to a community referendum and legally come into force. These conditions are to ensure plans are legally compliant and take account of wider policy considerations (e.g. national policy). The conditions are they must have regard to national planning policy; they must be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan for the local area (i.e. such as in a core strategy); and they must be compatible with EU obligations and human rights requirements.

The main purpose of neighbourhood development plans is to shape new development and not hinder development or growth, especially if a particular development is referenced in the adopted Core Strategy. Consultation Process – As stated earlier in the report, the applicants’ pre-application consultation exercise began on 25th July 2012 and public exhibitions were held on 31st July at Greggs Bakery, Building 308, World Freight Terminal and at The Romper Public House, Wilmslow Road. Following submission of the proposal the City Council issued 456 notification letters to local residents and businesses on 31st August 2012. Although these letters requested that comments be made by 21st September 2012, a number of local residents and Ringway Parish Council were informed that any representations would be considered up to the date of the committee meeting. The proposal has also been advertised in the Manchester Evening News and site notices have been erected throughout the site as the application is a major development, affects public rights of way and was submitted with an Environmental Statement.

The applicants have further held two public consultation events in Hale Barns on 3rd October 2012, at lunchtime and in the early evening, at two separate venues. Over 100 people attended these events. Overall it is considered that there has been appropriate consultation throughout the planning process.


Visual Amenity – The applicants have undertaken a visual impact assessment to consider the visual effects associated with the proposed development upon local residents and passing motorists. Visual impact is categorised as minor, moderate or major. A study of the site was taken from ten potential viewpoints: 1. Chapel Lane, Halebank, 2. Public right of way at Keeper’s Cottage, 3. Public right of way at Warburton Green, 4. Residential properties on Burnside, Warburton Green, 5. Public right of way to Oak Farm, 6. Residential property, Sunbank Lane (on the opposite side of the A538), 7. Public right of way from Altrincham Road to Moss Lane, 8. Residential properties at Halebank, 9. Public right of way to Sunbank Lane at Mill Lane, and 10. Residential properties on Warburton Drive. However, due to the high level of screening provided by the topography and intervening vegetation, viewpoints 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were discounted due to lack of available views or public access. The visual impact assessment has confirmed that the development would have a major effect on only one of the remaining viewpoints (5. Public right of way to Oak Farm) once it was in operation. However, given that this element of the site fronts onto the A538 and is effectively the frontage of the development this level of visibility is considered acceptable in the context of the World Freight Terminal and Manchester Airport as a whole. The visual impact upon the residents of the two nearest dwellings to the development was assessed from viewpoints 2 and 6. While the visual impact during construction would be understandably major, once in operation only the residential property on the northern section of Sunbank Lane would suffer from a moderate impact as the development would be clearly visible in the middle distance from the upper storey windows of that dwelling. The impact upon Keeper’s Cottage (viewpoint 2), once the development is operational, is categorised as minor, given the landscape mitigation proposed to be planted between the development and that dwelling. In light of the above assessment, the proposed landscaping mitigation works and the maximum building heights proposed ,as noted in the description, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unduly adverse impact upon existing levels of visual amenity. Landscape Features – The site is located within National Character Area 61 (NCA 61 - Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain) which is described as a unified landscape with strong field patterns and generally well managed hedgerow field boundaries with abundant hedgerow trees which gives the appearance of a well wooded landscape. The application site’s features and topography are largely typical


of that within NCA 61, though the urban influence on the wider landscape character to the west, north and east is not consistent with that of NCA 61. The proposed development will result in the loss of a range of landscape elements which are characteristic of NCA 61, including woodland, hedgerow, hedgerow trees, agricultural ground cover (in the form of permanent pasture and grass) and traditional brick buildings. These features will be replaced in part by large scale sheds, though this is not an uncommon feature in the wider landscape, i.e. the World Freight Terminal and Manchester Airport. However, as this change occurs within only a minor proportion of the NCA the overall impact upon the physical character of the NCA is considered minimal. It should be noted that the loss of characteristic landscape features is considered to be short term and will be felt most at the construction stage, though the proposed landscape mitigation works will compensate for the loss of these feature in the long term. These landscape mitigation works make up 14.8 hectares of the site and will consist of:

• Native high canopy woodland to the south, south-west and north of the logistics hub,

• Native hedgerow along the southern boundary of the logistics hub,

• Scattered native scrub,

• Enhancement of retained hedgerows through additional planting to stop-up gaps and implementation of management to improve structure;

• Planting of new native hedgerow, approximately 715 metres in length;

• Conversion of heavily improved grazed pasture into 80 hectares of rough grassland/meadow through adoption of sensitive management regime;

An appropriately worded planning condition will ensure that the landscape mitigation works are undertaken. Impact upon Cotteril Clough SSSI and Sunbank Wood SBI – In terms of the construction process, the proposal will not result in any direct impacts on Cotteril Clough SSSI as it will not encroach within the SSSI boundary. There is the potential for indirect effects on the SSSI, e.g. associated with increased lighting, though best practice guidelines in the use of close focusing lanterns and directional use of lighting will effectively design-out impacts of this kind to a magnitude that is not likely to give rise to significant effects. The implementation of pollution control methods during the construction phase of the proposed development will ensure that there are no adverse effects on the SSSI watercourses. Part of the Sunbank Wood SBI lies within the boundary of the proposed World Logistics Hub site. However, the proposed development will incorporate these small linear wooded areas and they will not be lost. There is the potential for indirect adverse effects on the SBI due to the close proximity of the development, such as increased lighting during the construction phase but again best practices will limit this impact. As with Cotteril Clough, the implementation of pollution control methods


during the construction phase will ensure that there are no adverse effects on the SBI watercourses. In terms of permanent impact, there will be no loss of semi-mature broad-leaved woodland within the Sunbank Wood or Cotteril Clough. On the contrary, the creation of a landscape and ecological buffer zone along the southern and south-western boundary of the logistics hub will form a continuous habitat link between these two wooded areas. A considerable amount of new woodland will be planted within the landscape and ecological buffer zone and whilst the final amount is subject to detailed design, it is acknowledged that it will far exceed the limited amount of non-SSSI and non-SBI woodland to be lost. Although the new planting will take some years to mature, its integration with the more established woodland of Sunbank Wood and Cotteril Clough will mean that a contribution to nature conservation will be achieved in the short to medium term. Residential Amenity – The impact of the proposal in terms of air quality (dust and vehicle emissions), noise and vibration has been undertaken, both in terms of construction and the operation of the logistics hub itself. The construction process has the potential to generate dust. However, any dust generated by these activities would be controlled using best practice to the extent that there would only be a minor adverse impact upon local residents, both in terms of health and amenity. It is not anticipated that any dust would be generated through the day to day operation of the logistics hub. During construction the number of vehicles visiting the site is likely to be less than 200 per day, the recognised benchmark for requiring an air quality assessment for construction traffic emissions. Furthermore, predictions based on changes to traffic flows have indicated that once operational there would be an imperceptible increase in average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter from logistics vehicles. In light of this, it is not considered that vehicle emissions associated with the construction process and the day to day running of the logistics hub are high enough to cause a significant adverse effect on any local residents. Assessments of the predicted noise and vibration levels indicate that there will be a negligible impact during construction from both plant (e.g. piling machinery) and construction vehicles. The predicted increase in road traffic levels in and around the operational logistic hub also indicate that there will be a negligible increase in both noise and vibration levels once the site is operational. Notwithstanding these predictions, a suitably worded planning condition will ensure that all external plant and machinery is acoustically insulated. The nearest dwelling to the proposal is Keepers Cottage on Sunbank Lane, it will be approximately 160 metres away from the nearest logistics building. However, as the applicants are proposing to locate an element of their landscape and ecological buffer zone between the dwelling and this element of the site, it is considered that the development will be adequately screened from that dwelling and as such the impact upon the levels of residential amenity they enjoy will be minimal.


The visual impact upon the residents of the two nearest dwellings to the development has been assessed and while the visual impact during construction would be understandably major, once in operation only the residential property on the northern section of Sunbank Lane would suffer from a moderate impact as the development would be clearly visible in the middle distance from the upper storey windows of that dwelling. The impact upon Keeper’s Cottage on Sunbank Lane, once the development is operational, is categorised as minor, given the landscape mitigation proposed to be planted between the development and that dwelling. Given the above assessment, the proposed landscaping mitigation works and the maximum building heights proposed, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unduly adverse impact visually. In light of the above, it is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon existing levels of residential amenity. Impact through vehicular movements is considered below: Impact upon the Highway Network – It is acknowledged that this is an issue raised by a number of objectors to the scheme. One of the provisos of the 2nd runway planning approval was that a series of highway improvements have to be undertaken once the passenger through-put figure of 10,100 per hour, which roughly equates to 30 million passengers per annum, is attained. Below that figure (current passenger numbers stand at 19 million for 2011) it is recognised that the development of airport activity, such as the proposed World Logistics Hub, is capable of being accommodated within the existing highway network. Notwithstanding the above, it is also noted that the capacity of the local highway network will be dramatically increased as a result of the highway improvements associated with the 2nd runway planning approval and it has been demonstrated in the supporting documents that the proposed logistics hub is aligned with these future highway improvements and will allow the highway network to operate within capacity in the future. This is a view clearly shared by the City Council, the Highways Agency and Trafford Council.

In conclusion, it is considered that the existing highway network, both at a local and national level can accommodate the expected traffic movements associated with such a use, especially given the historic and future investment in highway infrastructure around the airport site, i.e. highway improvements required in connection with the 2nd runway approval and the highway works associated with the South East Manchester Multi Modal Study. A number of representations have been received about closing off Sunbank Lane to through traffic in order to reduce the impact of the proposal. While it is not considered that the proposal will increase the level of traffic driving the length of Sunbank Lane a traffic management condition is suggested to prevent large vehicles utilising Sunbank Lane.


Highway Improvements – It is proposed initially that Sunbank Lane will be realigned to facilitate access to the early phases of the logistics hub. As further phases are developed out then the Sunbank Lane/Wilmslow Road junction will be improved and become signalised. Travel Plan – To ensure that the potential growth of private car usage associated with the development is managed, a condition requiring the submission of a Travel Plan, which is mutually supportive of the existing Airport Travel Plan, is suggested in this instance. Built Heritage – Yew Tree House (Grade II) on Sunbank Lane is the nearest listed building to the application site. However, as it is approximately 350 metres from the nearest proposed building and is separated from it by a large amount of landscaping, including Sunbank Wood, it is not considered that its setting or character will be adversely impacted upon. Oak Cottages and Oak Farm have been subject to extensive alteration and do not survive in their original 19th Century form, as such they are considered to be of low heritage significance as they are undesignated. Notwithstanding this, their loss will be mitigated through archaeological recording. Archaeology – There are no known archaeological features within the development site. However, the Environmental Statement does recognise that the proposal may have the potential to impact upon unknown archaeological assets within the site. To mitigate against this a staged programme of archaeological field work will be undertaken to record evidence of any assets uncovered. Ecology and Nature Conservation – A number of field and desk-top surveys have been undertaken by Manchester Airport in respect of the wider area and this specific site between 1993 and 2012. Those studies and the year they were undertaken are as follows:

• Hedgerows – 2009, 2012

• Breeding birds – 2007, 2009, 2012

• Bat activity – 2009, 2010, 2012

• Badger – 2007, 2009, 2012

• Amphibians – 1993, 1994, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012

• Small mammals – 2009

• Phase 1 habitat – 2009

• Grassland – 2009

• Woodland – 2009

• Invasive weeds – 2009 A number of protected species are known to either occupy or use elements of the site for foraging: Great Crested Newts – Within the application site boundary there are a number of ponds which are home to Great Crested Newts, as a result the applicants are


required to apply to Natural England for an European Protected Species Licence to translocate them should the application be approved. The applicants are proposing to re-home the Great Crested Newts within both the landscape and ecological buffer zone referred to previously and an extended mitigation zone within which would be located six receptor ponds and artificial hibernacula, i.e. habitats for the Great Crested Newts to live in, specifically over the winter months Bats – Four species of bats were recorded within the application site While no evidence of bat habitation was found within those buildings to be demolished, bat activity was recorded in their vicinity and as such there is potential for them to be used for roosting. In addition, there are a large number of trees within the site that are capable of supporting bats, although no assessment or survey of these features has been undertaken. If it is found that bats do indeed inhabit these trees then the applicant will either ensure that the habitat is retained on site or alternative roosts will be provided. In any event a European Protected Species Licence would need to be obtained in order to relocate them. The loss of existing hedgerows will have an impact upon bat foraging habitat, though it should be noted that there will be no loss of connectivity between unaffected hedgerows to the south of the logistics hub and the mature woodland associated with Sunbank Wood and Cotteril Clough, the connectivity of which will be improved upon by the proposed landscape and ecological buffer zone. Badgers – A number of badger surveys have been undertaken between 2007 and 2012 and they have confirmed the presence of a badger sett within the application site. However, while the exact location of the sett remains confidential it can be confirmed that it is not located within the construction area but within the landscape and ecological buffer zone. While the actual construction process will not result in any direct impact on the badger sett it is recognised that there will be a permanent loss of habitat within the foraging range of the resident badger clan. However, a large amount of suitable foraging habitat will be retained and safeguarded within the landscape and ecological buffer zone, including the creation of a permanent rough grassland area, new hedgerows, woodland and scattered scrub. In addition, the foraging habitats in Sunbank Wood and Cotteril Clough will remain unaffected and the sett will retain connectivity to this habitat via the woodland. Not only will there be no significant harm to the badgers during construction, but it is considered that sufficient foraging area will remain after the development has been constructed to support this badger clan. Breeding Birds – A variety of species have been observed across the site with 14 confirmed as breeding and 21 possibly/probably breeding (2009 figures, updated in 2012). It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in extensive losses of breeding bird habitat in the local area including hedgerows, scrub, a small amount of mature semi-natural broad-leaved woodland and buildings at Oak Farm and Oak Cottages. However, when considered in context with the surrounding local area, which includes extensive woodland areas, some of which is managed by Cheshire Wildlife Trust and


mature hedgerows, the impact is assessed to be moderate, resulting in a minor adverse effect. Notwithstanding this, it is also considered that the proposed hedgerow planting and landscape and ecological buffer zone will provide nesting and feeding opportunities for any birds displaced by the proposal. It should be noted that while alternative habitats will be created they will be designed so as to discourage large flock forming species of birds so as not to compromise the safe operation of the Airport. Water Vole – no evidence of habitation. Small Mammals – Bank vole, wood mouse, field vole and common shrew (which are not rare, threatened or specially protected) were all recorded in very low numbers, i.e. a total of 8 individual captures. The Council, in determining this application is required to have regard to the Habitats Directive in relation to European protected species such as bats and great crested newts. It is clear that the development will breach Article 12 (1) of the Habitats Directive which provides that member states shall establish a system of strict protection of certain animal species prohibiting (among other things) deliberate disturbance of the species and deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. In these circumstance the Planning Committee must consider whether the Natural England will permit a departure from compliance with Article 12 and grant a licence. Natural England will grant a licence if it concludes that:

i) despite the breach of Article 12, there is no satisfactory alternative,

ii) that the development will not be detrimental to the preservation of the maintenance of European protected species at a favourable conservation status and

iii) the development should be permitted for imperative reasons of overriding public importance.

The tests are addressed below:

i) The applicants have provided sufficient information to show that the overriding public interest of the proposed development lies in its contribution to the economic health of Manchester Airport and the consequent effect in enhancing economic vitality at both a regional and national level. This has been recognised by the Government Inspector following the Examination in Public of the Core Strategy in 2011).

ii) Given the size of the site needed for such a logistics hub and requirement for it to be located within close proximity to the Airport, it is not considered that there is a satisfactory alternative to the application site. The location of a logistics hub on this site has been deemed acceptable for inclusion within the Core Strategy by the Government Inspector.


iii) While it is acknowledged above that a number of protected species occupy or live in close proximity to the site, it is considered that the proposed mitigation measures, i.e. the landscape and ecological buffer zone and extended mitigation zone to the south of that, will ensure that any impact is minimal and will not be detrimental to overall population levels.

Although the development will result in an impact on European protected species it is likely that Natural England will grant a licence for the reasons set out above and the negative impact does not therefore amount to a reason for refusing permission. In line with the comments of GMEU and Natural England a number of conditions concerning the mitigation of any impact upon ecology assets are suggested in this instance. Trees – 114 individual trees, 16 groups of tress and 2 woodlands were recorded within influencing distance of the site, i.e. the zone for construction and the landscape and ecology mitigation area. The tree stock is mostly associated with field margins and comprises of native trees positioned along hedgerows and linear groups planted along Wilmslow Road. Large numbers of oak have been recorded, alongside ash, sycamore, common alder, polar and willow species. The two woodland areas, Sunbank Wood and Cotteril Clough, are recognised as ancient woodland. Though the application is in outline only and the location of the logistic buildings are shown indicatively, it is envisaged that approximately 53 individual trees and 8 groups of trees will be required to be felled to facilitate the proposal. While the loss of the trees is regrettable it is considered that the extensive planting which would form the landscape and ecological buffer zone will compensate for their loss. Notwithstanding, the provision of the landscape and ecological buffer zone, any subsequent reserved matters application will need to accompanied by a arboricultural impact assessment to ensure that wherever possible further trees are retained. Trees within the woodland areas of Sunbank Wood and Cotteril Clough will not felled. Water Quality and Drainage – Best practice methods during construction will ensure that any impact upon existing water features such as Cotteril Clough, the River Bollin and the watercourses which run through Sunbank Wood are minimised. In addition, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems will ensure that once in operation the logistics hub will not have an impact upon the existing water features due to changes of flow, water quality or drainage, nor their effect their Water Framework Directive status, a European directive requiring all member states to achieve good ecological status of watercourses by 2015. Adherence to the aforementioned best practice methods and the incorporation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System will be required through the imposition of a suitably worded condition. Overall it is considered that the impact upon water quality and drainage will be minimal.


Public Rights of Way – Five public rights of way pass through the application site, though not all are within the area reserved for the construction of the logistics hub itself. Where the public rights of way are to be physically interrupted they will be diverted. The applicants have submitted an indicative plan which shows that linkages will be provided through the site and the landscape and ecology buffer zone to connect the diverted public rights of way with public rights of way nos. 10, 15 and 16 which are located to the west and south of the site and beyond to public right of way no. 2 and the runway 2 trail which are located to the north. These linkages are welcomed and they will allow pedestrians to travel from Wilmslow Road to Mill Lane, via the application site and Sunbank Wood or Cotteril Clough. Overall, the principle of the changes to the public rights of way are considered acceptable as no negative impact will result from their closure and subsequent diversion. If planning permission is granted, the applicant will be required to apply for the closure and/or diversion of the footpaths under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Contaminated Land – All contaminated land effects associated with the site have been investigated and have been assessed as not significant. Notwithstanding this, it is felt prudent to attach a planning condition requiring the provision of final verification reports to ensure that any risk from land contaminants is minimised. Access for Disabled People – The details of the logistics buildings and their physical surroundings are not known at present given the outline nature of the application. However, the submission of any subsequent reserved matters application will have to include these details and it is at that stage that the issue of disabled access will be resolved. Employment Opportunities – Since the Wythenshawe Area Committee met in October a joint working group has been set up, comprising Manchester Airport Group, the City Council and Wythenshawe Regeneration Team, to liaise with the Local Enterprise Partnership to deliver employment, training and education initiatives during the construction and occupation phases with an emphasis on ensuring that local Wythenshawe residents are at an advantage in seeking employment as a result of the development. This group is tasked with exploring access to work issues faced by the population of Wythenshawe and to explore funding routes to address those issues. Human Rights Act 1998 considerations – This application needs to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applicants (and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments. Protocol 1 Article 1, and Article 8 where appropriate, confer(s) a right of respect for a person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material


considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Planning has concluded that some rights conferred by these articles on the applicant(s)/objector(s)/resident(s) and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. She believes that any restriction on these rights posed by the approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The provision of a large airport related logistics operation on the site has been recognised as being an important economic driver regionally and at a national level. The justification for such a use was tested during the Core Strategy Examination in Public and was found to be sound by the Government Inspector. Notwithstanding this, the concerns raised about ecology and highway movements/capacity of the network are recognised. It is considered that matters of ecology can be successfully mitigated against and that it has been demonstrated that the local and national highway network can accommodate the expected traffic movements associated with such a proposal. Whilst there would be some impact arising from the development it is considered that the proposal has been sited to reduce the visual impact on the local residents within the vicinity of the site. Following careful consideration it is also believed that the proposal along with the inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures will not give rise to unacceptable impacts on adjacent properties through noise for the reasons set out in this report. Although the development will result in an impact on European protected species it is likely that Natural England will grant a licence for the reasons set out above and the negative impact does not therefore amount to a reason for refusing permission. The Wythenshawe Area Committee recommends approval of the application subject to a fuller analysis of the highways issues and footpath diversions and to any additional conditions suggested by the Planning and Highways Committee. This report provides that further analysis. The Head of Planning recommends that the Planning and Highways Committee approve planning application 100263/OO/2012/S2, relating to the outline planning application for a World Logistic Hub comprising B8 logistic space with ancillary B1 office (131,000 m²) with ancillary amenity/retail space and landscaping and ecology mitigation area, on the basis that the Council has taken the environmental information in the Environmental Statement (as defined in the EIA regulations) into consideration and the proposal is considered to accord with the following policies which are summarised in the body of the report: SP1, DM1, DM 2, EC1, EC10, MA1, EN13, EN1, EN8 and EN9 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document;


• Policy SP1, as the proposal is a vital component in the growth of Manchester Airport, which is recognised as a catalyst for the regional economy,

• Policy DM1, as the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon residential amenity or highway safety.

• Policy DM 2, as the proposal will not affect the operational integrity or safety of Manchester Airport or Manchester Radar.

• Policies EC1 and EC10, as the proposal is sited on a key for major employment growth and is a recognised aviation related use .

• Policy MA1, as the proposal is sited within the Manchester Airport Strategic Site and is a recognised aviation related use and it will have minimal impact upon ecological assets, in particular Cotteril Clough SSSI.

• Policy EN13, the extent of Green Belt has been amended in the vicinity of Manchester Airport.

• Policy EN1, the proposal will meet the future operational needs of the Airport, whilst retaining the area’s open character as far as is possible.

• Policy EN8, the proposal has been designed to minimise flood risk by appropriate siting, drainage, and treatment of surface areas to ensure rain water permeability.

• Policy EN9, as the proposal will the enhance the quality and quantity of green infrastructure and improve the linkages between Sunbank Wood SBI and Cotteril Clough SSSI it has been demonstrate that the loss of existing green infrastructure will be mitigated in terms of quantity, quality, function and future management.

The proposal is considered to accord with policies DP1, RT5 and RDF4 in the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) to 2021 (adopted September 2008):

• Policy DP1, as the proposal promotes sustainable growth and will improve environmental quality with improved linkages between Sunbank Wood SBI and Cotteril Clough SSSI

• Policy RT 5, as the proposal is a vital component in the successful growth of Manchester Airport; the impact upon local amenities and the local and national highway network is considered acceptable; and any impact upon national and international nature conservation assets have been mitigated against.

• Policy RDF4, as the proposed use is proven to be an exceptional purpose for the amendment of the Green Belt boundary.


Finally, the proposal is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and there are no material considerations which outweigh the benefits of the proposal: Conditions to be attached to the decision 1) Applications for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved. Reason - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2) Approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any phase of development is commenced. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved. Reason - To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and because this application is in outline only. 3) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority: ......... Reason - To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, pursuant to policies SP1, DM1, DM 2, EC1, EC10, MA1, EN13, EN1, EN8 and EN9 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, 4) No development that is hereby approved or any phase shall commence unless and until samples and specifications of all materials to be used on all external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The development shall be constructed only using the approved materials unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. Reason - To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable to the City Council as local planning authority in the interests of the visual amenity of the area within which the site is located, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.


5) The car parking any shall be surfaced, demarcated and made available for use prior to the building or phase of development hereby approved being occupied. The car park shall then be available at all times whilst the site is occupied. Reason - To ensure that there is adequate parking for the development proposed when the building is occupied in order to comply with policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 6) No development shall commence until details of the measures to be incorporated into the development (or phase thereof) to demonstrate how Secured by Design accreditation will be achieved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with these approved details. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used until the Council as local planning authority has acknowledged in writing that it has received written confirmation of a Secured by Design accreditation. Reason - To reduce the risk of crime, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 7) The development or any phase hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating of at least "very good". A post construction review certificate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority within 3 months of first occupation of each phase. Reason - In order to minimise the environmental impact of the development pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 8) The hard and soft landscaping scheme approved by the City Council as local planning authority as a reserved matter in connection with each phase shall be implemented in accordance with a management scheme to be agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place. Reason – To ensure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme for the development is carried out that respects the character and visual amenities of the area and that is compatible with the management objectives of the adjoining SSSI and avoids, for example, the introduction of plant species that, should they spread into the SSSI, would have an adverse effect on its ecology and condition, in accordance with policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 9) In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree, shrub or hedge which is to be as shown as retained on the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a)


and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use. (a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 5387 (Trees in relation to construction) (b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority. (c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority. Reason - In order avoid damage to trees/shrubs adjacent to and within the site which are of important amenity value to the area and in order to protect the character of the area, in accordance with policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 10) Any externally mounted ancillary plant, equipment and servicing required for each phase of development shall be acoustically treated in accordance with a scheme designed so as to achieve a noise level of 5dB below the existing background (LA90) in each octave band at the nearest noise sensitive location. This should be in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority in order to secure a reduction in the level of noise emanating from the site. Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential accommodation, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 11) The detailed contaminated land remediation strategy (ref. URS Phase 1 Report, August 2012) as agreed by the Council as local planning authority shall be implemented and the development or phase thereof shall not be occupied until a verification report for each phase detailing compliance with the remediation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as local planning authority. Any measures in the remediation strategy that are identified as being


required throughout the operation of the development shall be retained throughout the operation of the development. Reason - To ensure that the presence of or the potential for any contaminated land and/or groundwater is detected and appropriate remedial action is taken in the interests of public safety. Pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 12) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason - Numerous surface water features are present on site and Cotteril Clough Brook (a tributary of the River Bollin) is located 40m south west of the site. The above condition will ensure that any unsuspected contamination encountered during the development is adequately assessed and mitigated, pursuant to Policy DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 13) Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, including swales and soakaways, based on sustainable drainage principles and the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) from URS (World Logistics Hub dated August 2012), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water runoff rate from the developed area shall be limited to the local Greenfield rate of 5 l/s/ha and on site storage attenuation provided. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include:

• details of volumetric run-off control as per CIRIA SUDS Manual C697with the rate set at Qbar if no infiltration is provided.

• details of exceedence event up to a 1 in 100 year including climate change allowance

• details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme. Reason - To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to maintain the integrity of the local water table and avoid any damaging impacts on the qualifying interests of the SSSI, pursuant to Policy DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 14) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning


Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason - Numerous surface water features are present on site and Cotteril Clough Brook (a tributary of the River Bollin) is located 40m south west of the site. The above condition will ensure that any unsuspected contamination encountered during the development is adequately assessed and mitigated, pursuant to Policy DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 15) No development of phase thereof pursuant to this planning application shall be occupied until a detailed Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. The detailed Travel Plan shall be developed in accordance with the agreed Travel Plan Framework (August 2012) document and implemented. Reason - To encourage the use of transport other than single occupancy of a car in accordance with the principles of sustainable transport, pursuant to the provisions contained policy SP1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 16) The heights of the building hereby approved, namely 10 to 15 metres, shall not exceed those heights indicated on RPS plan no. NK017096_SK071. Reason – In order to ensure a satisfactory development and to protect residential amenity, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 17) The height of buildings and other structures within the proposed development must not infringe any of the protected surfaces above and around the aerodrome, which are defined in the CAA’s licensing document CAP 168. Further aerodrome safeguarding assessments will therefore be required as the detailed design of the development is progressed to ensure that the relevant safeguarding criteria are met. Reason - To ensure that Manchester Airport’s obstacle limitation surfaces are protected and to ensure the safe operation of aircraft, pursuant to Circular 1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas: the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 18) The installation of lighting shall not commence until details of the schemes of lighting required during construction and for the completed development and each phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting schemes should be designed so as not to conflict with any safeguarding criteria and shall specify that lighting is of flat glass, full cut off design with horizontal mountings and no light spill above the horizontal. Reason - To ensure the safe operation of aircraft, pursuant to Circular 1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas:


the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 19) Development shall not begin until a landscaping scheme for the pre-construction landscape and ecological enhancement works within the southern part of the site, which complies with the details contained in the attached Advice Note 3 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping and Building Design’, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft through the attraction of birds, pursuant to Circular 1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas: the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 20) Development of each individual plot shall not begin until the associated landscaping and drainage scheme specified in condition 19, which complies with the details contained in the attached Advice Note 3 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping and Building Design’, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft through the attraction of birds, pursuant to Circular 1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas: the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 21) No vegetation clearance required for the development or phase thereof shall take place during the optimum period for bird nesting (March to July inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent by a suitably qualified person. Reason – To ensure the protection of habitat of species that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or as subsequently amended in order to comply with policy EN15 of the Core Strategy. 22) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an ecology method statement detailing the following shall be submitted and approved by the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with the approved details:

• details of all the measures to be taken to avoid any harm to great crested newts during the course of the development.

• details of artificial bat roosting features to be installed either within the application site or within the existing adjacent woodland areas.

• details of measures to be taken to avoid any possible disturbance or harm to badgers that may result from the scheme.

Reason – To ensure the protection of habitat of species that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or as subsequently amended in order to comply with policy EN15 of the Core Strategy.


23) Prior to commencement of the development, a local labour agreement addressing initiatives to employ people at the World Logistics Hub who reside in the vicinity of the development, in line with the aspirations of the Manchester Airport City Enterprise Zone Framework Plan (August 2012), shall be submitted to and be approved by the City Council as local planning authority. The employment strategy shall then be implemented in accordance with those approved details and kept in place thereafter. Reason – To safeguard local employment opportunities, pursuant to policy SP1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 24) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the highway improvement works, including Traffic Regulation Orders, to Sunbank Lane and Chapel Lane in Hale Barns shall be submitted to and be approved by the City Council as local planning authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with those details before the development or subsequently agreed phase of the development is occupied. Reason – In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and residential amenity, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 25) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a further analysis of the Sunbank Lane/Wilmslow Road junction shall be submitted which details the triggers for the implementation of a signalised junction at the Sunbank Lane/Wilmslow Road; this will include the required works linked to the phasing of each development. Reason – In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 26) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Construction Environmental Management Plan must be submitted to and be approved by the City Council as local planning authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with those approved details. The Construction Environmental Management Plan must show how the main construction effects of the development are to be minimised, with include detailed mitigation measure such as:

• details of construction and demolition waste management;

• details of pollution prevention;

• dust control measures;

• details of any lighting scheme proposed during construction;

• details of site access, working and safety zones, together with temporary fencing proposals for the site access and site perimeter.

Reason – To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential accommodation and to avoid any damaging impacts on the qualifying interests of the


SSSI, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 27) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

• the designated route for construction and delivery vehicles

• the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

• loading and unloading of plant and materials

• storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

• the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate

• wheel washing facilities

• measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

• a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

Reason - In the interest of pedestrian and highway safety, as specified in policies SP1 and DM1 of Core Strategy Development Plan Document. Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 The documents referred to in the course of this report are either contained in the file(s) relating to application ref: 100263/OO/2012/S2 held by planning or are City Council planning policies, the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, national planning guidance documents, or relevant decisions on other applications or appeals, copies of which are held by the Planning Division. The following residents, businesses and other third parties in the area were consulted/notified on the application: Environment Agency Transport For Greater Manchester Greater Manchester Police Trafford MBC Cheshire East Manchester Airport Safeguarding Officer Ringway Parish Council The Highways Agency Bankside (nos. 1-7), Brooks Drive (Brookdale, Flaxhigh), Burnside (nos. 1-39), Greengate (nos. 1-45, 2-38), Hale Road (nos. 399-405, 411-415, 444-482, Fern Cottage, Marriott Hotel),


Hasty Lane (nos 1 and 1a, Brookfield, White Piers, Garden House, Oak Croft, The Bungalow, Rose Cottage, The Cottage, Breeze Hill, Ring-a-Roses), High Elm Road (nos. 55-79, 72-86), Marlfield Road (nos. 1-30), Mill Lane (Hill Crest, Underwood, Wayside Farm, Castle Mill, Windy Ridge, Topfield, 1 Castle Mill, Castle Hill Farm, The Stables, Hillside), Ridge Avenue (nos. 1-9, 2-6), Riverhill Gardens (nos. 1-15), Runger Lane (Travel Lodge, Premier Inn), Rushey Close (nos. 1-6), Sunbank Lane (nos. 50-56, nos. 1-4 Oak Farm Cottages, Rose Cottage, Lingerfields, Halebank Cottage, Yew Tree House, Bollinbrook, Yew Tree Cottage, Halebank Farm, Bryn Bollin, Yew Tree Barn, Keepers Cottage, Peter’s Croft, St Mary’s Church), The Copse (nos. 1-9), Warburton Drive (nos. 1-16), Warburton Close (nos. 1-18), Warren Drive (nos. 1-15, 31-35, Four Oaks, St. Deny’s, Belmor House, Glendore, Cruachan, Squirrel’s Leap, Pine Close), Wilmslow Old Road (nos. 1-4 Vicarage Cottages, Cloughbank Farm) Wilmslow Road (Oak Farm, The Romper, Lilac Cottage), A1 Services, M56 junction 6 depot Alpha Flight Services Building 402 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5AF Esso Petroleum Co Ltd Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5XA British Petroleum Co Plc Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5XA Servisair Ltd Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5UZ Avco Ltd Hangar 4 Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5YP Rapid Air (uk) Ltd Hangar 4 Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5YP Room 106 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ T Q Express Unit 7 Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UX R S R Freight Services Ltd Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Room 205-206 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Room 111 Building 302 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PD Room 207-208 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Room 201-202 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Room 1 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Servisair Ltd Unit 1-5 Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UX Robins Transport Unit 1b Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ Air System Uk Ltd Room 208 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Maal Transport Services Unit 1b Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ Chris Walsh Air Freight Ltd Room 3-4 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Room 104-105 Building 302 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PD Fedex Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY


Singapore Airlines Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Air Malta Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Schenker Ltd Building 315 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5BG Cargo Overseas Ltd Room 16 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Northern Executive Aviation Ltd Hangar 7 Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5NE Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd Hangar 1 Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5FL Room 104 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Panasonic Avionics Corporation Room 101 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Room 6 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Skymaster Air Cargo Ltd Room 15 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Interliner Air Services Ltd Room 102 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Room 114 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY B & H Worldwide Ltd Room 13 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Room 213-214 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Senator International Freight Ltd Unit 1b Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ Animals By Air Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL G M P Fixed Wing Unit Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UX Room 106-107 Building 302 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PD D H L Global Forwarding Building 318 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5EX J A L C10 Plane Handling Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Cargolux Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Expeditors International (uk) Ltd Building 314 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5EX Aerocol International Hangar 4 Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5YP Monarch Aircraft Engineering Ltd Hangar 5 Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5AE Room 210 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Room 209-210 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Meridian I Q (uk) Ltd Room 9-10 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Norbert Dentressangle Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL A M I Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL Room 205-207 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Viking Unit 12 Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UX Department For Environment Food & Rural Affairs (d E F R A) Room 2 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Room 9-10 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Emery Worldwide A C N F Co Building 316 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5EW T C R Hangar 2 Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5YF


Fritz Companies (uk) Ltd Unit 4-5 Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5FW S B S Worldwide Ltd Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5SB Menzies Aviation Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Room 109 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Room 201 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Swissport Cargo Services Unit 2 Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL S3 Freight Services Ltd Unit 6 Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5TE Room 11 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY British Airways Plc Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5BA Kuehne & Nagel Ltd Building 317 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5NA Benair Freight International Ltd Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5BF Shell Uk Ltd Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5XA Manchester Airport Fire Service Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5YF Evolution Logistics Ltd Room 113-114 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Puma Cargo Ltd Room 110 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Air Sea Worldwide Uk Ltd Room 106 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Room 110 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Airspace Aviation Solutions Ltd Unit 3 Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL Globe Air Cargo Ltd Unit 1 Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL P I C C Logistics Ltd Unit 3 Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5TE Blacksmith Freight Services Ltd Unit 5 Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ Jeppson Room 14 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Room 101-102 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Delta Airways Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Air France Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Emirates Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY L S G Sky Chefs Uk Ltd Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5XR Allport Ltd Building 320 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5EX Davies Turner Air Cargo Ltd Unit 10 Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UX Manchester Airport Plc Hangar 3 Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5YF Unit 7-8 Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL A F I Unit 1a Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ Room 113 Building 302 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PD Danzas Ltd Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5AS Room 105 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY


Toll Global Forwarding Unit 7 Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5TE Intercontinental Room 102 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Greater Manchester Police Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Room 11-14 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Manchester City Council Room 104 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY P H S I Room 1 Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Qatar Airlines Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Unit 2 Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ Room 103 Building 302 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PD Room 2 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Unit 6 Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ Future Forwarding Ltd Room 112 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Chamberlink Room 109 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Vantec Room 112 Building 302 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PD Virgin Atlantic Cargo Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5QL Room 107 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Atlantic Pacific Global Logistics Ltd Unit 3 Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5TE Woodland International Unit 3 Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5TE H M Revenue & Customs Room 108 Building 302 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PD Room 5 Building 305 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PY Tower Worldwide Freight Solutions Building 308 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PZ Servisair Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Unit 11 Building 301 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UX Airbus Hangar 1 Western Maintenance Area Manchester M90 5FL Air Livery Hangar 2 Pinfold Lane Manchester M90 5YF Plane Handling Ltd Unit 1 Building 307 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PL Kintetsu World Express Unit 6 Building 311 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5TE Room 204 Building 309 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5PH Alpha Flight Services Building 319 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5EX Alpha Airport Group Unit 3-5 Building 303 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UJ John Menzies (gb) Ltd Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Dunwoody Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Lot Cargo Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY China Airlines Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Olympic Airways Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY Dragon Building 300 World Freight Terminal Manchester M90 5UY


Representations were received from the following third parties: Save Sunbank Residents’ Group Ringway Parish Council Cllr Patrick Meyers Trafford Council Cheshire East Council Wilmslow Town Council Graham Brady MP (Altrincham and Sale West) Greater Manchester Ecology Unit Transport for Greater Manchester Aerodrome Safeguarding Natural England Cheshire Wildlife Trust Environment Agency. Highways Agency United Utilities Manchester Jetline Limited The Ramblers Association Campaign to Protect Rural England Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Manchester 1 Kendal Close, Timperley, WA15 7EU 1 Warburton Close, Hale Barns, WA15 0SJ 1 Warburton Drive, Hale Barns 2 Ravenwood Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0JA 10 Haslemere Avenue, Hale Barns, WA15 0AU 10 High Elm Road, Hale Barns 10 Longsides Road, Hale Barns, WA15 0HT 10 Sandown Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0BA 10 Tanyard Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0BS 100 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0BP 12 Elmsway, Hale Barns 12 Hough Green, Ashley, WA15 0QS 121 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0SU 13 Lichfield Avenue, Hale, WA15 8PG 132 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0SS 133 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0SW 137 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0SW 14 High Elm Road, Hale Barns, WA15 0HS 14 High Elm Road, Hale Barns, WA15 0HS 144 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0SS 15 Alan Road , Withington, M20 4NQ 15 Crabtree Avenue, Hale Barns, WA15 0RZ 15 Marlfield Road, Hale Barns, WA15 0SB 17 Burnside, Altrincham, WA15 0SG 17 Burnside, Hale Barns, WA15 0SG 17 Greengate, Hale Barns, WA15 0SH


17 Weygates Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0BW 18 Tanyard Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0BS 19 Ravenwood Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0JA 19 Richmond Hill Road, Cheadle, SK8 1QF 2 Ridge Avenue, Hale Barns, WA15 0AY 20 Haslemere Avenue, Hale Barns, WA15 0AU 203 Woodhouse Lane East, Timperley, WA15 6AS 21 Bower Road, Hale, WA15 9DR 21 Burnside, Hale Barns, WA15 0SG 24 Burnside , Hale Barns, WA15 0SG 26 Ash Lane Hale WA15 8PF 29 Melrose Crescent, Hale, WA15 8NL 3 Beech Court, Wilmslow, SK9 2AW 3 Haslemere Avenue, Hale Barns, WA15 0AU 3 The Copse, Hale Barns, WA15 0RU 3 Vale Court, Dutton, Warrington, WA4 4HA 31 Strawberry Lane, Wilmslow , SK9 6AQ 36 Greengate, Hale Barns, WA15 0RR 38 Burnside, Hale Barns, WA15 0SG 38 Melrose Crescent, Hale, WA15 8NJ 39 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns 328 Oldfield Road, Altrincham, WA14 4QS 4 Bankside, Hale Barns, WA15 0SP 4 Burnside, Hale Barns, WA15 0SG 4 Pinfold Close, Hale Barns, WA15 0SA 4 Weygates Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0BW 41 Gorse Bank Road, Hale Barns, WA15 0BB 43 Gorse Bank Road, Hale Barns, WA15 0BB 43 Horton Road, Fallowfield, M14 7QB 45 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0AJ 474 Hale Road, Hale Barns, WA15 8XT 482 Hale Road, Hale Barns, WA15 8XT 5 Ridge Avenue, Hale Barns, WA15 0AY 5 The Copse, Hale Barns, WA15 0RU 54 Melrose Crescent, Hale, WA15 8NJ 56 Sunbank Lane, WA15 0QA 7 Dobbhedge Close, Hale Barns, WA15 0AT 7 Drayton Grove, Timperley, WA15 7PZ 7 Rydal Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 8TE 7 Stratford Avenue, West Didsbury, M20 2IH 7 Warburton Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0SL 71 High Elms Road, Hale Barns, WA15 0RN 8 Rivers Hill Gardens, Hale Barns, WA15 0AZ 93 Chapel Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0SU No address provided x 25 Bollinbrook, Sunbank Lane, Ringway Breeze Hill, Hasty Lane, Manchester, WA15 8UT


Flat 27, Thorne House, 279 Wilmslow Road (on behalf of North Group, Cheshire Wildlife Group) Four Oaks, Warren Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0RP Glendore, Warren Drive, Hale Barns, WA15 0RP Hale Bank Farm, Sunbank Lane, Ringway Hillside, Mill Lane, Ashley, WA15 0RD Holly Tree Cottage, Eccups Lane, Morley Green, SK9 5NZ Keepers Cottage, Thorley Lane, Ringway, WA15 8QU Oak Farm, Wilmslow Road, Ringway Ringway Vicarage, 35 Burnside, Hale Barns, WA15 0SG Rose Cottage, Sunbank Lane, Ringway, WA15 0PZ Shielgreen, Rossmill Lane, Hale Barns, WA15 0AH Thorn Cottage, Castle Mill Lane, Ashley, WA15 0QY Unit 4, Alpha Point, Bradnor Road, M22 4TE Wayside Farm,, Mill Lane, WA15 0RE Windyridge, Mill Lane, Ringway, WA15 0RE Yew Tree Cottage, Sunbank Lane, WA15 0PZ Relevant Contact Officer : David Lawless Telephone number : 0161 234 4543 Email : [email protected]