PDC Agenda Item 4 - Applications for Permission to Develop ... · Web view2013/08/09 · H/69824 Retrospective permission sought for the retention of existing security installation,

WARD: Hale Central H/70423 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF FOUR-STOREY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT, TO COMPRISE 7 SELF-CONTAINED APARTMENTS; PROVISION OF CAR PARKING WITH NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS FOLLOWING CLOSURE OF EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING.

231 Ashley Road, Hale

APPLICANT: Williams Tarr Ltd

AGENT: Calderpeel Partnership Ltd

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT

1. At its meeting on 12 February 2009 the Planning Committee resolved it was Minded to Grant planning permission for the above development subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure contributions to open space provision, outdoor sports facilities and Red Rose Forest tree planting.

2. The application relates to a site currently occupied by a 3-storey detached building situated at the junction of Ashley Road and Murieston Road. The building is currently vacant and was most recently used as a site office in relation to the re-development of the adjacent site 229 Ashley Road; prior to that it was in use as 3 flats. The site is within the South Hale Conservation Area (sub-area A), as is the adjacent 229 Ashley Road. The southern boundary of the District Shopping Centre lies to the north-west beyond 229 Ashley Road and outside the conservation area. Tree Preservation Order 339, 2002 protects the two beech trees within the site, one close to the junction between Ashley Road and Murieston Road and the other close to the boundary with 1 Murieston Road.

3. This application proposes the erection of a development of 7 two-bedroom apartments following the demolition of the existing building (for which conservation area consent has already been granted). The access would also be repositioned.

4. In supporting the Chief Planning Officer’s recommendation, the Committee agreed to seek financial contributions towards off-site open space provision (£8074.83) and outdoor sports facilities (£3833.59); and a sum of £1645 as a contribution towards Red Rose Forest tree planting off site (to be reduced by £235 per tree planted on site as part of an agreed planting scheme). These figures had been calculated on the basis of the guidelines set out in the Council’s approved Supplementary Planning Documents “Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest” and “Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums” (both September 2004).

5. The calculations were based on the provision of 7 new flats but did not take account of the existing 3 flats (and an extant permission that includes 3 flats). It is normal; practice in assessing these contributions that existing dwellings are taken into account. The contributions should therefore have been based on the provision of 4 additional flats. On this basis the revised contribution figures would be:-

Red Rose Forest 4 trees at £235 (£940 in total), with a preference for on-site planting;

Planning Committee 13th August 2009 Page no 1

Children’s Play Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision For four 2-bedroom apartments the required financial contribution is £6804.81 in total comprising £4614.19 towards open space provision and £2190.62 towards outdoor sports facilities provision.

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT

A: That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon the completion of an appropriate s106 agreement and that such an agreement be entered into to secure a financial contributions towards off-site open space provision (£4614.19) and outdoor sports facilities (£2190.62); and a sum of £940 as a contribution towards Red Rose Forest tree planting off site (to be reduced by £235 per tree planted on site as part of an agreed planting scheme);

B: That upon receipt of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and standard reasons

1. Standard

2. Amended plans - 23 January 2009, 9 February 2009 and 11 February 2009.

3. Materials – conservation area

4. No development, including demolition, shall commence unless and until a method statement for the excavation of the basement of the building hereby approved, including details of lateral support for the adjacent soil, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

5. Tree protection No.1 (protection to be in place prior to demolition)

6. Landscaping

7. Contaminated land

8. The basement area to the development hereby approved shall not be used other than for storage ancillary to the use of the property as apartments and shall not be used as additional or ancillary living accommodation.

9. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, the stone wall to the front boundary shall be re-instated in accordance with details (including details of materials, coursing, joints) that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

10. Obscure glazing/stained glass to the stair core windows on the rear (north-east facing) elevation

11. The approved bin stores shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the apartments and shall be retained thereafter.

12. Provision of access facilities No.2

13. Retention of access facilities

14. No external lighting shall be provided other than in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority


15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure other than those expressly authorised by this permission is not permitted unless planning permission for such development has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

GE



37.9m

Vicarage

Gatesgarth

Oakmere

Wynthorpe

Wynton

Long Lawns

2

St Peter's Church

BM 38.57m

Club238

Clovelly Court

37.9m

LB

TCBs

El Sub Sta

Hale Place

Library

38.0m

POLBs

)

#

)

))

)

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ©

Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

WARD: Altrincham H/71109 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE BUILDING (PROVIDING GARAGING FOR PROPOSED DWELLING AND FOR HOLMESIDE), FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING BLOCKS OF LOCK-UP GARAGES.

Holmeside, St Margarets Road, Bowdon, Altrincham

APPLICANT: Design and Build Projects Ltd

AGENT: Ludlam Associates


SITE

The application site comprises land to the side and rear of Holmeside which is a substantial Victorian property on the eastern side of St Margaret’s Road within The Devisdale Conservation Area. Holmeside was originally a pair of early Victorian villas which have previously been extended and is now subdivided into one dwelling and three apartments. The site of the proposed dwelling is located north east of Holmeside and within its present curtilage. It is partly occupied by two blocks of garages which are in poor condition. Access to the site is from an existing access onto St. Margaret’s Road on the northern side of the site.

PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling in the north eastern corner of the site following demolition of the existing lock-up garages.

The proposed dwelling has been designed in the style of a Victorian coach house. Materials of construction are indicated as reclaimed cream/buff Cheshire common brick, blue slate roof and natural stone cills, lintols and quoins. The L-shape design enables an internal courtyard to be formed which would function as the main area of amenity space. The application also includes the erection of a detached garage between the proposed house and Holmeside which would provide garaging for both the proposed house and Holmeside.

The existing driveway would extend to an outer courtyard in front of the proposed dwelling which would be enclosed by a wall and sliding timber gate. The driveway would also provide access into a forecourt area in front of the proposed garage serving Holmeside.

Amended plans were submitted in response to concerns raised by officers concerning the height of the proposed dwelling and garage. In summary the amended plans reduce the height of the dwelling, set it further away from the rear boundary, propose a line of 5m high pleached trees along the rear boundary and propose a 2.4m high hedge along part of the side boundary with Racefield. The height of the proposed garage has been reduced and two single garage doors instead of one wide door are proposed to the front elevation. Amendments to the alignment of the access road, boundary treatment and planting were also made in order to create a more informal layout to the front part of the site.


REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH WEST

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIESRDF1 – Spatial PrioritiesL4 – Regional Housing ProvisionMCR1 – Manchester City Region PrioritiesMCR3 – Southern Part of the Manchester City Region

REVISED TRAFFORD UDP

The Adopted Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Conservation Area

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSENV4 – Trees, Hedgerows and WoodlandsENV14 – Tree and Hedgerow ProtectionENV21 – Conservation AreasENV23 – Development in Conservation AreasH2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing DevelopmentH3 – Land Release for New Housing DevelopmentH4 – Release of Other Land for DevelopmentT6 – Land Use in Relation to Transport and MovementD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential Development

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Holmeside:

H/CC/70636 - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of two existing blocks of lock-up garages. Approved 29/01/09

H/70637 - Erection of a two storey detached dwelling following demolition of two existing blocks of lock-up garages. Withdrawn 29/01/09

H/69933 - Conversion of flats 1, 2 and 3 into a single semi-detached dwelling, including extension to basement and single storey extension to rear. Erection of single storey rear extension, first floor side extension and alterations to existing single storey outrigger to flat 4. Reconstruction of rear elevation, new flat roof construction to rear outriggers, construction of terrace and garden walls to front and reconstruction of lightwells to basement room windows. Approved 27/10/08

Holmeside Cottage:

H/69592 - Formation of new vehicular access and driveway to Holmeside Cottage from Woodville Road, erection of timber gates and stone piers to frontage and brick boundary wall to boundary with Holmeside. Approved 12/09/08


APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

A Design and Access Statement has been submitted in accordance with the requirements in the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006. Reference to relevant parts of the statement will be referred to in the Observations section of this report where necessary.

CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours – 2 letters of objection received to the originally submitted plans, one on behalf of the occupiers of Racefield and one from Holmeside Cottage. Comments summarised as follows:

Proposal would severely impact upon root protection zones of three of the protected trees. The tree identified as T2 would be damaged and probably die because of the proximity of the dwelling and also the intended depth of the proposal, which includes a basement.

The raising of the existing ground level is likely to affect the water table which in turn is likely to have adverse impact on the trees.

Trees have already been uprooted by the applicant and one or two others would be destroyed if permission is granted. The working yard that has been formed has caused incursions upon and damage to the root protection zone of trees T5 and T6.

Adverse impact on trees would be contrary to the Conservation Area Planning Guidelines.

Drawings are misleading in that they fail to identify specifically protected trees. They also show a hedge behind the dwelling when in fact there is a low wooden fence.

Existing entrance gate and part of the boundary wall shown on the plans has already been demolished and damage caused to the boundary wall.

Proposal amounts to overdevelopment and will neither enhance nor preserve the character or appearance of the area. Proximity to Racefield boundary will be intrusive and out of keeping with the neighbourhood. There is no element of preservation involved and the increasing intensity of development will not enhance the area given the importance of landscaping and spaciousness which will be diminished. Proposal would be out of scale and incompatible with the existing character of this part of the Conservation Area, contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV23 and PPG15.

Existing garages are less than 3m high whilst proposal is more than 3 times this height, therefore proposal is not like for like.

Proposal would be a second home within the grounds of Holmeside (in addition to Holmeside Cottage) unlike other “neo lodges” in the area.

No visibility splays are shown on the plans to demonstrate the impact on Racefield. Proposal would impact severely on the principal living room window due to being south and south west of that property and because of its height.

A two storey structure with steep roof to 9m would result in loss of light and air to Racefield.

The principal living room of Racefield would face the heavily windowed rear wall of the building.

The proposed feature window in the northern elevation would be intrusive to the privacy of Racefield and overlooks the garden and swimming pool area.

Applications for new windows and veluxes in the roof are likely to follow any approval given the under-provision of natural light.

Proposal is tandem development which will result in disturbance to the occupiers of Holmeside. Proposal is contrary to Council’s guidelines which indicate tandem and backland development will not normally be acceptable.

The ground floor level of Holmeside Cottage and the garage court area is approx. 0.8m lower than the driveway. The proposed dwelling is within 4m of the garden boundary with Holmeside Cottage which together with the height of the south


elevation will result in an overbearing form of development and be visually intrusive, contrary to UDP Policies D1 and D3.

Traffic would not be reduced by the development as suggested in the application as one further dwelling would increase traffic. In addition the existing garages have been incapable of use and not been used for many years.

The site is only muddy and unsightly due to works being carried out by the applicant on site. The garages were formally in good condition and well maintained and the applicant should not be allowed to profit from damage and dereliction he has caused.

In response to the amended plans one further letter of objection has been received on behalf of the occupiers of Racefield, summarised as follows:

Reduction in height of the building is welcomed, however it would be more appropriate for the building to be a bungalow rather than a two storey dwelling.

No building should be permitted on the basis that Holmeside is one of the last houses of its size and type standing in its original plot. Recent extensions have significantly added to the massing of the building and the side and rear elevation has blanked out windows which resemble a flat prison wall. Increased massing of the rear and increase in height coupled with addition of a flat roof is not in keeping with the rest of the building and ugly. To add further development is contrary to the principles of the conservation area.

The detailing shown to the gates appears to imply a reduction in the wall adjoining the gate.

Significant impact on trees which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Proposal is so close to the boundary with Racefield that its walls will significantly interfere with the roots of all 4 trees. The excavation for the basement could have a fatal impact on the trees.

Proposed entrance court will involve reduction in soil levels which will significantly impact on the adjoining tree.

Object to the application in principle on the basis that it represents over-development. The window which will overlook Racefield is marked as obscure glazing but there is

nothing to indicate any restriction to this effect would be binding on successors in title.

REPRESENTATIONS

LHA – No objection. Comment that there is adequate space within the site to accommodate the relevant number of vehicles.

Built Environment (Highways) – No comments

Built Environment (Drainage) –Informatives to be attached to any permission.

Built Environment (Street Lighting) – No comments

Built Environment (Public Rights of Way) – No comments

Pollution & Licensing – Comment that the site is situated on brownfield land and therefore a condition requiring the contamination risk to be assessed and requiring remediation measures if necessary is recommended.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT – RSS SPATIAL/HOUSING POLICY

1. The application proposes the development of one new dwelling and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’.


However, the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy published by the Secretary of State in March 2008 – and now formally published (in September 2008) – must carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the former published Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.

2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, new RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.

3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the new RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.

4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant new RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.

Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -

“Development should be focused in and around the centres of the towns and cities. Development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on addressing regeneration and housing market renewal and restructuring.”

Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.

Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.

Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in locations that are accessible by public transport to areas of economic growth should be proposed. Emphasis is placed on proposing a high level of development in inner areas to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured to support economic growth.

Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within.


Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -

“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”

Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -

“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs and support agreed local regeneration strategies.”

5. The application proposal is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the RSS criteria (set out in Policy L4 and Policy MCR3): -

(a) Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy;(b) Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,(c) Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport.

In terms of criteria (b) the proposal can be agreed to be acceptable as the site is previously developed land and not greenfield land. It is considered to be within a relatively sustainable location given its proximity to Altrincham Town Centre where comprehensive services and facilities are available.

In terms of criteria (c) the site is considered to be well served by public transport; the nearest bus stops are on The Firs and Cavendish Road within easy walking distance and these offer regular services on the Warrington-Altrincham and Northwich-Altrincham routes. However, the site is located within a ‘least accessible’ area on the Trafford Accessibility Plan which defines accessible sites as being 400m from a bus stop with a service of at least 15 minutes or 250m from a bus stop with a service of at least every 30 minutes. The site is in relatively close proximity to Altrincham Town Centre where comprehensive train, Metrolink and bus services available.

In relation to criteria (a), however, the merit of the proposal as a development supportive of a local regeneration strategy is less clear given that the site is not within one of the Priority Regeneration Areas designated by the Council.

6. The strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the new RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration and to meet affordable housing needs.

7. Whilst the proposal does not strictly align with the development focus set out in RSS Policies L4 and MCR3 it is modest in scale and cannot be said to conflict with the development focus set by these Policies (the application site being located within the southern part of the city region as defined in the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document of July 2008).


8. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) it is considered that it would not be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4.

9. As such it is considered that in principle the proposed residential development of the site for the creation of an additional residential unit is acceptable.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT – PPS3

10. One of the key objectives set out in PPS3 is the priority on re-using previously developed land within urban areas in preference to the development of greenfield sites. Previously developed land is defined in PPS3 and includes land forming the curtilage of existing development (therefore gardens to existing residential properties constitute previously developed land). The redevelopment of a site within the urban area for housing is therefore acceptable in principle and in accordance with PPS3 and the principles of sustainable development, subject to compliance with the Council’s policies relating to the impact of the development on the character of the area, neighbouring properties and highway safety.

DESIGN, APPEARANCE AND IMPACT ON CONSERVATION AREA

11. The application site lies within the Devisdale Conservation Area which is characterised by predominantly Victorian buildings built in individual styles and with an overall impression of a “relaxed and affluent spaciousness, with landscaping dominant”. The area comprises gently curving roads, low stone front boundary walls and gateposts, a wealth of trees and other planting with substantial buildings behind, sometimes visible only in glimpses. The Planning Guidelines for the Conservation Area state that new development should have regard to the low density character of the area and the proportion of a site which is covered by buildings and hard surfacing, compared with planted areas, will be relevant. With regards to design, the guidelines recommend new houses should normally be two or three storeys high and that a large single compact building will be preferable to a spread of smaller buildings. Existing tree cover should be maintained and enhanced together with the established boundary planting. Development should normally be at low density to retain planting and provide appropriate space for new planting.

12. The existing garages on the application site date from the second half of the 20th century and are in poor visual and structural condition. They are not considered to be of any architectural merit or historical value and have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area rather than making any positive contribution. As such their demolition in itself would enhance the Conservation Area and is considered acceptable in principle. Furthermore, Conservation Area Consent has already been granted for their demolition (ref. H/CC/70636 –granted 29/01/09).

13. The proposed dwelling has been designed in the style of a Victorian coach house and takes the form of a narrow L-shaped building with pitched roof. The detailing includes a flèche, exposed rafter feet and natural stone cills, lintols and quoins and materials of construction are indicated as reclaimed cream/buff Cheshire common brick and blue slate tiles for the roof. The height of the proposal would be comparable to Holmeside Cottage and significantly lower than Holmeside itself. It is considered a new building of this nature would be acceptable in principle, as it would reflect a form of development not untypical of large period properties in the area i.e. a subservient


outbuilding such as coach house or lodge positioned to the side and rear of the principal dwelling. The Design and Access Statement also refers to other similar lodge or annex style developments in the Conservation Area.

14. The proposed garage is a hipped roof structure that would be positioned between the proposed dwelling and Holmeside. It would be lower than the proposed dwelling and reflective of its style with exposed rafter feet and flèche and an arched header above the garage doors. Materials of construction are indicated as reclaimed cream/buff Cheshire common brick and blue slate tiles for the roof.

15. Neither the proposed dwelling nor the garage would be particularly prominent within the streetscene given how far they would be set back within the plot and also their size relative to Holmeside. The alignment of the driveway and the existing and proposed planting along each side would also lessen the prominence of the buildings from outside the site. From St Margaret’s Road the two buildings would not be prominent and where views would exist, they would appear as ancillary buildings and subservient to the main house. The existing low sandstone wall to St Margaret’s Road would be retained and 1.8m high timber gates across the entrance which is considered to have acceptable impact within the streetscene.

16. The proposed dwelling, garage and hardsurfacing would result in a relatively large amount of building and hard area coverage on this side of the original Holmeside site however it is acknowledged that the site already contains the two garage blocks and the remainder of the site comprises parking and manoeuvring space and the driveway and is therefore already hardsurfaced. As such it is not considered this would be so harmful that it would justify refusal of the application.

17. The rear garden depth fails to comply with the recommended length of 10.5m set out in the Council’s guidelines for new residential development, however this would not adversely impact on the character of the area as the total amount of open space (including the enclosed courtyard) is considered proportionate to the size of dwelling and also neither Homeside or Holmeside Cottage have gardens of a depth that meets the guideline.

IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

18. The proposed dwelling would be positioned relatively close to Racefield to the north, which is a substantial semi-detached property. The side elevation of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 3.5m from the shared boundary and 13m would be retained between the buildings at their closest point, though Racefield is set further forward than the proposed dwelling so the two buildings would not directly face each other. Although close to the boundary it is noted that the nearest windows at Racefield are some distance away from this boundary and the area between the house itself and the boundary comprises a driveway, parking area and a garage. Therefore whilst acknowledging the proposed dwelling would be visible from Racefield, it is not considered it would be overbearing or obtrusive given the orientation of the dwellings to each other, the relatively low height of the proposal and the screening afforded by the existing trees and proposed hedge in the vicinity of the boundary. Given that the proposed dwelling would be to the south of Racefield it would have an impact on the amount of light to the nearest part of Racefield and result in some overshadowing. However, it is considered that the distance between the two dwellings and the relatively low height of the proposed dwelling ensure the impact would not be unacceptable, particularly as there are also mature trees on this boundary between the two dwellings.

19. The elevation to Racefield includes two first floor windows which would serve the landing area. Both of these would be fixed shut and fitted with obscure glass which would ensure no loss of privacy toward that property. There are no main windows in


the front elevation of the dwelling that would potentially overlook Racefield. The only window in the front gable is a circular window to an en-suite bathroom and a condition could be attached to any permission requiring this to be fitted with obscure glass.

20. The proposed driveway to the dwelling would run alongside the boundary with Holmeside and therefore the comings and goings of vehicles to and from the dwelling could lead to disturbance to the occupiers of Holmeside. However, as there would be a gap of 12m (at its closest) between the driveway and the side elevation of Holmeside and a brick wall constructed, it is not considered the traffic noise associated with one dwelling would significantly affect living conditions at Holmeside. Furthermore, this impact would be no worse than the former situation whereby parking for the former flats at Holmeside was provided in the garages to the rear and would involve cars passing the side of Holmeside. Whilst this situation doesn’t presently occur as the flats at Holmeside are no longer occupied, it is nevertheless the existing lawful use of the property.

21. To the immediate south of the site is Holmeside Cottage which is a narrow two storey dwelling orientated side-on to the site. The proposed dwelling would be set forward of this dwelling meaning it would be visible from its front windows, although views would be at an oblique angle. It is not considered it would be visually intrusive as the side elevation nearest the boundary would retain 2.8m to Holmeside Cottage and wouldn’t be significantly forward of its front elevation (4.8m forward of the main two storey elevation and 1.8m forward of the single storey section). The remainder of the elevation facing Holmeside Cottage would be approximately 11.5m from the shared boundary. The proposed dwelling includes two first floor windows in the south elevation facing toward Holmeside Cottage, however as these windows would be 11m and 12m from the shared boundary they would comply with guideline of 10.5m set out in the Planning Guidelines: New Residential Development. As such it is not considered the proposal would result in unacceptable visual intrusion or loss of privacy to Holmeside Cottage.

22. To the rear of the site is the rear garden of a detached dwelling at 30 Bentinck Road, with the boundary between the two properties formed by a 2m high brick wall which is to be retained. The proposed dwelling would be between 3.5m and 4.0m from this boundary wall, although as the rear elevation doesn’t include any first floor windows (other than an en-suite which would be glazed with obscure glass), there is no requirement to comply with the 10.5m distance recommended in the Council’s guidelines for new residential development. The application includes a line of 5m high pleached trees along the boundary which would obscure the rear wall of the building so that only its roof and part of the rear gable would be prominent. Although it would still be prominent from the adjoining garden it is considered this degree of screening, combined with the gap to the boundary and the relatively low height of the building, ensure it would not be overbearing to an extent that would be detrimental to amenity. No main windows are proposed in this elevation that might otherwise have resulted in loss of privacy; the only window at first floor is a small circular window serving an en-suite which would be glazed with obscure glass.

CAR PARKING AND ACCESS

23. The LHA comments that to meet the Council’s car parking standards the provision of four car parking spaces should be made. The application includes a garage providing two spaces for the application dwelling and a courtyard area also available for parking and it is considered the site can accommodate the relevant number of vehicles.

24. There is also sufficient space provided within the proposed garage and the courtyard area to Holmeside to accommodate the relevant number of vehicles for Holmeside,


therefore the loss of the existing garages and parking for the occupants of Holmeside is not an issue.

25. Vehicle access is proposed via the existing access to the north side of Holmeside which currently provides access to the three apartments on this side of the site. The access would be modified in order to provide access to both the proposed dwelling and Holmeside. It is considered that the use of this access, as modified, by one further dwelling is acceptable in highway safety terms.

IMPACT ON TREES

26. There are a number of mature trees to the north of the proposed building which lie within the curtilage of Racefield. These trees are shown on the site plan which shows the proposed dwelling would encroach into the root protection zone of three of these trees (Sycamore, Beech and Lime). It is anticipated that the comments of the Council’s Tree Officer on this aspect of the development will be included within the Additional Information Report.

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

27. The SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’ applies to all new residential developments resulting in an overall increase in the number of residential units on any site. No play space or sports facilities are to be provided within the proposed development; therefore a contribution to off-site provision will be required to comply with the SPG. Based on the rates set out in the SPG a contribution of £2,865.19 would be required, with £1,942.82 toward open space provision and £922.37 toward outdoor sports facilities.

28. In accordance with the provisions of the SPG ‘Developer Contributions Towards Red Rose Forest’ a development of one dwelling would be expected to provide 3 trees on site. There would be scope for some of this requirement to be provided on site, although in the absence of a tree planting plan, it is considered appropriate to secure a financial contribution toward tree planting off-site for the number of trees not provided on site. The SPG sets out a requirement of £235 per tree which would generate a total contribution of £705 (less £235 per tree that is provided on site).

RECOMMENDATION

MINDED TO GRANT, subject to:

A. The completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such legal agreement be entered into to secure:

(i) A contribution to play space or sports facilities of £2,865.19 of which £1,942.82 would be toward open space provision and £922.37 toward outdoor sports facilities in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’

(ii) A contribution to tree planting of a maximum of £705 in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Developer Contributions towards the Red Rose Forest’.

B. The following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit

2. Development in accordance with amended plans, received 17/06/09 and 22/07/09


3. Contaminated land report and subsequent investigation, risk assessment and remediation as necessary.

4. Samples of materials to be submitted and agreed

5. Details of garage doors to be submitted and agreed

6. Tree protection scheme

7. Landscape scheme, including full details of planting and boundary treatment. To include provision of pleached trees to a height of 5m along the rear boundary, as shown on plan 1099A.1C

8. First floor side windows in north elevation and first floor front window in west elevation (circular window only) to be fixed shut and fitted with obscure glazing

9. Removal of permitted development rights for additional first floor windows in north and east elevations

10. Removal of permitted development rights for extensions, outbuildings, hard surfaces, gates, walls and fences

RG



The Downs Cottage

Stramore

Hall

Cottage

Hill Crest

Chasewood

Bank

Harthill

Hart Hill

65.2m

Holly House

Homehill

Lodge

61.4m

Limehurst

BM 61.22m

Longford

100

BeechwaysBM

Earlsleigh

Racefield

64.1m

The Mews

Silver Birches

64.29m

The Crossways

West Riding

CottageHolmeside

Grove House

Holmeside

North Woodville

66.4m

West Lind

BM 67.59m

Lea Hurst

South Woodville

Hill Carr

7

1 to 22

8

Inglewood

Moreton House

1 to 3

Earlscliffe

Court

Westwood

Westwood

War Memorial

Shelter

Coppice Lodge

Hill CarrMews

El Sub Sta

#

#

#

#



WARD: Bowdon H/71230 DEPARTURE: Yes

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING KITCHEN EXTENSION AND CONSERVATORY; CONVERSION OF EXISTING GARAGE TO LIVING ACCOMMODATION; NEW GARAGE AND GARDEN WALL FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SHED; NEW FRONT BOUNDARY TREATMENT COMPRISING TIMBER FENCING AND TIMBER GATES FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF EXISTING AND 1.8 METRE BRICK GARDEN WALL WITH TIMBER PEDESTRIAN GATE.

Post Office Cottage, Dunham Road, Warburton

APPLICANT: Mr R DavenportAGENT: Tsiantar Architects Ltd

RECOMMENDATION: Grant

This application was deferred at the 9 July Planning Development Control Committee to enable Members of the Committee to visit the property.

SITEThe property is a Grade II Listed Building, designed by John Douglas, situated on the south side of Dunham Road, at the junction with Warburton Lane. The property was formerly a post office, built c.1893. The building is situated within the Green Belt and overlooks farmland to the rear.

The property has a two storey side extension which includes an integral garage and a kitchen and conservatory extension at the rear.

PROPOSALThe proposed development includes:- the erection of single storey rear extension measuring 7m by 3.9m following the demolition of the larger kitchen and conservatory extension;- the conversion of existing garage in the extension to living accommodation;- the replacement of a door in the rear of the 2 storey extension with a window;- the erection of a new separate single garage and garden wall following demolition of existing shed; - new front boundary treatment comprising 1.2m high vertical timber fencing with timber gates and gateposts following removal of the existing which was the subject of an application which was dismissed at appeal;- retention of 1.8 metre brick garden wall with timber pedestrian gate to replace existing steel gate.


PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICIESRDF4- Green BeltsDP7 – Promote Environmental QualityEM 1(C) – Integrated enhancement and Protection of the Regions Environmental Assets

REVISED TRAFFORD UDP The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


PROPOSALS MAP NOTATIONGreen BeltGrade II Listed BuildingProtection of landscape character

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS

D1 – All New DevelopmentD6 – House ExtensionsENV24 – Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic InterestC5 – Development in the Green Belt


H/LB/71323 – Partner Listed Building Consent application appears elsewhere in this agenda

H/LB/69887 - Listed Building Consent for erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing kitchen extension and conservatory; conversion of existing garage to living accommodation; single storey side extension to provide new garage following demolition of existing shed; retention of satellite dish on rear of dwelling.Refused 4th September 2008 for the following reason:

"The proposed garage by virtue of its size, siting, design and impact on the original building and the proposed internal alterations have failed to respect the special architectural and historic interest of this listed building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment."

H/69894 - Erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing kitchen extension and conservatory; conversion of existing garage to living accommodation; single storey side extension to provide new garage following demolition of existing shed; retention of satellite dish on rear of dwelling.Refused 4th September 2008 for the following reasons.

“The proposed development is located within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development and where extensions to dwellings will only be allowed where it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The original building has already been significantly extended and the proposed extension would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are any such special circumstances to permit the type, scale and form of development proposed and as such the development is contrary to Government advice contained in ‘PPG2: Green Belts’ and to Proposals C4, C5 and C7 of the Adopted Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed garage by virtue of its size, siting, design and impact on the original building fails to respect the special architectural character and historic interest of this building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals D1, D6 and ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment.”

H/69824 Retrospective permission sought for the retention of existing security installation, comprising security lights, alarms and CCTV cameras attached to the building. Approved 8 August 2008.

H/LB/69825 Listed Building Consent is sought for retention of existing security installation, comprising security lights, alarms and CCTV cameras attached to the building.Approved 12 August 2008.


H/LB/68483 – Listed Building Consent for installation of 6 no. CCTV cameras to the perimeter of the building.Refused 28th January 2008.

H/68537 – Replace existing single storey kitchen extension and conservatory with a new single storey contemporary extension at rear of building. Convert existing garage to living accommodation and build a new single storey garage extension with small dressing room and en-suite shower room in the roof void.Refused 31st January 2008 for the following reasons:


The proposed extensions by virtue of their size, design, use of materials and impact on the original building have failed to respect the special architectural character and historic interest of this building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment.”

H/LB/68536 – Listed Building Consent to demolish existing single storey flat roofed kitchen extension and pitched roof conservatory and replace with a new single storey flat roofed contemporary extension. Existing garage to be converted to living accommodation with original window from rear elevation used to replace the garage door. Refused 31 January 2008 for the following reasons: “The proposed extensions by virtue of their size, design, use of materials and impact on the original building have failed to respect the special architectural character and historic interest of this building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment.

The proposed relocation of existing window is an unnecessary alteration and will detrimentally affect the special architectural character and historic interest of the listed building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment.”

H/68484 - Erection of steel boundary fence, replacement of existing pedestrian gate, replacement of existing double gate, installation of CCTV cameras.Refused 28 January 2008 and dismissed on appeal.

H/34952 – Listed Building Consent for the erection of 2 metre high garden walls.Approved with conditions 29/04/92

H/34951 – Erection of 2 metre high garden walls.Approved with conditions 29/04/92

H/33908 – Listed Building Consent for the demolition of the existing timber garage/workshop and the erection of a two storey side extension to form single garage with bedroom above and erection of conservatory at rear.Approved with conditions 11/09/91


H/33907 – Demolition of timber garage/workshop and erection of two storey side extension to form single garage.Approved with conditions 11/09/91

CONSULTATIONS

Built Environment (Drainage) - recommends informative

Warburton Parish Council - No comments at time of report preparation

REPRESENTATIONS

None received.


A Design and Access Statement was submitted with the application. The main points are:

The existing gates and railings were installed following a break in at the property in 2006. The police recommended upgrading the fences and gates and installed CCTV.

The existing single storey kitchen extension is of a poor quality with brickwork walls, timber windows and a felt roof. The conservatory faces south, has a glass roof, low level brickwork walls and projects a long way into the garden splitting the external area in two. The solar heat gain in the conservatory makes this space unusable in summer and the need for blinds to be drawn at all times stops the occupants from enjoying the views of the fields beyond their boundary.

The concept is to retain the dark, cosy, cottage feel at the front of the property and on the first floor, but to open up the rear of the ground floor, which has already been substantially removed to maximise the south facing views of the fields and the garden.

The existing two storey garage extension with the master bedroom above was built in 1991 and blends well with the existing building in terms of detailing, materials, scale and proportion. Unfortunately the garage door is slightly incongruous. The garage would look more in keeping if this was a single storey outbuilding. It is therefore proposed to convert the existing garage to living accommodation and replace the garage door with a new double arched headed, terracotta surround window to match the existing window above.

An existing timber shed on the right-hand side of the property behind a approx 2m high brick wall will be removed. The existing steel vehicular gates will be removed and the wall rebuilt approx 2m further back from the front elevation.

A new single storey flat roofed timber clad modern detached garage extension will be built behind this wall and give the appearance of a traditional gate opening within a the brickwork garden wall.

The new single storey extension at the rear of the property will be simple, flat-roofed and contemporary in style to complement the existing building. The large sliding glass doors will open into a level, south facing, stone patio with views of the fields beyond. The transparent glass box design will also allow views through to the original listed building behind.

The materials used will be crisp and modern in contrast to the existing materials. The roof will be covered with a dark grey single ply membrane with a concealed gutter. Simple chains will be used in lieu of rainwater down-pipes. The doors and panels will be dark grey powder coated aluminium frames with tinted glass. The framework will be painted steel


square hollow sections. There will be cedar hit and miss timber slatted screens in front of the large glazed panels to provide areas of shade whilst still preserving the views. There will be two steps down to the new extension to ensure that the new roof does not encroach any higher against the original building than the existing flat roof. The works will also conceal untidy looking branches of the existing soil and vent pipe.

Minor internal works are proposed.

The incongruous garage door will be replaced by a twin arched terracotta surround window to match that above.

The existing metal gates and railings will be replaced with timber gates and 1200mm high vertical timber fencing left natural looking to compliment the rural setting.

The works for which approval is sought will not have any detrimental effect on the accessibility to the premises.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

1. Listed Buildings: Proposal ENV24 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan requires that proposals for the alteration or extension of listed buildings are in keeping with the character and special interest of the building and there is special regard to the preservation of the setting of listed buildings when determining applications. Alterations and extensions to dwellings which are listed are therefore acceptable in principle providing they comply with this policy.

2. Green Belt: Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. PPG 2 'Green Belts' and Proposal C5 of the Revised Trafford UDP allow for the limited extension and or alteration to dwellings in the Green Belt. Para 3.6 of PPG2 states:

"Provided that it does not result in disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts".

DESIGN AND IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDING

3. This Grade II building has been the subject of earlier alterations and extensions in the late C20. In particular the rear conservatory, single storey extension and removal of a part of the rear ground floor elevation, a two storey side extension incorporating an integral garage, a brick garden wall adjoining the South elevation and various internal alterations have been constructed. Some of these alterations have adversely affected the listed building.

Rear extension.

4. The proposed extension would be of a simple contemporary form with a flat roof and the materials proposed (primarily glass and wood) provide an appropriate and subservient contrast to the ornate design and materials of the main house. This approach is often used by architects and there are many recent examples of simple glass extensions to older buildings. It has the advantages of allowing a clear view of the older building and does not compete with it, thereby preserving the distinction between old and new and retaining the integrity of the listed building. The extension would replace and have a smaller footprint to the kitchen/conservatory extensions which are particularly detrimental to the appearance of the rear elevation and their removal is welcomed. Ideally the new extension would be off-set from the corner of the house, but this part of the rear wall has already been lost and it is considered that


the proposed change in style and materials at this point will allow the extent of the original construction to be properly read.

The extension differs from that previously proposed and refused in application H/68537 in that it has a smaller footprint and does not result in the removal of an original rear window.

Alterations to existing two storey extension 5. The existing integral garage door on the front elevation, albeit in a late C20

extension, is an unbalancing and discordant feature, which detracts from the character of the building. Its removal and replacement with a window matching other original windows on this building would be a large improvement. Similarly on the rear elevation the removal of an external door and replacement by a window in the C20 extension creates a more balanced design in keeping with the original house. The resultant change of use of the existing garage to living accommodation and incorporation into the main ground floor by means of a single door opening is considered appropriate and follows the pattern of the existing first floor arrangement.

New garage.

6. Previous applications proposed a detached pitched roof garage at the side of the house which was considered to adversely affect the listed building. The detached garage now proposed is flat roofed and is of a lightweight timber frame with cedar clad rear and side walls and will be set inside the new front garden wall and the side garden wall. Following the contemporary design and materials of the rear extension, this element is similarly read as a subservient modern addition when viewed from the rear. To the front and side elevations the simple brick walls and timber gates echo and balance with the garden walling to the south and provide an appropriate setting which serves to enhance the ornate listed building in both immediate and long views.

The garden wall to the west will be stepped to 2.7m max in height to accommodate the garage doors.

Boundary treatment7. The existing railings and metal gates are unauthorised; they were refused planning

permission (H/68484) and the subsequent appeal was dismissed. The Inspector commented that "the material, design and height” were detrimental to the setting of this listed building and are “an alien and brutal style often found in urban locations”. The current application proposes their removal and replacement by 1.2m high vertical timber fencing, 1.5m timber gate posts and wooden gate of max 1.6m in height. It is considered that the simple timber fence and gates provide an appropriate balance between the semi-rural setting and the more formal setting of the listed building. A condition is recommended to ensure the removal of the unauthorised boundary treatment within 6 months.

8. Overall it is considered that the present proposals represent an acceptable balance which maintains and, in some instances enhances, the special character of the listed building while accommodating the changing requirements of, and securing the long term use of the property as a family dwelling in the C21.

IMPACT ON THE GREEN BELT

9. Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 ‘Green Belts’ advises that:

“The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale, and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. They help to protect the countryside, be it in agricultural, forestry or other use.”


Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 sets out what constitutes inappropriate development. The construction of new buildings inside the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for the following purposes:

Agriculture and forestry;Essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purpose of including land within it;The limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings;The appropriate re-use of buildings.

10. Paragraph 3.6 of PPG2 advises that:

“…provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts.”

The term ‘disproportionate additions’ is not defined in PPG2 or the Proposals of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan. Any assessment as to whether an extension constitutes a ‘disproportionate addition’ is therefore a matter of judgment based on the merits of each case.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidelines (SPG) for House Extensions provides some guidance for extensions to dwellings within the Green Belt under section 8. This advises that

“An extension which would increase the size of the dwelling to no more than 30% above its original floorspace will normally not have an undue impact because of its extent.”

11. The floor area of the existing conservatory/rear extension is approximately 34 square metres. This is to be demolished and replaced by a modern single storey extension to the rear, measuring approximately 28 square metres. In addition it is proposed to erect a new single storey detached garage following conversion of the existing integral garage. The new garage will replace a garden shed of approximately 8 square metres. The floor area of the proposed garage is approximately 20 square metres. The proposal would therefore result in an increase in floor area of 48 square metres, 6 square metres more than the existing situation. The property has also previously been extended to the side at two storey to create the existing attached garage and master bedroom above. The floor area of this existing extension which is to be retained measures approximately 46 square metres.

12. The original building has a floor area of approximately 172 square metres. The existing extensions amount to a 46% increase to the original building. The current proposal would represent an increase of approximately 55%. As such, and in terms of impact upon the Green Belt, the proposals would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

13. The southern boundary of the site abuts farmland. The eastern and western boundaries are well screened by fencing and planting. The proposed rear extension is single storey and is smaller that the existing conservatory. It is considered therefore that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent properties.


CONCLUSION

14. PPG 2 (para 3.2(states that ' Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmfull to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations."

In previous applications the then proposed kitchen extension, garage and other alterations owing to their respective size, design and location were not acceptable in terms of their impact on the listed building. The development now proposed is considered acceptable and, in this case, it is considered that the benefit to the listed building of the removal of the unsympathetic garage door and the existing conservatory/kitchen extension would constitute the very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and justify the grant of planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT, subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard time condition2. Submission of materials (conservation areas)

Excepting the new rear extension and garage, where the reconstruction / alterations of external walls is permitted (by virtue of this consent), the materials shall precisely match those on the existing building, unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. Before work on the new garage and garden walls first commences, a sample panel of brickwork shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. Any such panel which receives the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be retained throughout the period of development and shall form the basis of work to walls and external surfaces of the development.

4. Excepting the new rear extension only all doors in the external elevations together with internal doors shall be fabricated in timber, and they shall be retained in such a form thereafter.

5. The garage vehicle door, timber gates and external door to office/games room shall be constructed in timber, vertically boarded and shall be retained in such a form thereafter.

6. Details of finishes to all external timber to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. Excepting the new rear extension and garage, prior to the installation drawings indicating details of all new windows, external and internal doors including, as appropriate, detail cross sections of glazing bars, to a scale of not less than 1:20 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details which are approved shall be carried out in full and shall be retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

8. No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, flues, vents, ductwork grilles, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other fixtures shall be attached to the external faces of the building other than those shown on the approved drawings or otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. Where internal alterations (by virtue of this consent) involve opening up works a photographic record is to be made recording any element of historic fabric which is to be subsequently removed or covered up and this record together with a plan identifying locations is to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for future reference.

10. Removal of existing gates and railings in 6 months11. Withdraw rights to alter


AK



Villa18.9m

Onion

Mossbrow

Farm

Farm

Primrose Cottage

Farm

TCB

LB

Moss Brow

GP20.4m

The

MossbrowCottage

Pond

20.78m

Pond

BM

Beeches

)

)

)

#



WARD: Bowdon H/LB/71323 DEPARTURE: Yes

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING KITCHEN EXTENSION AND CONSERVATORY; CONVERSION OF EXISTING GARAGE TO LIVING ACCOMMODATION; NEW GARAGE AND GARDEN WALL FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SHED; NEW FRONT BOUNDARY TREATMENT COMPRISING TIMBER FENCING AND TIMBER GATES FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF EXISTING AND 1.8 METRE BRICK GARDEN WALL WITH TIMBER PEDESTRIAN GATE.

Post Office Cottage, Dunham Road, Warburton

APPLICANT: Mr R DavenportAGENT: Tsiantar Architects Ltd

RECOMMENDATION: Grant

This application was deferred at the 9 July Planning Development Control Committee to enable Members of the Committee to visit the property.

SITEThe property is a Grade II Listed Building, designed by John Douglas, situated on the south side of Dunham Road, at the junction with Warburton Lane. The property was formerly a post office, built c.1893. The building is situated within the Green Belt and overlooks farmland to the rear.

The property has a two storey side extension which includes an integral garage and a kitchen and conservatory extension at the rear.

PROPOSALThe proposed development includes:- the erection of single storey rear extension measuring 7m by 3.9m following the demolition of the larger kitchen and conservatory extension;- the conversion of existing garage in the extension to living accommodation;- the replacement of a door in the rear of the 2 storey extension with a window;- the erection of a new separate single garage and garden wall following demolition of existing shed; - new front boundary treatment comprising 1.2m high vertical timber fencing with timber gates and gateposts following removal of the existing which was the subject of an application which was dismissed at appeal;- retention of 1.8 metre brick garden wall with timber pedestrian gate to replace existing steel gate.


PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICIESRDF4- Green BeltsDP7 – Promote Environmental QualityEM 1(C) – Integrated enhancement and Protection of the Regions Environmental Assets



The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATIONGreen BeltGrade II Listed BuildingProtection of landscape character


D1 – All New DevelopmentD6 – House ExtensionsENV24 – Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic InterestC5 – Development in the Green Belt


H//71230 – Partner planning application appears elsewhere in this agenda.

H/LB/69887 - Listed Building Consent for erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing kitchen extension and conservatory; conversion of existing garage to living accommodation; single storey side extension to provide new garage following demolition of existing shed; retention of satellite dish on rear of dwelling.Refused 4th September 2008 for the following reason:

"The proposed garage by virtue of its size, siting, design and impact on the original building and the proposed internal alterations have failed to respect the special architectural and historic interest of this listed building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment."

H/69894 - Erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing kitchen extension and conservatory; conversion of existing garage to living accommodation; single storey side extension to provide new garage following demolition of existing shed; retention of satellite dish on rear of dwelling.Refused 4th September 2008 for the following reasons.


The proposed garage by virtue of its size, siting, design and impact on the original building fails to respect the special architectural character and historic interest of this building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals D1, D6 and ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment.”

H/69824 Retrospective permission sought for the retention of existing security installation, comprising security lights, alarms and CCTV cameras attached to the building. Approved 8 August 2008.


H/LB/69825 Listed Building Consent is sought for retention of existing security installation, comprising security lights, alarms and CCTV cameras attached to the building.Approved 12 August 2008.

H/LB/68483 – Listed Building Consent for installation of 6 no. CCTV cameras to the perimeter of the building.Refused 28th January 2008.

H/68537 – Replace existing single storey kitchen extension and conservatory with a new single storey contemporary extension at rear of building. Convert existing garage to living accommodation and build a new single storey garage extension with small dressing room and en-suite shower room in the roof void.Refused 31st January 2008 for the following reasons:


The proposed extensions by virtue of their size, design, use of materials and impact on the original building have failed to respect the special architectural character and historic interest of this building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment.”

H/LB/68536 – Listed Building Consent to demolish existing single storey flat roofed kitchen extension and pitched roof conservatory and replace with a new single storey flat roofed contemporary extension. Existing garage to be converted to living accommodation with original window from rear elevation used to replace the garage door. Refused 31 January 2008 for the following reasons: “The proposed extensions by virtue of their size, design, use of materials and impact on the original building have failed to respect the special architectural character and historic interest of this building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment.

The proposed relocation of existing window is an unnecessary alteration and will detrimentally affect the special architectural character and historic interest of the listed building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals ENV24 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and advice as set out in National Policy Guidance PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment.”

H/68484 - Erection of steel boundary fence, replacement of existing pedestrian gate, replacement of existing double gate, installation of CCTV cameras.Refused 28 January 2008 and dismissed on appeal.

H/34952 – Listed Building Consent for the erection of 2 metre high garden walls.Approved with conditions 29/04/92

H/34951 – Erection of 2 metre high garden walls.Approved with conditions 29/04/92


H/33908 – Listed Building Consent for the demolition of the existing timber garage/workshop and the erection of a two storey side extension to form single garage with bedroom above and erection of conservatory at rear.Approved with conditions 11/09/91

H/33907 – Demolition of timber garage/workshop and erection of two storey side extension to form single garage.Approved with conditions 11/09/91

CONSULTATIONS

Built Environment (Drainage) - recommends informative

Warburton Parish Council - No comments at time of report preparation

REPRESENTATIONS

None received.


A Design and Access Statement was submitted with the application. The main points are:

The existing gates and railings were installed following a break in at the property in 2006. The police recommended upgrading the fences and gates and installed CCTV.

The existing single storey kitchen extension is of a poor quality with brickwork walls, timber windows and a felt roof. The conservatory faces south, has a glass roof, low level brickwork walls and projects a long way into the garden splitting the external area in two. The solar heat gain in the conservatory makes this space unusable in summer and the need for blinds to be drawn at all times stops the occupants from enjoying the views of the fields beyond their boundary.

The concept is to retain the dark, cosy, cottage feel at the front of the property and on the first floor, but to open up the rear of the ground floor, which has already been substantially removed to maximise the south facing views of the fields and the garden.

The existing two storey garage extension with the master bedroom above was built in 1991 and blends well with the existing building in terms of detailing, materials, scale and proportion. Unfortunately the garage door is slightly incongruous. The garage would look more in keeping if this was a single storey outbuilding. It is therefore proposed to convert the existing garage to living accommodation and replace the garage door with a new double arched headed, terracotta surround window to match the existing window above.

An existing timber shed on the right-hand side of the property behind a approx 2m high brick wall will be removed. The existing steel vehicular gates will be removed and the wall rebuilt approx 2m further back from the front elevation.

A new single storey flat roofed timber clad modern detached garage extension will be built behind this wall and give the appearance of a traditional gate opening within a the brickwork garden wall.

The new single storey extension at the rear of the property will be simple, flat-roofed and contemporary in style to complement the existing building. The large sliding glass doors will open into a level, south facing, stone patio with views of the fields beyond. The transparent glass box design will also allow views through to the original listed building behind.


The materials used will be crisp and modern in contrast to the existing materials. The roof will be covered with a dark grey single ply membrane with a concealed gutter. Simple chains will be used in lieu of rainwater down-pipes. The doors and panels will be dark grey powder coated aluminium frames with tinted glass. The framework will be painted steel square hollow sections. There will be cedar hit and miss timber slatted screens in front of the large glazed panels to provide areas of shade whilst still preserving the views. There will be two steps down to the new extension to ensure that the new roof does not encroach any higher against the original building than the existing flat roof. The works will also conceal untidy looking branches of the existing soil and vent pipe.

Minor internal works are proposed.

The incongruous garage door will be replaced by a twin arched terracotta surround window to match that above.

The existing metal gates and railings will be replaced with timber gates and 1200mm high vertical timber fencing left natural looking to compliment the rural setting.

The works for which approval is sought will not have any detrimental effect on the accessibility to the premises.

OBSERVATIONS


1. Listed Buildings: Proposal ENV24 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan requires that proposals for the alteration or extension of listed buildings are in keeping with the character and special interest of the building and there is special regard to the preservation of the setting of listed buildings when determining applications. Alterations and extensions to dwellings which are listed are therefore acceptable in principle providing they comply with this policy.

DESIGN AND IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDING

2. This Grade II building has been the subject of earlier alterations and extensions in the late C20. In particular the rear conservatory, single storey extension and removal of a part of the rear ground floor elevation, a two storey side extension incorporating an integral garage, a brick garden wall adjoining the South elevation and various internal alterations have been constructed. Some of these alterations have adversely affected the listed building.

Rear extension3. The proposed extension would be of a simple contemporary form with a flat roof and

the materials proposed (primarily glass and wood) provide an appropriate and subservient contrast to the ornate design and materials of the main house. This approach is often used by architects and there are many recent examples of simple glass extensions to older buildings. It has the advantages of allowing a clear view of the older building and does not compete with it, thereby preserving the distinction between old and new and retaining the integrity of the listed building. The extension would replace and have a smaller footprint to the kitchen/conservatory extensions which are particularly detrimental to the appearance of the rear elevation and their removal is welcomed. Ideally the new extension would be off-set from the corner of the house, but this part of the rear wall has already been lost and it is considered that the proposed change in style and materials at this point will allow the extent of the original construction to be properly read.


The extension differs from that previously proposed and refused in application H/68537 in that it has a smaller footprint and does not result in the removal of an original rear window.

Alterations to existing two storey extension 4. The existing integral garage door on the front elevation, albeit in a late C20

extension, is an unbalancing and discordant feature, which detracts from the character of the building. Its removal and replacement with a window matching other original windows on this building would be a large improvement. Similarly on the rear elevation the removal of an external door and replacement by a window in the C20 extension creates a more balanced design in keeping with the original house. The resultant change of use of the existing garage to living accommodation and incorporation into the main ground floor by means of a single door opening is considered appropriate and follows the pattern of the existing first floor arrangement.

New garage.

5. Previous applications proposed a detached pitched roof garage at the side of the house which was considered to adversely affect the listed building. The detached garage now proposed is flat roofed and is of a lightweight timber frame with cedar clad rear and side walls and will be set inside the new front garden wall and the side garden wall. Following the contemporary design and materials of the rear extension, this element is similarly read as a subservient modern addition when viewed from the rear. To the front and side elevations the simple brick walls and timber gates echo and balance with the garden walling to the south and provide an appropriate setting which serves to enhance the ornate listed building in both immediate and long views.

The garden wall to the west will be stepped to 2.7m max in height to accommodate the garage doors.

Boundary treatment6. The existing railings and metal gates are unauthorised; they were refused planning

permission (H/68484) and the subsequent appeal was dismissed. The Inspector commented that "the material, design and height” were detrimental to the setting of this listed building" and are “an alien and brutal style often found in urban locations”. The current application proposes their removal and replacement by 1.2m high vertical timber fencing, 1.5m timber gate posts and wooden gate of max 1.6m in height. It is considered that the simple timber fence and gates provide an appropriate balance between the semi-rural setting and the more formal setting of the listed building. A condition is recommended to ensure the removal of the unauthorised boundary treatment within 6 months.

Internal kitchen wall

7. The proposal incorporates two adjoining existing openings into one single opening with new lintels over. One of these existing openings appears to be late C20 and the other possibly an original door opening, although the exact original layout has not been established. However it is considered that this alteration, with much of the original wall remaining and including a downstand from the ceiling, will allow the original plan form to be clearly read and is an acceptable alteration.

Ground floor WC

8. The evidence of earlier drawings is that the doorway in the rear elevation was previously a window. From a visual inspection it appears that there was previously a door on the opening from the hall and no evidence of doorways in the side walls of the room was apparent. The original function of this small room is not known, but comparison with similar four bedroom ‘Parlour cottages’ constructed at Port Sunlight in 1892 (Post Office House dates from c.1893) suggests that it is very likely to have been a bathroom containing a bath and wash hand basin only. WCs at Port Sunlight were accommodated in small structures in the rear yards. A similar location of a WC or EC at Post Office House is supported by a small rear outbuilding shown on early OS plans. The proposed new use of this small room would, therefore, seem


appropriate together with the expression by wall recesses of the original window opening.

Other internal alterations.9. It is noted that these are all within the late C20 extension excepting only the

alteration of a late C20 partition wall within the original house and it is, therefore, considered that these alterations are all acceptable as they do not affect the historic fabric of the building.

10. Overall it is considered that the present proposals represent an acceptable balance which maintains and, in some instances enhances, the special character of the listed building while accommodating the changing requirements of, and securing the long term use of the property as a family dwelling in the C21.

CONCLUSION11. In previous applications the then proposed kitchen extension, garage and internal

works, owing to their respective size, design and location, were not acceptable in terms of their impact on the listed building. The development now proposed is considered acceptable and, in this case, it is considered that the benefit to the listed building of the removal of the unsympathetic garage door, the conservatory/kitchen extension, the replacement of the rear door with a window and the new boundary treatment justify the grant of Listed Building Consent.

RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT, subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard time condition2. Submission of materials (conservation areas)Excepting the new rear extension and garage, where the reconstruction / alterations of

external walls is permitted (by virtue of this consent), the materials shall precisely match those on the existing building, unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. Before work on the new garage and garden walls first commences, a sample panel of brickwork shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. Any such panel which receives the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be retained throughout the period of development and shall form the basis of work to walls and external surfaces of the development.

4. Excepting the new rear extension only all doors in the external elevations together with internal doors shall be fabricated in timber, and they shall be retained in such a form thereafter.

5. The garage vehicle door, timber gates and external door to office/games room shall be constructed in timber, vertically boarded and shall be retained in such a form thereafter.

6. Details of finishes to all external timber to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. Excepting the new rear extension and garage, prior to the installation drawings indicating details of all new windows, external and internal doors including, as appropriate, detail cross sections of glazing bars, to a scale of not less than 1:20 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details which are approved shall be carried out in full and shall be retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

8. No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, flues, vents, ductwork grilles, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other fixtures shall be attached to the external faces of the building other than those shown on the approved drawings or otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


9. Where internal alterations (by virtue of this consent) involve opening up works a photographic record is to be made recording any element of historic fabric which is to be subsequently removed or covered up and this record together with a plan identifying locations is to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for future reference.

10. Removal of existing gates and railings in 3 months11. Withdraw rights to alter

AK



Villa18.9m

Onion

Mossbrow

Farm

Farm

Primrose Cottage

Farm

TCB

LB

Moss Brow

GP20.4m

The

MossbrowCottage

Pond

20.78m

Pond

BM

Beeches

)

)

)

#



WARD: Gorse Hill H/71270 DEPARTURE: No

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR RETENTION OF USE OF SITE FOR CAR BOOT SALES ON SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS

Bowler’s Exhibition Centre, Longbridge Road, Trafford Park

APPLICANT: NCM 2000 Ltd.

AGENT: None

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT

SITE

The application site is located on Longbridge Road, off Ashburton Road West. The site is approximately 1.75 hectares in area and contains a large metal clad industrial / warehouse type building measuring approximately 71m x 92m in area and approximately 10m in height.

The site is surrounded by industrial units to the north, south, east and west, although there is an area of vacant land immediately to the south-east, which is slightly overgrown and fenced off by concrete post and wire fencing.

The premises have previously been used for a variety of uses including sports and leisure, computer markets and car boot sales. The site is still in use for computer markets on Saturdays but is not currently in use from Monday to Friday.

The building consists of two storeys, although the first floor is not in active use at present. The ground floor is divided into two large arenas with a reception area, toilets etc. in between.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the retention of the use of the site for Sunday car boot sales. The car boot sales take place between 6.00am and 2.30pm and involve stalls both within and outside the building. The use has been taking place since September 2008.

Amended plans have been received defining the indoor and outdoor areas that are used for stalls. The outdoor area consists of two raised strips of land immediately in front (to the north-west) of the building, measuring approximately 10m x 40m and 10m x 30m in area respectively. The indoor area consists of the arena in the western part of the ground floor of the building and measures approximately 40m x 70m in area.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS)

RT2 – Managing Travel Demand

REVISED UDP

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION

Main Industrial Area


Trafford Park Core Industrial AreaSpecial Health and Safety Development Control Sub Area


D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD5 – Special Health and Safety Development Control Sub AreasE7 – Main Industrial AreasTP1 – Trafford Park Core Industrial Area


H/55758 – Extension of existing use as computer market to enable Sunday opening – Permitted 9/06/2003

H/61997 – Change of use to allow use of premises for general markets and fairs and exhibitions on Mondays to Fridays and Sundays – Withdrawn – 08/06/2005

H/47806 – Change of use of part of building from a leisure use to uses within Classes B1, B2 and B8 – Permitted 28/05/1999

H/47805 – Change of use from leisure centre to uses within Classes B1, B2 and B8 – Permitted 3/11/1999

H/UDC/36040 – Erection of single storey extension to provide additional sanitary accommodation – Permitted 17/09/1992

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Planning and Developments: Comments incorporated into the Observations Section of the report.

LHA: The parking standards as set out in the Councils car boot sale guide are as follows: -

For indoor use:

1 car parking space per 7.5 square metres of selling space for customers 1 car parking space per stall/seller

For outdoor use:

2 customer spaces per sales pitch 1 parking space per stall.

It is calculated that the indoor area consists of part of the ground floor and is approximately 2800 sq m in size. The applicant has confirmed that there are approximately 80 indoor stalls, therefore based on the standards listed above the provision needs to be 373 spaces for customers plus 80 spaces per stall holders. TOTAL = 453 spaces

In terms of the outdoor area, it is noted that there are 80 spaces for stall holders, therefore 80 spaces for stall holders plus 160 spaces for customers TOTAL = 240 spaces

The overall total is therefore 693 parking spaces, the applicant has stated that the site can accommodate 800 parking spaces. If the applicant could submit a drawing demonstrating


the provision of adequate parking spaces within the site there would be no objection to the proposals on highways grounds.

Built Environment: No comments received to date.

Renewal and Environmental Protection: No observations

Asset Management: No objections provided that all stalls and car parking are enclosed within the site.

Greater Manchester Police Design for Security: No objections

Health and Safety Executive: Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission.


The application is accompanied by a letter, which makes the following comments: -

Bowlers Exhibition Centre has staged Computer Markets every Saturday for over fifteen years. The centre is currently not used from Monday to Friday.

Since September 2008, the centre has been organising car boot sales each Sunday between the hours of 6.00am to 2.30pm. The event averages an attendance of approximately 300 to 500.

The organisers have met with the Council’s Head of Trading Standards and the event has gained the support of the local police. A twelve month markets licence has been issued by the Council’s Markets Department and an application to hold the event has been approved in writing by the Council’s Asset Management Section.

The event is held inside the main building in one of the exhibition arenas and a small percentage of sellers are outside.

The outside sellers do not take up any parking spaces and the whole car park is allocated for customer parking. To date the event has not incurred any parking problems.

A further letter has been received from the applicant in response to the objector’s comments. This makes the following statements: -

The applicant is aware of the traffic problems relating to the previous car boot sales and has totally alleviated these problems by working with the local Police. The Police have been on site during the car boot sales and fully support the event and are satisfied that there are no traffic congestion or parking problems.

A number of measures have been implemented on site since September 2008 in order to alleviate the previous parking problems as follows: -

1. No outside pitches are situated in customer parking spaces. The only area to be used for outside pitches is a raised area at the front of the main car park, which has never been used for customer parking. In the past, all customer parking was used for outside pitches. This was the main cause of the traffic and parking problems because customers could not park on site and would park on the main roads and surrounding industrial premises.


2. By limiting outside pitches, the site now has over 800 customer parking spaces.

3. Since the previous car boot sales ceased in October 2001, a new road has been constructed that extends Longbridge Road and allows extra access between the centre and the main road, thus improving traffic flow.

4. At the time when the previous parking problems were raised, the applicant worked closely with the Council and the Police to eradicate the problems in respect of the computer markets. However, the former operators of the car boot sale did not change their operating structure and continued to incur problems.

5. The applicant now operates a successful on-site traffic management system.

6. The car boot sales have not incurred any parking or traffic problems since they re-commenced in September 2008.

REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters of objection received from the same person making the following comments: -

The objector was the organiser of the previous car boot sales. At the time, there were many meetings with the owners of surrounding industrial units, the Police and Council officials. The owners of surrounding units complained that they were unable to access their workplaces and that sometimes they had to send workers home as goods could not be delivered or taken out. Bowlers employed extra workers to patrol the forecourts of nearby premises and prevent visitors to the car boot sales from parking in these locations.

The Police stated that, due to the problems of parking on the roads, the outside car boot sale would have to be closed down to make more room for visitors parking.

At a later time, the Police stated that the employees of Bowlers could not direct traffic on public roads as they would not be insured and only the Police were allowed do this. The Bowler’s employees could therefore only work within the site itself. The Police were also not able to provide officers on a Sunday in case they were needed in connection with an emergency.

The car boot sales were therefore not allowed to continue and the objector had to end the contracts of fifty workers and make redundancy payments.

Since that time, the Saturday Computer Markets have continued to operate in the same way as the old Sunday car boot sales with employees directing traffic on the public roads and Longbridge Road and other smaller roads being closed down in order to direct traffic away from Bowler’s. If the same rules had been applied to the Saturday events, these would have also had to shut down.

At the Saturday event, there were illegal sellers outside the site and the Police were there every week trying to remove them. At the Sunday events, there were never any sellers outside the gates as the operator and the Council always acted immediately to deter this. .

The present car boot sale is under control as the number of visitors can be handled in the car park. This was also the case when the original Sunday car boot sale was first started but soon there was an average of 5000 visitors and 400 sellers per week.


The current economic situation will mean that more people will be buying and selling at car boot sales. The numbers will increase and the problems will return.

The objector was surprised to see the return of the Sunday car boot sale after so many people had insisted that it should be stopped. If the car boot sale were now to be granted planning permission, this would have to be on the basis that there is no objection from the Police and that they will allow civilians to direct traffic on the public roads. If the application is approved, the objector will want to know why the original car boot sale was forced to close and will want to see the full details of the approval as they will be seeking legal advice.

The objector has also submitted copies of minutes from meetings of the shareholders at the time of the operation of the previous car boot sales, which refer to concerns raised about parking problems. In addition, the objector has submitted a copy of a notice posted by the Police at that time, which warns of the problems of illegal and inconsiderate parking and states that offending vehicles will be ticketed and that those causing a serious obstruction may be removed.

One letter of support has been received from the former Neighbourhood Police Officer for Trafford Park (2001 to 2008), who states that he was involved in the original car boot sales. The letter makes the following comments: -

In 2001, the original car boot sale did encounter traffic issues, which were mainly due to poor organisation and lack of cooperation with the Police and the Council. The event was purely an outside event and used the entire car parking area for stalls. This resulted in visitors having to park in the local industrial estates. At the time Longbridge Road was a dead end and access to the site was solely from the junction of Longbridge Road and Ashburton Rd West, which led to congestion tailing back to the Parkway roundabout.

As a result of a number of meetings held with the organisers and their refusal to change their operating practises, the Council with the support of the Police, stopped the events continuing.

At the same time, Northern Computer Markets were holding Computer Fairs on the Saturday. These were well organised by a responsible company who worked with the Police and the Council. The event did suffer some traffic congestion but this was mainly due to counterfeit sellers outside the site and the Police succeeded in stopping this illegal trade. The traffic issues were reduced as NCM employed traffic marshals and used the company’s car park to its full extent.

Since this time, NCM have successfully run Computer Fairs every Saturday without any traffic issues arising and have worked closely with the Police and local companies.

In the past year, Longbidge Road has had an extension built to it, which means the road now has two egresses, and exit points making it a circular route.

Prior to making this application, the applicant did consult with the Police and it was agreed that the event would take place within the building except for a small outside area adjacent to the main car park, which did not impact on any parking spaces. To date there have been no traffic issues and no complaints made by local businesses.

I would support this application for the following reasons: -

1/ NCM is a reputable and responsible company 2/ The car park is being used to its full extent and has space for 800 vehicles3/ The company employs a number of highly trained Traffic Marshals


4/ The road layout has significantly changed 5/ The event in its current format has already been running for a significant period without any issues

OBSERVATIONS


1. The site falls within a Main Industrial Area and the Trafford Park Core Industrial Area. Proposal TP1 of the Revised UDP states that, within the Trafford Park Core Industrial Area, the Council will permit development for business, industry, storage and distribution (B1, B2 and B8) and similar appropriate uses.

2. Planning permission has previously been granted for the use of the building as a computer market on Saturdays and Sundays. The principle of a market use in this location has therefore been established previously, although a condition was attached to permission H/55758 (Sunday use) restricting this to computer markets only. The site was also previously used for leisure uses including a bowling centre in the 1990’s and does not appear to have a lawful use for industrial development. It is therefore considered that there are no concerns in relation to loss of industrial floor space and that it would not be appropriate to resist the development on the grounds that it does not comply with Proposal TP1.

3. The use is also not one that is specifically addressed by retail policy, either in Planning Policy Statement 6, Town Centres, or in the shopping Policies and Proposals in the Revised UDP. Whilst the use could operate as a general market, it is considered that the restricted size and time of the event would ensure that it does not have any significant detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of any existing retail centre.

TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING

4. An objection has been received on the grounds that the market is likely to grow in popularity and cause on-street parking problems in the vicinity of the site. The objector states that, when the car boot sales previously operated in the 1990’s, the owners of surrounding industrial units complained that they were unable to access their workplaces and that there were times when they had to send workers home as goods could not be delivered or taken out. The objector states that there were numerous meetings with the Council and the Police at that time in relation to these problems and that eventually the operators were forced to cease operating the car boot sales.

5. Although no planning permission was ever granted for car boot sales, permissions were granted in respect of the computer markets. In 2003, at the time of application H/55758 to extend that use to Sundays, the LHA commented that there had been a number of problems associated with the use of the site for this purpose in the past. However, it was considered that the more recent operation and management of the site had substantially improved the situation and, on this basis, the LHA raised no objections to the proposal. A condition was attached to that permission stating that all sales should be located internally and that existing car parking, circulation and servicing areas should be retained for such use at all times.

6. The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, “Car Boot Sales in Trafford”, includes parking standards for this type of use. For indoor events, the standard for customers is one space per 7.5 square metres of selling space including aisles whilst sellers will require one space per stall. The indoor area consists of part of the ground floor of the building and measures approximately 40m x 70m in area, giving a total of approximately 2800 square metres. The applicant has stated that


there are approximately 80 indoor stalls. The requirement would therefore be for 373 customer spaces plus 80 spaces for sellers, giving a total of 453 spaces for the indoor area. For outdoor car boot sales, the customer car parking standard is two spaces per sales pitch whilst sellers will require one space per stall. The outdoor area consists of two strips of land immediately in front of the building, measuring 10m x 40m and 10m x 30m in area respectively. The applicant has stated that these areas are used to sell directly from car boots and that up to 80 vehicles can be accommodated. Assuming that the seller’s vehicles are parked on these areas, this would give a remaining requirement of 160 parking spaces for customers in respect of the outdoor sales area.

7. According to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, the overall requirement would therefore be for 613 parking spaces. With the exception of the relatively small area to be used for outdoor pitches, the whole of the land around the building is available for parking. A plan has been submitted showing approximately 690 parking spaces on this area but this is not accurate and a revised plan has therefore been requested. The applicant has stated that they would be willing to accept a condition restricting the number of outdoor sellers should the number of spaces prove to be insufficient once an accurate plan has been produced. In addition, the applicant has stated that, although between 300 and 500 people normally attend the markets each Sunday, customers come and go throughout the day and are only likely to stay for a relatively short time and therefore this number of people are not usually present at any one time. A letter of support has also been received from the former Neighbourhood Police Officer for Trafford Park, stating that the Police have agreed that the event would take place within the confines of the building except for a small outside area adjacent to the main car park and that the Police support the application on this basis. It is therefore considered that, subject to a satisfactory amended parking layout and subject to appropriate conditions restricting the areas to be used for sales and the number of sellers, the use is likely to be acceptable in terms of parking and traffic generation.

CONCLUSION

8. The use is considered to be acceptable in principle in this location and in terms of parking provision and highway safety, subject to the receipt of an accurate parking layout, a condition restricting the areas to be used for sales and, If necessary, a condition restricting the number of outdoor sellers. Any update to the conditions will be reported in the Additional Information Report. On this basis, it is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory amended plan showing an accurate parking layout and, if necessary, a condition limiting the number of outdoor sellers and subject to the following conditions: -

1. Sales to be limited to areas shown on plan received on 20th July 2008.2. Retention of parking areas shown on amended plan3. The use hereby approved shall only operate on Sundays and Bank Holidays and

shall not take place on any other day

SD


MondeTrading

Industrial

Industrial Estate

Parkway

Parkway Four

Estate

Depot

Indus trial

El Sub Sta

Pa rkwa y Four

Estate

El Sub Sta

27 .1m

El Sub Sta

Works

Ta n ks

LBW orks

El Sub Sta

Sp o rts Ce n tre

El Sub Sta

50

48

Ta n k

Spo rts Ce ntre

Su b Sta

El

Park

Enterpris eW estpoint

Works

25 .6m

El Sub Sta

Works

Westpoint

ParkEnterprise

)



WARD: Hale H/71290 DEPARTURE: No

CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL BARN TO RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGHOUSE AND GARDEN AND ERECTION OF DETACHED GARAGE.

Land to the rear of Holly Tree Cottage, Clay Lane, Hale

APPLICANT: Stephen Cheslett

AGENT: As above.


SITE

The application site comprises a redundant, traditional barn sited to the north of Holly Tree Cottage, on the north side of Clay Lane, Hale. Holly Tree Cottage is a residential property that fronts Clay Lane. The site is accessed from a vehicular access off Clay Lane that runs along the western boundary of Holly Tree Cottage. The private curtilage of Holly Tree Cottage lies to the east of the cottage and south of the respective barn.

The barn is a vacant, unused brick building with a slate roof. It has numerous openings in the south elevation, and there is an existing external staircase adjacent to the west elevation serving a doorway at first floor. The area between the rear boundary of Holly Tree Cottage and the south elevation of the barn is hard surfaced. The area to the north, east and west of the barn are grassed. The north boundary of the site is defined by a 1.5m tall post and rail fence, 2m tall native hedge to the east boundary and 2m tall hedge initially along the west boundary for the length of Holly Tree Cottage and the barn falling to a 1.5m tall hedge.

The site falls within the Green Belt and is within an Area of Landscape Protection.

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought to change the use of the barn to one residential unit with the necessary external alterations. A separate double garage is proposed to serve the proposed dwelling, which would be sited in between the barn and Holly Tree Cottage. Access would be as existing to the north-west side of Holly Tree Cottage.

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICIES

RDF1 – Spatial PrioritiesL4 – Regional Housing ProvisionMCR1 – Manchester City Region PrioritiesMCR3 – Southern Part of the Manchester City Region


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.



Green BeltArea of Landscape Protection

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS

H2 – Location and Phasing of New DevelopmentH3 – Large Sites Released for Housing DevelopmentH4 – Release of Other Land for DevelopmentC4 – Green BeltC5 – Development in the Green BeltC6 – Building Conversions in the Green BeltD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential DevelopmentENV4 – Trees, Hedgerows and WoodlandsENV10 – Wildlife CorridorsENV12 – Species ProtectionENV16 – Tree PlantingENV 17 – Area of Landscape ProtectionOSR8 – Improvement and Provision of Outdoor Sports FacilitiesOSR9 – Open Space in New Housing Development


H/50944 – Conversion of existing farm building to dwelling hours and erection of a double garage – Approved with conditions on 14 May 2001. This permission was not implemented and has now expired.


The following documents were included with the application and are summarised below:-

Design and Access Statement- the proposed development will improve an existing vacant dilapidated barn and

surrounding land and replace it with a high quality dwelling tat will sit well with its neighbours and surrounding land

- the proposal will represent an improvement to the character and area whilst retaining the existing agricultural nature of the site

Structural Survey- although the building has been neglected in the past, the property structurally is on

above average condition- no major re-building works are required- the building is more than suitable for a conversion to a dwelling due to its above

average structural condition- conversion of the property to a residential property would be a relatively

straightforward project

Protected Species Survey - The survey was completed in April 2009 when bats are out of hibernation and when

barn owls will have entered their breeding season. - From inspection and assessment of the Old Barn, it can be concluded that bat roost

potential is low with no evidence of use and therefore nocturnal observations will not be recommended. Based on this inspection there are no apparent implications in relation to bats that would prevent the conversion of the barn proceeding.


- The buildings are of low value for barn owl nesting and no recent or previous evidence of use was found, therefore the proposals would not result in the loss of a site that has been regularly used by barn owls.

- Although no evidence of bats was found and roost potential is low it is recommended that the ridge vent tiles are removed in careful manner and the underside checked for the presence of bats. Additionally during the conversion work contractors should adopt a standard awareness of the possible presence of undetected singular or small numbers of bats which often use buildings at any time of year. If bats are found or suspected of being present, as a legal requirement, work should cease and further advice sought form a bat consultant or Natural England.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Highway Authority – No objection on highway grounds. To meet the Council’s parking standards the provision for 4 car parking spaces should be made. The proposal includes a double garage and it is considered that the site is spacious enough to accommodate a further two vehicles.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – The bat and barn owl survey report have been prepared by suitably qualified consultants and is to an appropriate standard. No reason to disagree with the conclusions of this report and therefore have no objection.

United Utilities – No objection. A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant’s expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water (water fittings) regulations 1999.

Drainage – Standard comments relating to drainage being required to be on a separate system, consideration as to discharge of surface water/foul discharge, and SUDs/disposal at source solution for surface water run-off.

Pollution and Licensing – The application area has a history of agricultural use and therefore the land may be contaminated. The application site is also brownfield land. As such a contaminated land condition is recommended.

REPRESENTATIONS

Timperley Civic Society – Has concerns over the building being placed in the green belt, which could set a precedent for other applications to be considered in the green belt.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT – HOUSING POLICY

1. The application proposes the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling house. This equates to an additional residential unit, and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the Regional Spatial Strategy published by the Secretary of State in September 2008 must now carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of RPG13 (March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG on housing land supply (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.

2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, the RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with


the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.

3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.

4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.

5. Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, such as Altrincham, the Policy states that: “As far as possible growth should be focused in their centres and inner areas but development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on areas in need of regeneration (particularly the Housing Market Renewal areas).”

6. Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in public transport accessible locations with strong economic prospects should be encouraged to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured.

7. Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: “To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”

8. Proposed Policy L4 requires Local Authorities to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes to ensure that they achieve the housing provision set out for each area by that policy, (578 p.a. for Trafford). The accompanying text gives further guidance on an area basis and states the following: “Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs, and any general market housing (in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport) should support agreed local regeneration strategies.”

9. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the stated focus of Proposed Policy L4: (a) Does the proposal support a local regeneration strategy?(b) Is the proposal located in a sustainable location, and, (c) Is the proposal in a location that is well served by public transport?


In terms of (a) the site has a relatively distant location from Altrincham Town Centre Priority Regeneration Area and as such it would be difficult to argue that the development would support a local regeneration strategy, in terms of (b) and (c) the site is within a Least Accessible Area as indicated on the Council’s Accessibility Plan.

10. In conclusion, on the issue of principle, the strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration and to meet affordable housing needs.

11. Whilst the proposal does not align with the development focus set in RSS Policy L4, the development is small in scale and proposes the development of new family housing accommodation. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) therefore it is considered that it would not be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development and therefore this application could not be opposed on housing land policy terms. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed as they arise to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4.

12. The principle of a new residential unit on this site is, therefore, considered to be acceptable.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT - GREEN BELT

13. PPG2 provides national guidance on the appropriate control and management of development in Green Belt areas. It states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land open and that the most important attribute of green Belt is their openness. This objective is reiterated in Trafford’s UDP Proposal C4 (Green Belt).

14. Proposal C5 (Development in the Green Belt) states the re-use of an existing building in the Green Belt would not be considered inappropriate if in accordance with Proposal C6. Proposal C6 outlines three criteria which, if satisfied, would normally indicate that the change of use of a building within the Green Belt would be acceptable:-

(i) The openness of the Green Belt would not be eroded or its purposes compromised, either by extensions to the building itself or by associated uses and/or operations.

(ii) The buildings are of a permanent and substantial nature and are capable of re-use or conversion without major or complete reconstruction;

(iii) The form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings and (where appropriate) conversion proposals respect both local building styles and materials and the form and detailing of the existing building.

The justification for C6 states that rural buildings often provide much of the character of the countryside and sensitive conversion of buildings no longer required for their present use may extend their useful life and be preferable to allowing them to become derelict.

15. The proposed residential conversion of the building would not compromise the openness of the Green Belt as it constitutes re-using an existing structure. The principle of a


garage to serve the dwelling is considered appropriate and was included as part of the previous conversion approval. The proposed scale and design of the garage is appropriately simple and proportionate to the proposed dwelling and its siting would be contained within the existing hard area footprint of the site. As such the addition of the garage would not clutter the site and it is appropriately designed so as to be in keeping with the rural character of the site. The proposed garage would be read against the existing cluster of buildings and as such would not be harmful to the openness of the surrounding countryside. Other than the proposed detached garage, there would be no development beyond the existing building and the attachment of appropriate conditions to restrict the extent of the residential curtilage (the submitted plans indicate that the curtilage would not extend as far as the associated landholding and would be the same as the previously approved plans) and to withdraw permitted development rights, would minimise any resultant domestic paraphernalia within the site. The use of the existing vehicular access would result in a negligible increase in traffic to serve one residential unit. As such the conversion of the building and residential use of the site would not result in encroachment into or inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

16. The structural survey submitted indicated that building is in an overall good physical condition and as such is capable of conversion without requiring major reconstruction. The existing barn has a large number of openings (8 in total) in the south elevation and as such the residential conversion is feasible predominantly through using the existing openings. There are three new openings proposed in the north elevation at ground floor. The original planning application in 2001 permitted three new openings in this elevation. It is considered that the proposed number of new openings, given that they are contained at ground floor and small in nature, would not harm the rural character of the building. Amended plans have been submitted to confirm that the existing detailing around the windows will be retained and that details around new openings will match this. A condition would be appropriate to seek details of the design and materials (timber) of the windows – in particular the design indicated is considered to include too many glazing bars and a simpler form of fenestration would be preferable. Similarly, the previous planning permission approved 5 rooflights on in the north-facing roof plane. The current scheme proposes 5 rooflights to the north elevation and as they would be conservation rooflights, which sit flush with the roof tiles, and they are irregularly positioned, the proposed elevation is considered to satisfactorily retain the rural vernacular of the building. The existing west elevation contains a staircase which serves a doorway at first floor. The proposal includes removing the steps and a section of the. Additionally balustrades are proposed to enclose the existing doorway at first floor. The removal of the steps and addition of a slate roof to the remaining structure would not constitute an increase in the footprint; however, it would not be ideal in terms of the impact on the character of the building as the stone steps are considered to contribute to the agricultural character of the building. The applicant has indicated he would be reluctant to retain the steps due to security concerns as the proposed alterations would to prevent access to the first floor. The proposed balustrading would result in a more domestic elevation, however, there are railings at present at the top of the staircase, and as such the replacement balustrading would constitute a minimal difference from the existing circumstance. Overall it is considered that the conversion could take place with minimal impact on the character of the building.

17. There is a general presumption in PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) in favour of re-using buildings in the countryside for economic development purposes however it also acknowledges that residential conversion may be more appropriate depending on the characteristics of the site and the building. With regard to this site, due to the proximity of the adjacent dwelling, it is not considered that the barn would be appropriate for a commercial or employment use. A commercial use would result in an increased use of the vehicular access and greater levels of traffic and associated activity to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring property. Furthermore, any such use would require higher levels of parking which would result in a greater visual impact


upon the surrounding rural character of the Green Belt. A residential conversion of the respective building is considered to result in a more compatible relationship with the adjacent Holly Tree Cottage. Therefore the principle of residential re-use is acceptable, and it would serve to bring a redundant building back into use.

18. In terms of UDP Proposal ENV17 (Area of Landscape Protection), the proposal would safeguard the character and quality of the landscape as it represents a sensitive conversion of an existing structure that would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the building. Furthermore, the landscaping is appropriate to the setting as the existing hedgerows would be retained and additional native hedgerows are proposed for the boundaries which are not currently defined by planting; additional tree planting would also be of benefit and could incorporate new hedgerow trees. There is a small length of domestic fencing proposed along the shared boundary with the adjacent residential property, Holly Tree Cottage, which would not be out of keeping with the rural setting given that it would define an existing residential curtilage. Overall the scheme represents minimal visual intrusion to the surrounding landscape character.

PROTECTED SPECIES

19. In line with Proposal ENV 12 (Species Protection), to support this application a protected species survey was submitted, which identified that the barns were not used by barn owls or bats. Therefore, the proposal would not result in a harmful impact upon protected species subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in the submitted protected species survey, as conditioned. With regard to ENV10 Wildlife Corridor, the proposal is contained within a brownfield site and would re-use an existing structure and therefore would have a limited impact on surrounding habitat.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

20. Holly Tree Cottage is an L-shaped property with a central gable feature in the rear elevation. The separation distance between Holly Tree Cottage and the proposed residential dwelling is approximately 14.5m at the closest point, 17.5m to the central gable and 18m at the furthest point.

21. There are no windows in the elevation of Holly Tree Cottage that is sited 14.5m from the south elevation of the proposed dwelling. With regard to the central gable feature, there is a bathroom window at first floor and non-habitable room window at ground floor, which are positioned 17.5m from dwelling’s south elevation. In the remaining section of the cottage’s elevation, there is a secondary bedroom window at first floor, where the main window is in the side elevation and a non-habitable room window at ground floor. Additionally, the remainder of the L-shaped property is a small yard that is enclosed by a 1.8m tall trellis fence and a young tree which is as tall as the eaves of Holly Tree Cottage.

22. It is considered that there would not be an adverse overlooking impact to the rear elevation of Holly Tree Cottage as the only habitable room window in this elevation would face a blank section at first floor in the south elevation of the proposed barn conversion. The remainder of the habitable windows proposed in the south elevation of the barn conversion would face a blank elevation or non-habitable windows. The separation distance from the front elevation of the proposed dwelling to the rear boundary of the Cottage, at 14.5m at the closest point, is sufficient to mitigate any adverse overlooking impact to this area. With regard to the private amenity space of the Cottage, a separation distance of approximately 10.8m would be achieved at the closest point. As such, given the separation distance and the nature and positioning of the windows, a satisfactory relationship would be achieved between the proposed barn conversion and Holy Tree Cottage.


23. The amenity provision is considered to be sufficient for the new dwelling and is in line with the red line curtilage approved in the previous planning permission.

PARKING AND ACCESS

24. The LHA has no objection to the proposal and satisfactory parking provision for the size of dwelling can be accommodated, including a turning facility within the site, to enable vehicles to exit the site in a forward gear.

OPEN SPACE AND RED ROSE FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS

25. As an application for a new dwelling in an area of deficiency in open space provision the proposal has to be considered against the approved SPG on Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision Commuted Sums. For a single dwelling the SPG on Open Space requires a financial contribution based on the number of bedrooms. For a 4-bedroom property as proposed, the contribution equates to £2,865.19 overall, of which £922.37 would be required for outdoor sports facilities provision and £1942.82 would be required for open space provision.

26. It also has to be considered against the SPG on Developer Contributions Towards the Red Rose Forest. In respect of Red Rose Forest, a single dwelling requires the provision of 3 additional trees. To meet this, a financial contribution of £235 per tree (£705 in total) would be required; however, it is considered that in this location on site planting would be preferable.


A: That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon the completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such an agreement be entered into to secure a financial contribution (£2865.19) towards open space provision and outdoor sports facilities and a sum of £705 as a contribution towards Red Rose Forest tree planting off site (to be reduced by £235 per tree planted on site as part of an agreed planting scheme);

B: That upon completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:-

1. Standard 2. Amended plans – 24 July 20093. Notwithstanding the submitted plans the development shall not commence until details of

the design and materials of all external doors and windows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.

4. Materials to be submitted 5. Landscaping – to include details of any new gates and gate piers6. Removal of PD rights to alter the dwelling and erect structures within the residential

curtilage7. Limit extent of residential curtilage to submitted plan8. Contaminated land9. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no demolition or partial demolition of the external

walls, external steps or roof of the building shall take place unless details of the extent of such works have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

RC/GE



Sin ks

Bee c h

46 .0m

Ho u se

Po n d

Sin ks

47 .5m

Po n d

Sp orts Ground

46 .9m

Pon d

Po nd

45 .7m

Ho ll y Tree Co tta g e

Hol l y Tree Fa rm

45 .7m

GP47 .2m

Ru gby Fo otb a ll Gro u nd

Pat h

(um)

44 .5m

)

#

#

)

##



WARD: Broadheath H/71450 DEPARTURE: No

CHANGE OF USE FORM B8 (STORAGE) AND B1 (BUSINESS OFFICES) TO D2 (ASSEMBLY AND LEISURE) TO FORM CHILDREN'S PLAY CENTRE. UNIT TO INCLUDE CAFE AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING; VARIOUS EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS.

SITE: Unit 1 and The Emma Somerset Building, Park Road Industrial Estate, Park Road, Timperley, WA14 5QH

APPLICANT: Crazy Kids Club (Mr Douglas Glendon)

AGENT: MCAD Design

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO REFUSE

The applicant has submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s failure to determine this planning application within the statutory eight week period. As such, the Council is now unable to determine this application. This appeal is currently pending and a resolution is sought from Committee members in order to inform appeal submissions with the Council’s position on the application had it been in a position to determine it.

SITE

The site lies on the southwestern side of Park Road in Timperley, between the Timperley Metrolink station and neighbourhood shopping centre to the east and the main A56 junction to the west. Set within the Park Road Industrial Estate, Unit 1 and The Emma Somerset Building are two warehouse units situated within a group of individual units, originally numbering 14 in total with an additional office unit also on site. Both units are located to the northeastern end of the Industrial estate. Unit 1 is currently a vacant warehouse, with a partial frontage out onto the car park and beyond on to Park Road. The Emma Somerset Building is a brick built office building attached at the northern end of the portal frame and partial brick-built group of units. The Emma Somerset Building fronts Park Road. The application site also incorporates the parking area to the north (front) and west (side) of the application units as detailed on the relevant plans.

The Industrial Estate is surrounded by residential properties on all sides, including those on Park Road, Bollin Drive, Upton Drive and those within Romana Square residential development. The existing vehicular access is off Park Road and there is an existing access/egress arrangement with 2 no. points of entry/exit.

This section of Park Road is busy with pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The Park Road Primary School grounds lie within 120m of the application site on Frieston Road, and along with the Timperley Metrolink station and neighbourhood shopping centre forms focal points for activity in the area.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the change of use of Unit 1 and The Emma Somerset Building within the Park Road Industrial Estate, from light industrial units to a Family Entertainment Centre incorporating an ancillary cafe.


The proposal put before the Planning Development Control Committee is for a Family Entertainment Centre for a maximum number of 66 children at any one time on weekdays, and a maximum number of 75 children at any one time at weekends (Saturdays and Sundays). In addition, the applicant has indicated that there will be 6 no. full time staff and 20 no. part time-staff.

The applicant has submitted conflicting information regarding proposed hours of operation.

The information detailed in the Design and Access Statement states the opening hours are as follows:

Monday to Thursday: 0930 – 1930Saturday: 0930 – 2000Sunday: 0930 – 2000

This would mean no opening on a Friday.

However, the opening times expressed on the application form are set out as follows:

Monday to Friday: 0930 – 1830Saturday: 0930 – 1930 Sunday 0930 – 1830

For the purposes of this application, it is considered that the hours of operation sought are as per the details contained in the application form.

Additionally, the application presents conflicting information regarding proposed car parking provision, as follows:

The application form states that there will be 20 no. parking spaces plus an additional 2 no. disabled parking spaces. However, the design and access statement reveals the following:

25 no. parking spaces to be used full time by customers6 no. spaces to be designated to staff only8 no. spaces being left for Crazy Kids Club’s (CKC’s) other uses.

Submitted plan number PCOU\PRE\005 identified the 25 no. spaces used by staff and 6 no. spaces used by staff. There are also 8 no. unidentified parking spaces 3 no. of which are referenced as to be used by Motortec, the adjacent business within the Industrial Estate.

The units would create a large play area of 565 sq m (approx.); a large party room of 70 sq m (approx.); an ancillary café seating and serving area of 100 sq m (approx.) and 192 sq m (approx.) of other accommodation (including toilets, kitchens, reception, storage and staff room) all at ground floor level.

Although there is also accommodation at first floor level currently comprising 130sqm (approx.) of offices and additional toilet facilities all served by existing staircase and corridor, there is no information within the application as to what this office space will be used for.

The applicant also seeks minor external alterations. These include securing the existing large roller shutter entrances on the front elevation and side elevation (2) in the open position and the erection of timber framed wall structures in their place, finished to match the exterior of the warehouse. There will be 3 no. new openings on the front elevation, 2 no. new openings on side elevation (1), 1 no. replacement opening on side elevation (2) and a new opening on the rear elevation, replacing a former roller shutter entrance



The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Land Release for New Housing DevelopmentMixed Use Development

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT AADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSE7 – Main Industrial AreasT17 – Providing for Pedestrians, Cyclists and the DisabledH3 – Land Release for New Housing DevelopmentHOU18 – Land at Park Road, TimperleyD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD8 – Day Nurseries and Playgroups


H/70594: Change of use form B8 (storage) and B1 (business offices) to D2 (assembly and leisure) to form children's play centre. Unit to include cafe and associated car parking. DISMISSED on APPEAL. 21st May 2009. This application was heard before the Planning Development Control Committee meeting in March 2009 and was Minded to Refuse, providing the following reasons:

1. The applicant has failed to overcome concerns in terms of the safety and security of users of the site and to satisfactorily address the risk of potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, with particular reference to the nature of the use of the existing adjacent Industrial units. As such, the development would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

2. The development will create a significant demand for car parking provision. The applicant has failed to demonstrate, with specific reference to weekend usage, that the provision of car parking within the site is sufficient to meet this significant demand in a satisfactory manner, with the result that vehicles could be forced to park on the public highway or in neighbouring residential roads to the detriment of residential amenity, highway safety and the convenience of other users of the highway. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan, and the Council's approved 'Car Parking Standards'.

The Inspector dismissed the application on Appeal.

There have also been a number of applications relating to advertisements within the site which are not considered relevant to this application and as such are not reported here. The following applications are considered relevant to this application. (Please note that Park Road Industrial Estate has been formerly called Roscoe Park Estate and Peerglow Estate):

Additionally, there are a number of planning applications for minor alterations and change-of-use o some of the units within the Estate which have no direct bearing on this application. As such, they are not reported below. The applications detailed below are those which relate to the Units relevant to this application.

7/1/13554: (Emma Somerset Building): 2 Storey Office Block. APPROVED with conditions. Oct 1961.


7/1/6257: (Unit 1) – Extension to existing factory and offices. APPROVED with conditions. July 1969.

7/1/6321: (Unit 1) – Extensions and alterations. APPROVED with conditions. September 1969.

H/23864: (Unit 1) - Change-of-use of ancillary offices to form self-contained office suite. APPROVED. Aug 1986.


The applicant has submitted a portfolio of supporting documents with the planning application which includes a Design and Access Statement, a Planning Policy Statement and a Traffic Count. These documents are summarised below:

DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT

Site Overview The current main property has been vacant for 2 years. The adjoining warehouse

has been vacant for between 16 and 18 months.Design Principles

The two-storey office block to front of development shall be converted to the party room area of the play centre. New partition walls create party rooms, staff area, kitchen facilities and upgraded/additional toilet facilities and first aid facilities.

No change to external appearance of the two storey office block. Portal frame warehouse will form main play area, including multi-level adventure play

area. The single storey office block attached to the portal frame warehouse will become

reception, main entrance and seating area for the café. The kitchen, ancillary café and storage and office space shall be located in the

existing store area with mezzanine level. An extractor fan for the kitchen will be installed as per plan PCOU\PRE\007, as agreed in the previous application.

Landscaping Very little landscaping apart from minor relocation of greens and maintenance of the

existing features where in a poor condition or overgrown.Access

Access satisfies the DDA 1995 and Building Regulations Approved Document M. Extremely good access to vehicles (A56 and Timperley Village), and pedestrians (2

no. bus stops in vicinity and Metrolink station).Parking Facilities/Vehicular Movements

Current site can accommodate 39no. car parking spaces but no formal markings, causing confusion and vehicle/vehicle conflicts.

PCOU\PRE\005 shows 25 spaces accommodated for full time customers with safety fenced walkways. 6no. staff spaces are provided and 8 no. spaces for Crazy Kids Club’s other uses.

One-way system almost eradicates the risk of vehicle/pedestrian conflict problems by separating visits.

TRICS data will show that there will be little or no impact on existing traffic volumes. 7-day traffic report shows traffic to and from the estate is low and over one week only

1 no. small HGV entered the site, none crossing the CKC frontage.Play Centre Operations

Will hold a maximum of 66 no. children at any one time on weekdays and 75 no. at weekends. However, applicant would be willing to keep this number at 66 to allow for ‘crossover’ and ‘dwell time’ unlike other centres.

Using state-of-the-art logging system, transport methods can be recorded. This will enable restriction on numbers to 66 when using private vehicles but gives opportunity


to allow more children in when using sustainable transport methods, instead of restricting numbers based on car travel.

Proposed opening times 09:30 -19:30 Monday to Thursday; 09:30 – 20:00 Saturday and Sunday.

The applicant will offer employment opportunities to local people and will offer NVQ sponsorship in Childcare for staff wishing career progression.

Staffing will be a mix of 6 no. full-time staff and 20+ part time vacancies on rotational shift system

Promotion of green travel and subsidies for staff choosing public transport as a means to reach work.

PPS6 STATEMENT

The applicants have also submitted a PPS6 (Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning for Town Centres) statement, the summary and conclusion of which is as follows:

An assessment has been undertaken against the five criteria set out at paragraph 3.4 of PPS6. This concludes that:

a) Within the locality of Altrincham/Timperley and Sale, there is only one other facility of this nature and it has been noted that it is often over capacity and has parking issues.b) By utilising both buildings as part of the centre, the café and party rooms do not reduce the space available to be designated as the ‘play zone’ in which a soft play structure shall be installed similar to that used in other play areas nationwide. In addition to this, the height of the building gives an advantage for using as additional play space.c) Other, more central sites were reviewed/considered before this one, (the design process was also carried out on a site in Sale) however, no site offers the internal space, parking facilities and transport links that the Park Road location has, and the development needs.d) The site location being between both Altrincham and Timperley, both with numerous retail facilities, should not have an adverse impact on the existing town centres, as this type of amenity is not currently available within either existing centre. e) Accessibility of the development was a key factor in the choice of site, as it is intended to promote the use of public transport, and the chosen site has excellent transport links by having 2 no. bus stops within a short walking distance in addition to the close proximity of Timperley Metrolink station.

ACCESS & PARKING POLICY STATEMENT

The applicants have also submitted a response to National Guidance as set out in PPG13 (Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (March 2001)), to conclusions of which are as follows:

The scheme is a truly sustainable development on a site which has excellent accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking. This is in line with the guidance as set out in PPG13: Transport.

PPG13 also states that there should be maximum levels of parking and that no minimum parking levels should be set for development other than for disabled spaces.

An adequate number of parking spaces are proposed as part of the development along with an overflow measure available during weekends.

TRAFFIC COUNT FINDINGS

Results confirmed that total midweek traffic flows at the entrance to Park Road Trading Estate (2-way) are fairly consistent ranging between 365 and 411 vehicles with the average being 396 vehicles.


Traffic flow at the weekends are significantly lower than midweek flows, being 96 vehicles on Saturday and 59 vehicles on Sunday and on average only 20% of the average midweek flow.

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Planning & Development – Comments have been incorporated within the Observation section of the report.

Local Highways Authority (LHA) – In its current form the LHA objects to the application on highways grounds due to the potential pedestrian-vehicular safety conflicts within the site and on residential disamenity grounds.

The main reasons for this objection are incorporated within the Observations section of this report. Supplementary comments are detailed below:

It is the LHA’s view that the parking provided within the site needs to be clearly marked out as available for users of the play centre and that the use of permeable surfacing needs to be employed on the car park to ensure that flooding does not result from the proposals.

The applicant indicates that there are two disabled parking spaces available within the site. Whilst spaces 6-9 are wider than the other spaces there is no clear indication that these are for disabled use. It is requested that the applicant provides disabled spaces as 2.4m wide with clear markings that they are for disabled use and a shared access aisle of 1.2m between two disabled spaces in order to be acceptable on highways grounds.

Three cycle parking spaces are required in order to meet the Greater Manchester cycle standards, the proposals include six short stay cycle parking spaces but long term cycle parking provision should be provided for staff.

A travel plan condition should be applied to any approval.

Environmental Protection (Pollution and Licensing) –

Contaminated LandThe application site is situated on brownfield land, hence standard contaminated land informative Note NCLC1 should be attached to any permission.

Noise and Odour

This Section does not have any objections in principal to the above planning application. It does however have the following comments/suggested conditions to make:

An assessment shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority which details the levels of internal noise likely to be generated from the proposed use of the site. This assessment shall be used to identify and determine appropriate noise mitigation measures (such as soundproofing) required to protect the amenity of adjacent noise sensitive properties. Any noise mitigation measures identified by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the proposed use and retained thereafter.

Deliveries, servicing and collections, including waste collections, shall not take place outside the following hours: 08:00 to 20:00, Monday to Saturday, no deliveries/waste collections on Sundays/ Bank Holidays.


The storage and disposal of refuse at the premises shall be organised so as to prevent disturbance to local residents.

It is recommended that all proposed externally mounted equipment shall be acoustically treated in accordance with a scheme designed so as to achieve a noise level of 10 dB below the existing background (LA 90) in each octave band at the nearest noise sensitive location. The existing background should be taken at the quietest time that the equipment would be operating. Details of the scheme should be submitted to this section for approval prior to the commencement of any works.

The application does not have any information on a lighting scheme for the site. Should a scheme be proposed, detailed proposals will need to be submitted to this Section for approval.

Suitable systems for the extraction and ventilation of cooking odours in all of the cooking areas shall be installed. Such systems should also comply with the above criteria to control noise. Details of the proposed systems shall be submitted to this Section for approval prior to installation.

The change of use will generate an increase in vehicle movements at a time when the premises would normally be closed. As such, there is a potential for nuisance from vehicle noise and possibly fumes affecting residential premises in the immediate vicinity of the proposed [children’s play centre]. However, due to the premises being located within an industrial area, on a busy road, the nearest residential premises are likely to be less affected by an increase in noise than they would in a residential area. Reducing the hours of operation may alleviate the fears that some of the residents have. The following condition has been placed upon permission for Antz In Your Pantz, (H/63462), Canal Road Industrial Estate, Timperley, which is within an industrial area:

The premises shall not be open for trade or business before 0930 hours nor after 1830 hours Monday - Friday inclusive or before 0930 hours nor after 1930 hours on Saturday and Sunday.

Environmental Health – From an Environmental Health perspective it should be reinforced that the premises will need to comply with the relevant legislation under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.

Health and Safety management controls should be in place to ensure that customers of the play centre only use the designated customer car parking spaces as per the plan submitted with the application. If other spaces on the site are to be used then suitable and sufficient traffic measures would need to be in place to control the risk of pedestrian/vehicle conflict.

Built Environment (Drainage) – Suggest Informative’s to be added to any permission

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours: 13 letters of objection and 29 letters of support were received in relation to the application as originally submitted.

Objections

13 letters of objection received. 2 no. from a similar local business (Antz in your Pantz), 4 no. from current occupies of units within the Park Road Industrial Estate, and 7 no. from residents (Timperley unless stated) on Park Road, Romana Square, Downs Drive, Bollin Drive, Leys Road, raising the following concerns:

Traffic implications:


o Radical increase in amount of traffic generated. Junction of Park Road and Manchester Road is already very busy, often with queues back past Romana Square. The play centre will make things worse.

o Increased turning in and out of Park Road will cause further congestion and danger.

o Park Road is narrow at this point and there are congestion issues associated with this. Before and after school traffic will add an additional burden.

o Pedestrian and Highway safety concerns. Serious risk to the safety of the children. Only a matter of time before there is a serious accident due to already significant traffic levels.

o Large (HGV) Lorries use this site every day and would cross paths of parents escorting young children to and from vehicles.

o The current traffic levels to Emma Somerset building and Allyn Supplies is at a relatively low level.

o Car parking provision inadequate. Already parking problem locally because of Nelson House and Metrolink users.

o What will happen to parking provision during school holidays or in bad weather?

o Employing many staff creates a parking problem alone.o Overflow parking will happen on neighbouring residential roads and lay-by’s,

parked on pavements, with knock-on impacts in terms of safety (lack of visibility/access and egress concerns). Increased traffic is not wanted on quiet residential roads.

o The kind of people using this facility will not be using public transport; they will travel by car as seen at Antz in your Pantz.

o The applicant’s claim that this business will be serviced by one small delivery vehicle per week cannot be serious. What about waste disposal vehicles?

o Residential development at Romana Square was visited by John Prescott and several conditions imposed to reduce impact of additional congestion on Park Road.

Residential amenity:o Noise pollution from children and activity 7 days per week and until 8pm all

weekends, with weekends being the busiest time for the play centre. This would give neighbouring residents absolutely no respite from traffic and visitors.

o Neighbours in Downs Drive backing onto the canal opposite “Antz in your Pantz” can hear loud music and general noise all day. This would happen with “Crazy Kids Club”.

o The property will not be soundproofed.o Car headlights and exterior lighting may be intrusive to immediate

neighbours.o Increased noise and fumes, and activity on the site.o Attracting groups of older children which may cause nuisance when hanging

about outside.Provision of Family Entertainment Sites:

o Antz in your Pantz (another similar children’s indoor play centre) is located only 0.3 miles from

o Fails to satisfy criteria as set out in PPS6.o In current global financial situation, a second facility so close to Antz in your

Pantz would lead to a trade draw from that facility to their detriment.o Any suggested increase in employment may not materialise if the impact of

such close proximity results in Antz in your Pantz business becoming unsustainable.

Other Comments:


o This type of development does not rely on passing trade and there is therefore no reason why it couldn’t be located on an industrial/retail estate with plenty of parking.

o The small industrial estate sharing the roadway and grounds of this proposed development have organised a committee managing maintenance on site. They have not been consulted regarding organisation of car park, creation of pedestrian walkways and additional exit.

o Information submitted about Antz in your Pantz is inaccurate. None of the businesses on the Antz in your Pantz Estate are manufacturing/industrial.

o There are inconsistencies in the information submitted by the applicant regarding how long the property has been vacant. It was vacated in second half of 2008.

Antz in your Pantzo Antz in your Pantz submitted additional information detailing how they are

currently improving access, traffic management issues and parking provision at their property. However, this is not specifically relevant to this application.

From other users of the Industrial Estate including the “Park Road Estate, Timperley LTD” Management Company:

o The applicant has stated that Motortec do not have allocated parking. Motortec say they have been in situ for 14 years and have a letter from the owners of the site stating that Motortec have parking facilities immediately in front and adjacent to Unit 1B, contrary to information submitted.

o Park Road Estate has always suffered from a lack of general parking. Every day people park in “No Parking” areas as there is insufficient space available; causing congestion to occupiers and delivery vehicles, which are often therefore forced to require assistance in navigating their HGV’s to avoid road traffic incidents. There is already inadequate turning space for articulated vehicles which often drive in and reverse out.

o The application will require an enormous amount of parking and this is not provided for within the application, causing major disruption for home owners and users of these roads.

o Fear that children and a busy industrial estate are not a good mix. This is an unacceptable risk to child safety. The estate has HGV traffic daily which already struggles with lack of adequate space.

o Surprise at lack of community open day to understand concerns of other unit owners.

o Most occupiers on Park Road Estate are very worried about effect the application will have in causing further traffic issues for the estate.

o Understand from most unit occupiers that they have not provided permission to use their car parking spaces, contrary to applicant’s information.

o The site has two entrances which have been upgraded in the last 5 years. However, it is still difficult to both leave and enter especially during peak traffic hours.

o The consensus of the unit occupiers is that the application’s use will cause Park Road Estate and its user’s insurmountable problems that will impact on the wider neighbourhood.

Support

29 letters of support for the proposals were received from a wider area (inc. TImperley, Sale, Ashton-on Mersey, Fallowfield, Chorlton, Bowdon, Lymm, Altrincham, Urmston and Include 2 no. letter from a company - House of Play Ltd (Doncaster), a “leading manufacturer in Soft Play Products and Adventure Play Structures” and Scholfield Richards Ltd. (the owner of Unit 1, Park Road Estate). A summary of their reasons for support are detailed below:

o Benefit the local community, particularly those with children


o There is a need within the area for such a facility.o Would enable all families to make use of it not just those with cars.o Most of Councils objections are based on safety of visitors to Antz in your

Pantz and not to the superior safety of Crazy Kids Club. This is unfair and unjust.

o Easily accessibleo Offers modern hi-tech facilities.o Other similar facilities locally and in the region have closed down leaving a

large gap in such facility provision.o Antz in your Pantz is very difficult to get to with a buggy due to traffic and pot

holes and large vehicles along Canal Road.o Safer for pedestrians and safe access for children in comparison to Antz in

your Pantzo Alternative options to current establishmentso Orientated towards a wider range of ages.o Antz in your Pantz is very small and very crowdedo Poor facilities at Antz in your Pantz.o Encouraging kids to eat healthily and use interactive equipment is brilliant for

Timperley as a whole.o There is ample parking. Antz in your Pantz has lack of designated parking

resulting in ad-hoc parking. o Generate inward investment and jobso This area is not classed as an Industrial area but as Mixed-use development,

not overly used by heavy traffic. Access to Antz in your Pants is hazardous.o Will get more kids off the street and into sportso Will cater for children of 10+. Such facilities are needed for the older child.

Other play centres only cater up to 7 years old.o The applicant has now produced a scheme that satisfies the vehicle

movement concerns raised by the inspector.o Proposed change-of use will be seen as a benefit over the B8 warehouse

use. Over the 9 months the property has been vacant, the residents have surely benefited from less goods vehicles reversing and carrying out manoeuvres adjacent to their homes.

o Use applied for is more favourable than existing.o New business and new jobs should be supported in current climate.o Difficult to get to other play centres in the area such as Chorlton and Trafford

Park by public transport and Antz in your Pantz is not safe.o Will make the currently run-down building more attractive.o There is no activity at weekends on this estate when the application business

will be at its busiest.o The two former occupants of the application units had the largest distribution

trucks visiting them and hardly any others as large visit this estate any more since their closure.

o Would benefit from the greater choice of play areas in Trafford. Unless you get to most indoor play areas before 9:30am it is rare to be able to get in as soon as you arrive, meaning standing around waiting until there is space.

o As consultants to around 30 newly opened soft play based family entertainment centres per annum few proposed venues have as much appeal as this one at Park Road Estate. It will be truly sustainable.

o The applicant has selected House of Play Ltd to partner them in the development of this project.

o All equipment will be “state of the art” and the application of operational expertise and mentoring during the first year of trading is beneficial to the scheme and the area.


OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

1. The application is a revised proposal to use part of an existing warehouse for a Family Entertainment Centre involving play equipment and an ancillary café previously refused planning permission on appeal on grounds of conflict with detailed development control considerations.

2. The proposal lies within a mixed-use development area designated under Policy H3 (HOU18) of the UDP. A leisure use close to the existing housing development is consistent with this designation as it will add to the mix of uses in this location. In this respect, the proposal is acceptable in relation to Policy H3 of the UDP.

3. The applicant has provided evidence of the need for the development and an assessment of alternative sites in accordance with the requirements of adopted UDP Proposal S11 and PPS6 – arguing (a) that there is a qualitative need for this type of facility in the Timperley area, (b) that there are no suitable alternative sites or premises available within or on the edge of existing centres that could accommodate the space requirements for this type of facility and (c) that the application site is highly accessible by a choice of means of transport due to the proximity of the Metrolink station at Timperley in particular.

4. The applicant has been able to demonstrate that there remains a qualitative need for the development and that there are no suitable, available or viable sites within or on the edge of a nearby existing centre.

5. The proposal therefore is acceptable in principle in terms of the provisions of adopted UDP Proposal S11 and the tests of PPS6.

CAR PARKING & HEALTH & SAFETY ISSUES WITHIN THE SITE

Existing Car Parking Situation

6. Currently the Emma Somerset Building is a vacant office unit (B1) and Unit 1 is a vacant Industrial storage unit (B8). The current parking provision for the 2 no. existing units is not easily identifiable given the rather informal layout, although the applicant has demonstrated that 36 no. spaces can be provided within the site.

7. The Council’s car parking standards for Office units is 1 space per 25sq m of floor space. The Emma Somerset Building has 418.5 sq m of floorspace which equates to 16.74 car parking spaces required.

8. The Council’s car parking standards for Industry, Warehousing, Storage and Distribution units is:

a. First 235 sq m. gross floorspace: 1 space/35 sq m.b. Additional Floorspace above 235 sq m: 1 space/70 sq m.

The Office area within the storage unit is 20% of the total unit and as such can be calculated as ancillary office space.

The total gross floor area of Unit 1 is 636 sq m.

The first 235 sq m of gross floorspace equates to 6.71 spacesThe additional 401 sq m equates to 3.89 spaces equates to 5.73 spaces.


Hence, for Unit 1 there should be provision for 12.44 cars

9. As such, the total car parking provision for Unit 1 and The Emma Somerset Building combined should be 29.18 no. spaces (rounded up to 30).

10. Given that the applicant has demonstrated that 36 no. car parking spaces can be provided within the site as existing (spaces allocated to the 2 no, application units), the current parking provision is more than adequate for the existing use.

Proposed Car Parking Situation

11. The proposed car parking will be situated as follows:a. Spaces 1 to 18 inclusive will be located entirely affront Unit 1 and the Emma

Somerset Building between the northern elevation of the application units and the Park Road frontage to the site.

b. Spaces 19 to 25 inclusive will be located immediately to the rear of the Emma Somerset Building and affront the entrance to Motortec. These spaces will be located entirely to the eastern side of the main two-way access road through the estate.

c. The 6 no. staff spaces are identified as being to the west of the main two-way access road through the site

d. There are 8 no. other unlabelled spaces immediately adjacent to the 6 no. staff spaces further within the site, although 3 no. of these are identified as for use by Motortec.

12. The car parking standard for playgroups is applied to these proposals. As such, one parking space should be provided for every 2 no. staff members and one car parking space should be provided for every 3 no. children.

13. The application refers to a maximum number of children of 66 during the week and 75 during the weekend within the premises at any one time. The agent has also confirmed that 6 full time and 20 part time staff members will work at the play centre and therefore there will be potentially 16 staff on site at any time.

14. The agent has also stated that all full time staff contracts will have terms and conditions stating that they have to travel by sustainable transport to get to work. However, this is not within the Council’s remit to enforce and no mention of the café unit within the centre has been made in relation to staffing.

15. To meet the Council’s car parking standards the provision of 8 car parking spaces should be made for staff and 22 spaces for visitors during the week and 25 spaces for visitors at the weekend. Therefore a total number of 30 car parking spaces are required during the week and 33 car parking spaces at the weekend.

16. The TRICS data submitted with the application provides traffic surveys from 6 leisure/play centre sites which suggests that the new use will generate a total of 120 vehicle 2-way movements (60 in, 60 out) on a typical weekday and a total of 278 movements (139 in, 139 out) on a typical weekend. The TRICS data also indicates a maximum parking accumulation of 30. However, it is considered that this provision is unlikely to be sufficient during the school holidays.

17. 31 no. car parking spaces are proposed to be allocated to the use, 6 of which are proposed for use by staff and 25 spaces proposed for customers – these meet the Councils parking standards during the week but not at the weekend.

18. However, concern remains over the usability of several of the proposed spaces, as detailed below:


1) Parking spaces 23 - 25 are located flush with the north-eastern wall to West Valley Security. This would obstruct a fire door and escape route required by West Valley Security, which would clearly be unavailable if parking was permitted flush with the wall. Furthermore, a gas meter (or equivalent servicing metre) exists on West Valley's north-eastern wall, which would require access.

Moving the parking spaces forward by the requisite amount would mean that cars would be parked over the pedestrian access to Motortec, thus obstructing access to that unit which is not acceptable.

However, the main concern with this arrangement is that Motortec is a vehicle servicing and repair centre. They service and repair up to 12 vehicles per day and due to limited space within their unit, have to reverse vehicles out into the proposed Crazy Kids Club car parking area housing spaces 19-25. Therefore, a zebra crossing marking in this location will give visitors to Crazy Kids Club a false sense of security and the proposed arrangement poses a vehicular - pedestrian safety conflict. The Inspector’s comments from the previous appeal highlighted that “…at the start and end of their journey from their cars and back, adults and children would gather on foot, some with pushchairs, close to car”. Furthermore, a site visit confirmed customers of Motortec parking ad-hoc across the front of the garage as they discussed vehicle issues with Motortec.

2) Parking spaces 21-22 are inadequate in width. To meet the Councils parking standards, the provision of 2.4m wide spaces should be provided. Space 21 is 2.3m wide and space 22 is 2.2m wide and unusable as it is located next to the wall of the Emma Somerset building and is located in front of a fire door to the building.

3) In reference to the main entrance to the site, the Inspector in the previous appeal stated that “at this point there is the potential for conflict between such cars leaving the site (with or without children) and vehicles entering the site from Park Road.

Whilst the applicant has reversed the operation of the proposed one-way system to help alleviate the conflict, vehicles accessing and egressing space 18 must reverse out of the space into the path of the main access to the estate as identified in the revised proposals. In addition, this space is very awkward to access from the main access on Park Road and will lead to drivers undertaking awkward manoeuvres within the site in order to access the space. Given its proximity to the Park Road entrance which is used by a large range of vehicles including HGV’s, this is deemed to be a conflict.

19. In addition, as stated in the Inspectors report the car spaces provided would match

the number of children (during weekdays) “but would not appear to provide for any overlap between arrivals and departures of those travelling by car. In practice, cars carrying ‘replacement’ children would be arriving on site as earlier children were leaving the building. In this respect the use would differ from that of a playgroup upon which the Council’s parking standard is based. Any congestion generated in this manner would be likely to encourage the drivers of surplus cars to park elsewhere, outside the site. At my site inspection I saw that other car spaces within the industrial park were clearly marked with the name of the businesses which they served, and that most of them were occupied. If frustrated in an attempt to park, would-be users of the appeal site would park in neighbouring residential streets. I saw that on-street parking in these streets was limited by the layout of the houses and driveways, and by bends in the carriageways creating a cramped road layout, and also that many of the potential on-street spaces were occupied. I consider it


likely that there would be competition for on-street space between residents and their visitors on the one hand, and appeal site users on the other, and that this would lead to congestion in the narrow residential roads”. This is even more acute in light of the fact that the largest unit on the estate – ROEVIN (8241 sq ft) is currently vacant.

20. In order to accommodate the required number of parking spaces for the children levels proposed, the applicant has had to secure parking from other areas within the Industrial Estate, most notably from the spaces, manoeuvring area and proposed pedestrian crossing outside Motortec where a dispute remains regarding rights to parking (see above under Representations section). This is considered problematic in terms of the Council’s ability to enforce provision of these additional spaces.

21. The applicant has stated that the development is in a sustainable location served well by public transport. Nonetheless, it is considered essential for a development of this nature to meet the minimum car parking standards for such a development.

22. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the parking provision for 66 no. children and 6 no. staff (16 no. staff potentially) on weekdays or 75 no. children and similar staff numbers at weekends can be satisfactorily met within the application site or within the wider Industrial Unit and as such, insufficient parking may result in on-street parking issues on Park Road and/or other residential streets in the vicinity of the site. This would be to the detriment of neighbouring residents, highway safety and the convenience of other road users.

23. Furthermore, concern remains regarding the café use. It is not clear if the maximum figure of 75 includes those children and/or adults who might be using the on-site proposed café at any one time, and if it does not, to what extent the café might contribute to an overlap of users. The café could generate an additional parking requirement in its own right.

24. Equally, there is no information as to the use of the 130sqm of office space retained at first floor level within the building. It would be very difficult to enforce a condition restricting the use of this office space. The concern is that an additional 130sqm of office space, if occupied at some time in the future by Crazy Kids Club visitors or by “other users” might create additional parking problems, and hence Health and Safety concerns, which at this time are difficult to assess.

25. In terms of pedestrian access, those who arrive at the site having made their journey by public transport or on foot are safely accommodated via a separate pedestrian access gate and walkway direct to the entrance of the building.

26. However, the applicant proposes a fenced walkway around the perimeter of the building to gain safe access to spaces 19-25 located at the rear of the building. Having studied the proposed pedestrian walkway on site, the LHA has serious concerns as to the usability of this facility. The proposed pedestrian path is 1m wide and it is proposed for a rail to be fitted around the path for safety reasons, this would therefore result in a footpath below the Councils minimum standard of 1.2m. In addition, the footpath follows the form of the building outline and therefore the corners are exceptionally tight in a ninety degree arrangement, It is considered that larger pushchairs and prams will find it exceptionally difficult to use at these pinch points which may result in pedestrians walking on the access road therefore increasing the prospect of vehicle to pedestrian conflicts within an industrial estate.

27. Furthermore, there are no specific planning restrictions on hours of opening of the other units within the site and as such, the Local Planning Authority has no control over changes in the hours of work or working practices of the tenants of the other industrial units within the Estate. Equally, there is no control over new tenants (who


could operate within the same use class category as the existing operators) who may or may not wish to operate from within the site in the future.

28. The Local Planning Authority is aware of issues regarding Health and Safety at existing Family Entertainment Centres located in similar Industrial Estates within the Borough and further afield. These issues have highlighted that extra attention must be afforded to the functionality and safety aspects of this particular site.

29. The Local Highways Authority and the Council’s Environmental Health Team have expressed significant concern regarding the potential for pedestrian/vehicular conflict within the site. Although it is acknowledged that some aspects of Health and Safety within the site may fall under different legislation, it is nonetheless considered that concerns in terms of the safety and security of users of the site have not been satisfactorily addressed. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to overcome the concerns regarding the risk of potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, with particular reference to the nature of the use of the existing adjacent Industrial units within the Estate, which are also served by the vehicular route through the site.

HIGHWAY ISSUES

30. Concern exists regarding the potential impact of the development on the highway. However, it is important to note that the existing units operating at full capacity as an industrial unit and office would also generate an increase in highway traffic along Park Road.

31. Nonetheless, it is considered that a use of this nature with the insufficient parking provision as identified above would inevitably lead to increased traffic on Park Road and more potential for vehicle/vehicle conflict as cars searching for available parking spaces within the site are forced to leave the site and find parking elsewhere. This would invariably lead to excessive parking in neighbouring streets to the detriment of the amenity of neighbouring residents.

32. Furthermore, the arrangement, with particular reference to parking space 18 (described above) and parking spaces 21-25 inclusive would exacerbate the situation and could lead to resultant traffic congestion on Park Road as a result of potential vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts within the site.

DESIGN AND IMPACT ON THE STREET SCENE

33. The proposed children’s play centre and ancillary café would be contained within two existing warehouse units. The only external alterations are to secure the existing large roller shutter entrances on the front elevation and side elevation (2) in the open position and erect timber framed wall structures in their place, finished to match the exterior of the warehouse. There are 3 no. new openings on the front elevation, 2 no. new openings on the side elevation (1), 1 no. replacement opening on the side elevation (2) and a new opening on the rear elevation, replacing a former roller shutter entrance. These elevational alterations are relatively minor in scale and are nonetheless acceptable design features. Consequently, in design terms, the impact of the proposal in the streetscene would be minimal.


34. There will be no issues of overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of sunlight, overbearing or other physical impacts as a result of the proposals. The areas of concern relate to impacts from noise generation and potential odour. The potential sources of these disturbances are numerous and detailed within the above comments from the


Environmental Protection Service. Those recommended conditions to mitigate potential noise disturbance and other pollution are accepted and should be attached to any planning permission.

35. However, it should be noted that there are currently no planning restrictions on deliveries, servicing and collections for any of the other units within the site or indeed the application units.

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1. The applicant has failed to overcome concerns in terms of the safety and security of users of the site and to satisfactorily address the risk of potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, with particular reference to the nature of the use of the existing adjacent Industrial units. As such, the development would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

2. The development will create a significant demand for car parking provision. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the provision of car parking within the site is sufficient to meet this significant demand in a satisfactory manner, with the result that vehicles could be forced to park elsewhere in the estate, on the public highway or in neighbouring residential roads to the detriment of residential amenity, the convenience of other users of the estate, the health and safety of users of the estate, highway safety and the convenience of other users of the highway. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan, and the Council's approved 'Car Parking Standards'.

MW



ESS

26.0m

TCB

24.8m

Peerglow Park Estate

23.7m

23.4m

)



WARD: St Mary’s H/LPA/71464 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF A DETACHED TIMBER SHED FOR USE AS A STORE, POTTING SHED AND CLASSROOM IN ASSOCIATION WITH HORTICULTURE AREA.

Manor High School, Manor Avenue, Sale, M33 5JX

APPLICANT: Manor High School

AGENT: Trafford Borough Council

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS

SITE

The site comprises of a large school site dating from the 1960’s with the main school buildings fronting onto Manor Avenue with a small car park to the front and a larger car park and playground to the rear and playing fields beyond. It is surrounded on all sides by residential properties and there is a 1.8m high fence around the boundary.

The school itself is a non-denominational secondary school for young people between the ages of 11 and 18 with special needs.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to erect a detached timber shed close to the northern boundary of the site, the north west of main school buildings, east of the playing fields on a grassed buffer between the main school buildings and the northern boundary. It is to be located approximately parallel to the detached garages of 9 and 10 Copplestone Drive to the north set in 3m from the boundary with a footprint of 3m x 7.4m. It will be in timber in construction with a green mineral felt finished apex roof extended to a height of 2.3m to the ridge and 1.76m to the eaves. The single door will be on the south elevation and there will be high level windows along the east elevation.

The shed is to be used for the storage of materials, potting and as a classroom associated with a horticulture area that is to be created immediately adjacent to the shed to the west as a facility for students studying horticulture.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


No notation

PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS

D1 – All New Development



Various minor applications not relevant to this proposal.


Relevant detail contained within Observations section of the report.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Highways Authority – No objection

Environmental Protection – No objection

Built Environment – No objection

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of representation have been received from the occupiers of 8 and 10 Copplestone Drive. Concerns are as follows;

The proposal will result in noise disturbance and a loss of privacy to the adjacent residential properties.

OBSERVATIONS


1. The proposed development is to be located on a site that has no formal designation. It is for a structure that is to be ancillary to and directly related to the operation of the main use of the site. It is for these reasons that it is not considered there are any objections in principle subject to the detailed assessment of it’s impact.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

2. The proposed shed is located in close proximity to the residential properties on Copplestone Drive and will introduce activity into an area of the site that has not previously been used for any formal purpose. The shed is to be sited 3m from the rear boundary fences of numbers 9 and 10 and at its highest point, will extend approximately 900mm above the fence at its highest point. The size and nature of the development along with the materials proposed are considered such that the building’s physical presence is unlikely to result in any loss of amenity to these residential properties either from reduced outlook, overshadowing or overlooking. To this extent, there are no concerns with regard to the proposal.

3. Concern has been raised by local residents about the use of this part of the site as a horticulture area for students at the school. This activity does not in itself require planning permission as no change of use would be deemed to have taken place and although it is the erection of the shed that is the subject of this application, it is recognised that introduction of such a building does encourage the use of this area of the site for the purposes for which it is intended. Whilst the concerns of the residents are noted, it is considered unlikely that to use this area of the site for horticulture will result in a level of noise and disturbance that could be considered to cause such a loss of amenity as to warrant refusal of the application. The activities would only take place during normal school hours and in term time and being part of the curriculum, would be closely supervised. As a result of the objections, an amended plan has been submitted which moves the siting of the shed through 90 degrees so that the


door to the shed is on the south side, away from the residential properties and it is around this part of the shed that most activity is likely to take place.

4. Taking into account all of the above, it is not considered that the proposed shed will result in any loss of amenity to local residents.

DESIGN/STREET SCENE

5. The shed is of standard timber construction with a felt roof and is to be sited on a concrete block. It is of a size and style that would normally be expected of a building of this nature and it is not considered that there are any special circumstances that require it to be designed or constructed in any other way. It is to be set well back from Manor Avenue and will be screened from the road by the mature vegetation along the front boundary. It will only be visible outside the site from the rear gardens of the properties on Copplestone Drive and this, as noted above, is not considered to be in any way significant.

CONCLUSION

6. The proposal is for the erection of a shed building within the grounds of the existing school for use by the students as part of their education. The building is modest in size and although close to the boundary with residential properties will result in any loss of amenity either from its physical presence or by the nature of the activities it will be used for. It is for these reasons that it is recommended the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to conditions;

1. Standard time limit

RM



125141

127

147115

Manor High School

BalliolCourt

153151

CourtBalliol

Manor High School

1



WARD: Bucklow St Martin’s

H/71476 DEPARTURE: No

REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING VACANT SITE THROUGH ERECTION OF 6NO. 3 BEDROOM AND 5NO. 4 BEDROOM AFFORDABLE HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS FROM LAUREL WALK

Land off Laurel Walk, Partington

APPLICANT: Manchester and District Housing Association – Harvest Housing

AGENT: Pozzoni

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

SITE

The application relates to a large grassed area known as ‘Valleyfields’, which measures approximately 0.33 hectares in size. To the east the site is bound by Laurel Walk and a walkway which separates the site from the residential properties of Lancashire Road, a cul-de-sac; to the south lies an area of open space, and beyond that a Multi-Use Games Area. The western and northern sides the site are bound by the terraced properties of Derbyshire Road and Cumberland Road. The site is relatively level and is interspersed with several trees, although many of these are in poor condition as a result of vandalism and anti-social behaviour. A terrace of 22 residential units previously stood on this site; however, these properties became rundown and have been recently demolished.

The site is situated within a residential area of Partington. The surrounding residential properties are two storey terraces, dating from the 1960’s. Buildings throughout the estate are of a uniform type with little variation.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes 11 new affordable (social rented) housing units, split into two pairs of semi-detached properties, a terrace of three dwellings and a terrace of four dwellings. These proposed properties are located within the northern half of the Valley Fields site and is considered to form ‘Phase 1’ of the redevelopment of this grassed area of land. The southern half of the Valley Fields has been set aside for ‘Phase 2’, which it is anticipated will accommodate a further 8 dwellings and potentially retain some open space; although at present there are no firm proposals for this part of the site. Six of the proposed houses within Phase 1 have three bedrooms, whilst the remaining five houses have four bedrooms. One unit would front Laurel Walk, another faces south-west (towards the remaining undeveloped area of Valleyfields), and the remaining 9 properties will all front onto a new access road which links with Laurel Walk. 22 car parking spaces would be provided within the development site, accessed from the proposed new access road. Each property would also have a small rear and front garden. The proposed houses measure 5m in height to the roof eaves and 8.3m in height to the roof ridge.


REVISED TRAFFORD UDP AND NORTH WEST REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS) now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Partington Priority Regeneration Area


H1 – Land Released for DevelopmentH2 – Areas for DevelopmentH4 – Development within the Urban AreaH6 – Release of Other Land for DevelopmentH8 – Affordable HousingH11 – Priority Regeneration Area: PartingtonD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – New Residential Development


Land off Moss Lane, Cross Lane East, Central Road, Wychelm Road, Chapel Lane, Erskine Road, Cross Lane West, Warburton Lane, Redbrook Road, Tulip Road, Oak Road, Laurel Walk, Wood Lane and Lock Lane, PartingtonH/47494 – External works & improvements to housing and public spaces including construction of car parking spaces, provision of paving and landscaping, erection of gates and fencing, closure of passageways and change of use to extension to gardens provision of traffic calmingApproved with Conditions – 5th August 1999


The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement in support of the application which can be summarised as follows:

The proposed development comprises eleven two storey dwellings with feature detailing rendered bays, windows and entrance canopies to articulate the frontage. The building ends are gabled to reflect that of the neighbouring properties. The size and volume of dwellings is similar to existing adjacent properties;

Properties will have defined boundaries to Secured by Design standards. This will be by means of dense planting and 1800mm high fencing/brick walls with collapsible trellis to the rear of the properties.

It is intended that an area of public open space will be maintained within the second phase of the development.

There is a road junction opposite the site, in order to avoid building a cross road the access road bends to the corner of the site away from the opposite junction;

The layout as proposed does not compromise overlooking distances between habitable rooms of adjacent dwellings and fully overlooks the access road providing good surveillance over gardens and parking facilities.


CONSULTATIONS

LHA: To meet the Council’s parking standards the provision of three spaces should be made per four bedroom house and two spaces per three bedroom house. However, the LHA would accept the provision of two car parking spaces per house in this particular case.The site layout plan indicates the provision of two car parking spaces per house, however the site layout needs some amendments in order to be acceptable on highway grounds. The parking areas need to be 10m in length in a tandem arrangement or 4.8m in length for a single parking arrangement. In addition, I would request that the developer amends the footway arrangement of the site to provide solid footways with dropped kerbs for vehicular accesses, to encourage pedestrian activity. The proposed arrangement is not acceptable. The applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals. If the above were to be amended then there are no objections on highways grounds to the proposals.

Built Environment (Drainage): R2, R6, R12, R14, R17 – Surface water attenuation to 10 litres/sec/hectare or maximum of 5 litres/sec

Renewal and Environmental Protection: This application site is situated on brownfield land. A standard condition relating to contamination is therefore recommended.

Greater Manchester Police Design for Security: The layout, house types and boundary treatments proposed all accord with Security by Design standards.

Partington Town Council: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

United Utilities (water): Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection to this application have been received and a petition containing 60 signatures, mostly from residents of the surrounding area, objecting to the proposal has also been submitted, although some of the signatures do appear to be duplicates. The main concerns of these local residents can be summarised as follows:

This land is the only green space in this area. Children in surrounding streets would have to cross main roads to get to another green space and would be too far away for parents to keep an eye on them.

There has been a footpath in this field for more than 40 years and is regularly used by everyone.

The new houses would over-dominate the area because the old homes around them are extremely poorly maintained – The character and appearance of the whole neighbourhood will be changed.

Parking in the area severely clogs the streets and more residents could make this worse; furthermore, the new access road is on a bend and therefore visibility would be a safety issue.

New residents in the area would result in a further strain on already limited public services and amenities.

There is a serious shortage of habitable 2-bed housing in the area; these plans do not meet the needs of the local tenants.


OBSERVATIONS


1. The application proposes the development of 11 new affordable social rented houses within the southern part of the Manchester City Region and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the adoption of the Regional Spatial Strategy (in September 2008) carries significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.

2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, the RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.

3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.

4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.

5. Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham).

6. Outside of these areas, Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 make it clear that new housing development proposals in sustainable locations well served by public transport should be allowed where they support local regeneration strategies and/or meet identified local needs, particularly for affordable housing.

7. The present application for eleven affordable houses is considered to be acceptable in housing land supply terms as it partially lies on previously developed land; and is providing a wholly affordable RSL housing development. Furthermore, the site is located within 95m of a bus terminus and therefore lies within an ‘accessible area’ as defined by SPD 1: Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes, which classifies an area as being accessible if it is within 250m of a bus stop with a service of at least every 30 minutes. In addition the scheme supports a local regeneration strategy – Partington Priority Regeneration Area and is consistent with ‘Partington – Place Shaping Principles’ which was approved by the Council’s Executive in November 2007 for use as a material consideration in the determination of planning proposals in Partington. This states that the regeneration of housing in


areas of change and which demonstrate the need for intervention, modernisation and/or enhancements in housing terms of housing type, mix, residential amenity and environmental improvements, will be supported.

8. In conclusion, the proposal complies with the policies contained within the RSS and supports the regeneration priority within Partington as identified within the Revised UDP and Partington – Place Shaping Principles. Furthermore, the provision of eleven affordable housing units supports the Council’s commitment to address the shortage of affordable housing within the Borough and makes a significant contribution to strategic housing objectives.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

9. Facing the north-western elevation of units 1 and 2 are the residential properties of 1-11 Cumberland Road. A distance of 22m has been retained between the facing habitable windows of these properties, which is in compliance with the Council’s Planning Guidelines which recommends that 21m is retained between facing windows. The rest of the proposed houses (units 3-11) have been positioned so that their habitable room windows do not directly face those of the surrounding existing properties on Cumberland Road, Laurel Walk and Lancashire Road. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any loss of privacy for the occupants of the existing surrounding properties and as such is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

10. The Council’s Planning Guidelines ‘New Residential Development’ also states that the minimum distance between main windows across a public highway for two storey development should be 21m. As a minimum distance of approximately 24m is provided between main habitable room windows within the development, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

11. Private amenity space for the occupants of the proposed development would be provided within the rear gardens. These gardens differ in size between 44sq.m and 117.5sq.m. The Council’s New Residential Guidelines recommends a minimum of 80sq.m of private amenity space for 3 bedroom semi-detached houses. Whilst some of the proposed units have less private amenity space than that recommended by the Council’s Guidelines, the provision of amenity space provided is in line with, and generally exceeds, the amenity space currently enjoyed by the occupants of the surrounding dwellinghouses and is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect.

12. The impact of the development on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the level of amenity provided for the future occupants of the development is considered to be acceptable. The development is therefore in accordance with Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

ARBORICUTURAL ISSUES

13. Valley Fields has a number of trees within it; approximately four trees within the application site are set to be removed to facilitate the development. A semi-mature tree situated adjacent to the rear boundary of the existing Cumberland Road flats, to the north-east of the site, would be retained. The site is not the subject of a tree preservation order. It is considered that the benefits of the proposed affordable housing development, providing family home accommodation within Partington, far outweigh the need to retain these trees, which are generally in poor condition. Replacement tree planting will be provided as part of the development proposals.

DESIGN AND STREET SCENE


14. The proposed dwelling houses would have a pitched roof with gable ends with concrete interlocking tiles. Rendered bays and recessed front doors, or entrance canopies articulate the frontage and particularly serve to break-up the northern and southern elevations of the two terraces. Brickwork is proposed to the rest of the elevations with contrasting brickwork to the window cills. It is considered that the design of the proposed properties is acceptable and will enhance the quality of affordable housing stock in this area of Partington.

15. At 8.4 metres to the top of the roof ridge, the proposed houses are similar in height to

the existing properties in the surrounding area. The proposed 11 affordable houses have been split into two pairs of semi-detached properties, a terrace of three dwellings and a terrace of four dwellings. Although these blocks of houses have been positioned in a linear fashion, either side of the new access road, a degree of visual interest has been created through staggering the blocks slightly to avoid giving the impression on entering the site of two long terraces; in addition, unit 1 has been positioned so that it fronts onto Laurel Walk and addresses the streetscene. The scheme therefore complies with Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

16. The application drawings indicate a 1.8 metre high heavy duty boundary fence with 300mm collapsible trellis along the southern boundary of the site, to the rear of units 1-6. Given the position of the development adjacent to a public footpath and that wooden fences, unless well maintained, tend to develop a rundown appearance and can leave properties vulnerable to attack, it is considered that a more robust form of boundary treatment such as a brick wall would be more appropriate here. However, due to the presence of a large existing sewer, which runs directly beneath the entire length of this boundary, United Utilities have strongly recommended that a brick wall not be built along this boundary to allow for future maintenance of the sewer below. As such the proposed fence and trellis is considered to be acceptable providing that dense defensible planting is introduced along this boundary. Conditions relating to the type of boundary treatment and the species and density of defensible planting here are therefore proposed.

17. A 1.8 metre high brick wall topped with a 300mm collapsible terrace has been proposed as the rear boundary to units 7-11. This boundary treatment is considered to be appropriate as it is robust, in accord with the security by design standards and enhances the appearance of the development.

18. 1100mm high powder coated black hooped railings have been proposed to the side of unit 1, at the site’s entrance; whilst a low-level boundary wall with piers and railings would have been preferred in this location, the presence of another drainage system underneath this boundary prohibits this. Railings with planting behind have also been proposed along the front boundaries of all eleven dwelling houses; this is considered to be an acceptable boundary treatment for these properties.

ACCESS AND CAR PARKING

19. The proposed development will not result in the loss of any existing footpaths which lead across the Valley Fields; additionally, although the development will result in the loss of some open green space, an area of Valley Fields will still remain to the south-west of the application site.

20. The LHA have raised no objection to this development, following amendments that have been made to the size of car parking spaces and to the pavements along the access road. Twenty two car parking spaces would be provided for occupants of the houses meaning that the car parking provision is at 200%. This is considered to be


appropriate, particularly as the scheme is entirely affordable and is close to bus services. Some visitor parking may take place on-street, however the level of this is likely to be so low that it would not be detrimental to either residential amenity or highway safety.

CRIME AND SECURITY

21. The building layout has addressed the street frontage and would provide natural surveillance to the new access road, all of the new car parking spaces and also increase the level of surveillance to some of the surrounding properties and footpaths along Lancashire Road, Cumberland Road and Laurel Walk. Ground level entrance doors and windows to the building frontages also provide activity at street level and further enhances natural surveillance to the new access road.

22. Greater Manchester Police have stated that they believe the proposed layout, house

types and boundary treatments all accord with Secured by Design standards. The high rear boundary treatments with collapsible trellis on top provides security and reduces opportunities for crime; surveillance of the footpaths and roads that surround the site will be maintained through the provision of first-floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings and from the existing surrounding dwellings also.

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

23. As defined by the Council’s SPD1 – ‘Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Scheme’ (March 2007), the site falls within an ‘accessible’ are and as such a financial contribution of £6,996 would normally be required towards public transport improvements (£4,598) and highway infrastructure improvements (£2,398).

24. In accordance with the Council’s SPG28 – ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’ (September 2004) a financial contribution of £29,435.95 would normally be required towards children’s play space (£19,549.59) and outdoor sports provision (£9,886.37). As the scheme provides solely affordable housing units, it is exempt from the provisions of the Council’s SPG29 – ‘Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest’.

25. The applicant has submitted confidential financial information which outlines the financial viability of the scheme and this is currently being considered. The applicant states that the level of contributions sought would render the scheme financially unviable and development would therefore not proceed in the current economic climate. It is recognised that the scheme is for the provision of affordable housing units by a registered social landlord and that the development would bring much needed regeneration benefits to the Partington area in developing a site identified within the Partington Priority Regeneration Area.

26. As the financial viability information is still under consideration, the recommendation reflects the requirement for a Section 106 Agreement to secure the normal contributions unless it is demonstrated that the development would not be economically viable with those contributions. Furthermore, as the scheme’s viability would be dependant on market conditions at the time the development is completed, it is proposed to include an overage clause in the Section 106 agreement which stipulates that the Council will receive an appropriate level of developer contributions if the economic climate improves and the applicant’s current assumptions about the viability of the project prove to be incorrect.


CONCLUSION

27. In conclusion, the development would increase the provision of affordable family houses in this area of Partington by eleven units. The scheme would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the future occupants of the bungalows, the character of the area or highway and pedestrian safety. It is considered to be in compliance with all relevant Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan Policies and Proposals and is recommended for approval accordingly subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards highway and public transport schemes.


(I) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure financial contributions of £19,549.59 towards open space provision and £9,886.37 towards outdoor sports facilities; £4,598.00 towards public transport improvements and £2,398.00 towards highway infrastructure improvements;

(II) That upon satisfactory completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: -

1. Standard condition;2. Materials condition;3. The residential units hereby permitted shall only be used for the purposes of providing

affordable (as defined by the Council's adopted SPG – Provision for Affordable Housing Development or such relevant policy of the Council adopted at the time) or special needs housing accommodation to be occupied by households or individuals from within the boundaries of Trafford in housing need and shall not be offered for sale or rent on the open market. Reason: To comply with Proposal H8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and Policy L5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy RSS published 2008).

4. Landscaping condition;5. Amended plans;6. Provision of access facilities condition no. 2;7. Retention of access facilities condition;8. Contamination condition;9. Withdrawal of rights to alter;

10. Fencing condition11. Bin storage details

JK



The

El Sub Sta

Red Brook

Centre

(PH)

Community

TCB

Car ParkCar Pk

)



WARD: Davyhulme East

H/ADV/71490 DEPARTURE: No

DISPLAY OF THREE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED STATIC ADVERTISEMENT PANELS ON 25.5 METRE HIGH STEEL TOWER STRUCTURE

Central Island of Junction 10, M60 / Trafford Boulevard (Redcliffe Circle), Trafford Park

APPLICANT: JC Decaux UK Ltd.

AGENT: None

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

SITE

The proposed advertisement structure would be sited on the landscaped traffic island at Junction 10 of the M60 (Redcliffe Circle). The traffic island is currently landscaped with mature trees in the centre and bushes around the outside.

The carriageway of the M60 passes above the traffic island and the structure would be sited on the north-eastern side of the island, immediately to the north of the motorway. The advertisement panels would be positioned approximately 8m above ground level so that they would be visible to both south-east bound and north-west bound traffic on the elevated section of the motorway as well as to vehicles approaching the junction along Trafford Boulevard. The tower would be positioned adjacent to the existing directional signage that is sited on a gantry structure, which spans the motorway at this point. There is also a CCTV camera mounted on a pole immediately adjacent to this.

There are residential properties to the south at Stroma Gardens and Benbecula Way, on the other side of the traffic island. In other directions, the surrounding area is largely commercial in character with the Trafford Centre to the east, the Chill Factor-e ski slope, the golf driving range and other leisure facilities to the north and Trafford Retail Park to the west. The residential properties at Primrose Terrace on Trafford Boulevard to the north are now all vacant.

In addition to the overhead directional signs on the motorway, there are several other relatively large advertisement structures in the immediate vicinity of Junction 10. Approximately 75m to the north of the current application site, on the Trafford Boulevard verge at the south-west corner of the Trafford Centre, there is an approximately 15m high, externally illuminated, three sided tower, which houses individual tenant signs.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes a three sided tower structure measuring a total of 25.5m in height to the highest point with each side measuring 7m in width. Static, internally illuminated advertising panels would be set within each side of the structure. The advertising panels would measure 9.35m in height and approximately 6.5m in width and would be positioned approximately 8m above ground level.

The tower structure would comprise of an internal steel framework, which would be externally clad in steel / alloy panels. All three sides would incorporate horizontal inset lighting strips at the base and diagonal lighting at the top with the advertising panels in the


space in between. The advertising panels would be illuminated by means of fluorescent lighting behind a reinforced PVC printed screen.

This is one of a number of advertisements proposed at various sites around the Borough, which incorporate a bespoke Trafford design with the Council’s name in individual lettering on the totem support structure.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS)

Policy DP7 – Promote Environmental QualityPolicy RT4 – Management of the Highway Network

REVISED UDP


Trunk and Primary Route NetworkAdjacent to TCA1 – The Trafford Centre and its Vicinity


D1 – All New DevelopmentD10 – AdvertisementsENV2 – Improving the EnvironmentENV27 – Road CorridorsTCA1 – The Trafford Centre and its Vicinity


H/70853 – Formation of vehicular egress from Trafford Centre to Trafford Boulevard / Junction 10, M60 – Approved – 26/05/2009

H/58904 – Construction of new canal road crossing and associated roads and improvements to existing roads as part of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme – Land adjacent to Manchester Ship Canal, Trafford Boulevard and M60 - Approved – 18/02/2009

H/45557 – Display of one externally illuminated freestanding three sided sign incorporating non-illuminated individual tenant display panels - South West corner of Trafford Centre -

CONSULTATIONS

Highways Agency: Whilst the Highways Agency is not empowered to direct Local Planning Authorities on advertising matters, the Agency recommends that the proposed advertisement structure should be refused on the grounds that it would increase the potential for accidents on the M60 motorway and, as such, would be detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic.

The proposed location of the advert is clearly intended to attract the attention of drivers where they must pay the maximum attention to the prevailing highway and traffic conditions. By its nature, the advert will attract the attention of drivers as well as providing them with non-essential information and distracting them from the task of negotiating traffic movements. Such distractions will have negative effects on both the reaction time and braking distances of those traveling at speeds of up to 70mph.


In this particular case, the following specific points have been considered when assessing the proposal: -

1. The advert is positioned at a location where motorists need to pay maximum attention to the motorway when traveling at speeds of up to 70mph.

2. The advert is located adjacent to the Junction 10 northbound and southbound slip roads where southbound motorists need to pay maximum attention as they reduce their speed and leave the motorway and northbound vehicles need to pay full attention as they navigate into the correct lane.

3. The advert is to be positioned next to the Highways Agency gantry which holds important highway information. The non-essential information on the proposed advert could distract from the essential information on the gantry signs.

4. The proposed advert is to be 25.5m in height and located approximately 3m away from the motorway overlooking the carriageway. There are no other advertisement displays of similar scale or character in the vicinity of the site or at any other location on the M60 motorway and, as a result, this sign will be an unexpected sight to motorists and would therefore distract their attention.

5. A traffic accident is a Rare Random Multifactor Event and the advert would add an extra factor to the equation and consequently increase the chance of there being an accident.

Should the Planning Authority, resolve to grant consent for the advert, the following conditions should be attached: -

1. The maximum level of luminance of the signs hereby approved shall not exceed the limits set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 Part II of the Control of Advertisement Regulations 2007.

2. No lighting source shall be directly visible to drivers on the M60.3. The lighting of the signs shall not cause a glare problem to drivers on the M60.

Due to the size and location of the structure, the Agency would require that it has the appropriate Technical Approval that satisfies the criteria set out in the Design Manual Roads and Bridges. Should consent be granted, the applicant will need to submit this information to the Agency.

The HA has submitted a further response in relation to the applicant’s comments as follows: -

The reason the HA did not refer to the WSP report in its response was because its findings were inconclusive. Indeed, it recommended that further scientific research was needed to explore the link between roadside advertising and driver distraction, stating that “Existing data sources are not sufficiently detailed or accurate to demonstrate conclusively whether there is a link between advertising and distraction.” In the conclusion, it states that “though there is no overall consensus, it is widely argued or perceived to be a distraction to some drivers in certain circumstances and, as such, potentially poses a road safety risk.” Nowhere in the report does it state that roadside advertisements do not distract drivers. The HA’s priority is the safety of road users and, until evidence is provided to the contrary, the Agency’s view is that roadside adverts are a distraction to motorists. Traffic and Transportation: The LHA raises no objection to the proposed advertising unit and supporting tower structure. From Trafford Boulevard, the advertising unit will be visible from a considerable distance and drivers will be able to view the tower and advertising content over a period of approach without being unduly distracted. For drivers on the local highway network at Junction 10, the advertising unit will be well above their normal sight line and also well above the level of traffic signs and signal heads. It is therefore again considered that the advertising unit will not constitute a significant distraction for drivers on the roundabout at Junction 10.


The LHA is aware of the comments made by the Highways Agency on this application. The level of the advertising unit in relation to the M60 carriageway and driver’s sight lines is very different to that of drivers on the local highway network. In addition, vehicle speeds and driver reaction times are also very different on the motorway compared to the local roads. The LHA, however, wishes to make no comment in respect to whether the advertising unit would constitute a significant distraction to drivers on the M60 but would leave the view on such matters to the Highways Agency as the Highway Authority for this trunk road motorway.

Built Environment: No comments received to date

GM Police: No objections provided that the tower is fitted with a secure steel access door with high security locks in order to ensure that the tower and platforms cannot be accssed.


The applicant has submitted a covering letter making the following comments: -

The structure is an innovative modern design, which will become a landmark feature like the inspired Chill Factor ski slope, and is a bold and inspiring piece of architecture. It would not harm visual amenity, given the local context and the scale of commercial activity in the vicinity of the site.

Consultation has been carried out with the HA and a report has been submitted addressing its concerns relating to potential driver distraction together with an extract from the HA’s research document on roadside advertising displays. The report concludes that the proposed adverts would not prejudice highway safety for the users of either Trafford Boulevard or the M60.

The scale of the structure will ensure that it is readily visible and easily assimilated by drivers in advance and on approach to the junction. Drivers will have ample opportunity to see the simple static images being displayed without distraction or negative impact on road safety.

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement, which makes the following comments: -

The document published by the Scottish Executive, to which the Agency has referred, refers to literature produced over the past 50 years and none of the studies seems to have been undertaken in the past ten years. The document is not relevant to today’s driving conditions and accepts that more research is required using contemporary methods.

A recent study was published by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research at Virginia Tech’s Transportation Institute (VTTI) in the United States and an Executive Summary of the report has been submitted with the application. The report concludes that “the overall conclusion from all past research is that conventional billboards in general have not been shown to cause traffic accidents or change driver behaviour.”

There are many other visual stimuli for drivers along this stretch of the M60 including the Chill Factor ski slope, the Trafford Centre totem signage and the existing motorway signage. On long journeys, the presence of visual stimuli can be valuable in assisting drivers to maintain concentration and alertness.

On both carriageways, there are advanced gantry signs referring to the upcoming Junction 10, which would mean that drivers leaving the motorway at this point would have already been advised of the junction well in advance.


The Chill Factor building was constructed in 2007 and would create a similar kind of distraction. Traffic Accident Data has been obtained and submitted for the area immediately around Junction 10 for the period of November 2003 to October 2008 and there has been no perceptible change in the accident record on this stretch of the M60 since Chill Factor was constructed. There are numerous visual stimuli and drivers can cope with this and are not naïve enough to be materially distracted by any one particular element.

Two recent appeals for advertisements in Greater Manchester, on the M602 in Salford and on the M60 in Oldham, have been allowed. Numerous other appeals have been allowed for similar adverts, for example on the M1 and the M4 in London and on the M6 in the West Midlands.

The structure would be seen from a considerable distance and drivers would have time to assimilate the images being displayed without needing to adjust their behaviour. The proposed advertisement structure would be located in the centre of the junction and not adjacent to the off slip roads. This is also a reasonably straight section of the M60 unlike the successful appeal site in Oldham, which was on the inside of a bend.

The structure would be located adjacent to the gantry sign for eastbound traffic only and as they can both be seen for at least 3/4km, they can be assimilated safely so as not to cause a material safety issue.

Whilst the advert would be one extra factor as the HA state, this would not add materially to the chances of an accident on this section of the M60.

The vehicular speeds along Trafford Boulevard as well as the numerous other visual stimuli are such that the proposed advert would not cause any material safety issues for drivers along this section of carriageway.

In response to the HA’s consultation response, the applicant has submitted a letter making the following comments: -

The HA refers to two research papers, one by the Scottish Executive in 2003 and one by Brunel University in 2008. The Scottish Executive paper is a literary review of published research and is aimed at identifying the areas where research is lacking. The report was not based on any new research and simply confirms the lack of any empirical evidence to demonstrate that advertising causes distraction to drivers. The Brunel Report was assessed in a critique by Dr. Paul Barber, which has been submitted by the applicant and which argues that the evidence for these effects “is weak in most key respects, equivocal in others, and based on a flawed methodology.”

The applicant has submitted a summary of a report entitled “The Impact of Roadside Advertising on Driver Distraction” commissioned by the HA through WSP and published in June 2008. This states that “The lack of data or scientific evidence means that the case against roadside advertising generally relies upon anecdotal evidence and a perception that it can be distracting...”

The applicant accepts that the locations of adverts need to be considered carefully but considers that, in this particular case, the proposed location and the nature of the adverts would not prejudice road safety.

The advert would represent only a third of each façade and would only become recognizable as an advertising image when a driver is nearer than 100m from the structure. The decision as to whether to leave the motorway will have already been made before the advert has the potential to attract their attention. Drivers who


continue on the M60, passing the advert, will not be required to undertake any greater care than that required to drive in a straight line.

Although the proposed structure would be positioned adjacent to a gantry sign, this is located on the eastern bound carriageway only. The information on the gantry sign forewarns drivers of the exit to Trafford Park at Junction 9, which is 11/4 km away. This information is repeated at 3/4km and at 200m before that junction. It is not accepted that the advert would inhibit a driver’s ability to assimilate the information on the road sign but, even if a driver were to miss this sign, the second and third signs would alert them to the exit.

The applicant has no objections to the HA’s suggested conditions.

The applicant considers that the approach of the HA is misguided and relies upon anecdotal views and subjective judgement, based on a presumption against proposals of this type rather than an objective consideration of the prevailing road conditions. . .

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection received, making the following comments: -

There are enough unsightly views and objectionable lighting and noise pollution within this area without an additional monstrosity directly visible from the windows of nearby residential properties together with additional lighting that will cause problems at night.

The residents of the area around Junction 10 do not want any further structures. The ski slope already causes problems with TV reception without any further structures being erected. Will the Council please put the residents before revenue for a change?

Residents have not been given sufficient time to comment on the application.

OBSERVATIONS

AMENITY

1. The structure is of the same “Trafford” design as a number of other proposals for advertising structures including those that have recently been permitted at Bridgewater Way (H/ADV/70404) and the White City roundabout (H/ADV/70379). These adverts are intended to create a uniform series of landmark features across the Borough.

2. Proposal D10 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan states that advertisements will be assessed against a number of criteria, including whether the proposal would be unduly obtrusive by reason of its size, height or long range of visibility, whether the proposal will be seen mainly from or against the background of open land and whether the proposal would be visually harmful to the street scene or the character of the area.

3. Proposal ENV2 – Improving the Environment – states that special efforts will be made to improve the environment at gateway sites and on major road corridors. Proposal ENV27 – Road Corridors – states that the council will seek to improve the environment along major road corridors including the M60 motorway.

4. Planning Policy Guidance Note 19, Outdoor Advertisement Control, includes an annex on “Criteria for deciding applications and appeals involving poster sites”. Paragraph 8


states that “In predominantly commercial surroundings, the scale of the buildings may be sufficiently large to accommodate larger poster displays without any adverse effect upon visual amenity”. Paragraph 13 states that “Freestanding roadside panels should always be in scale with the buildings on either side and in the surrounding area, in precisely the same way as any other commercial development.”

5. From all directions the advertising tower would be seen in the context of the existing motorway infrastructure. From vehicles approaching along the motorway from the south-east, it would also be seen against medium to long distance views of the Chill Factor ski slope. For vehicles approaching from the north-west, it would be seen against views of the Trafford Centre. It would also be adjacent to directional signage mounted on an overhead gantry spanning the motorway and would be of a similar height. From Trafford Boulevard, it would be seen against the backdrop of the motorway, which is already elevated above the Junction 10 roundabout at this point and which continues to rise to the north-west where the high level bridge carries it across the Ship Canal into Salford. Although the structure would be visible from some residential properties to the south-east, it would be on the opposite side of the elevated motorway carriageway, approximately 120m from the nearest house.

6. The structure would be very prominent but it is considered that, within this context of the motorway infrastructure and the very large commercial structures in the vicinity of the site, the scale of the advertisement tower would not be inappropriate and that, in this particular siting, it would also relate to the scale of the adjacent gantry signs. It is also considered that, although there is a large amount of commercial signage within the surrounding area, in particular on Trafford Boulevard and at Trafford Retail Park, this is generally located far enough away or in such a position for it not to be seen in the immediate context and therefore not to have any significant cumulative impact in terms of visual clutter. In addition, given the distance to the nearest residential properties, the position of the structure on the opposite side of the motorway and the general commercial nature of the backdrop to the north, it is considered that it would not cause any significant harm to residential amenity.

7. The proposal is for a unique, bespoke design sited in a strategic position at the centre of Junction 10, which is a gateway location but which is also a setting that is currently dominated by the motorway infrastructure and large commercial structures. The vertical proportions of the proposed advertisement structure, together with its illumination and materials, would differentiate it from the more standard designs of hoardings.

8. It is also noted that there have been a number of recent appeal decisions in other areas of the country where similar sized advertising structures have been allowed adjacent to motorways and major trunk roads. In a decision from February 2008 relating to a similar 26m high advertising structure adjacent to the A5 in London, the inspector allowed the appeal and stated that “The display unit would be of a unique and innovative design” and “would improve the character and appearance of the area”. Another appeal decision from June 2005 related to a 27m high advertising tower adjacent to the M4 in London. The appeal was allowed and the inspector stated that “the structure is an innovative and even attractive design.” In a further appeal decision relating to a 26m high structure adjacent to the M5 in the West Midlands, the inspector described the structure as “a high quality innovative landmark feature”, which “would make a bold, positive addition to the visual amenity…of the area.” It is therefore clear that, whilst these decisions have tended to relate to areas with a more industrial character, a number of inspectors have concluded that advertising towers of this height are not inappropriate in terms of visual amenity within the context of major road infrastructure and a backdrop of large buildings in commercial areas.

9. In this context, it is considered that, although the structure will be very large, highly prominent and visible over a long distance, it would be appropriate in visual terms at


this strategic gateway location and would not have a detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the area or prejudice the objectives of UDP Proposals D1 with regards to design, D10 with regards to advertisements or ENV2 and ENV27 with regards to environmental improvements along major road corridors. It is recommended that, if planning permission is granted, a landscaping condition should be attached to ensure that replacement landscaping is provided for that which will need to be removed to accommodate the structure.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

10. The tower structure and advertising units are of a scale that could potentially create a distraction for motorists. Paragraph 8.12 of the Council’s Planning Guidelines, Advertisements, states that “signs should not be so distracting that they would cause a hazard to people taking reasonable care.” Paragraph 15 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 19, Outdoor Advertisement Control, states that “The vital consideration in assessing an advertisement’s impact, is whether the advertisement itself, or the exact location proposed for its display, is likely to be so distracting, or so confusing, that it creates a hazard to, or endangers, people in the vicinity who are taking reasonable care for their own and others’ safety.”

11. Appendix B to Circular 03/2007, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, relates to the Consideration of the possible effect of advertisements on public safety. Paragraph 2 of Appendix B lists the main types of advertisement that may cause danger to road users. These include “those which, because of their size or siting, would obstruct or confuse a road user’s view or reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic sign or signal, or would be likely to distract road users because of their unusual nature” and those which “are so close to…official traffic signs that road users might be confused in the vicinity of a road junction or other traffic hazard.” Paragraph 6 relates specifically to motorways and states that “Local planning authorities should ensure that on other land alongside motorways no advertisements which could adversely affect amenity or constitute a danger to traffic are allowed.”

12. With respect to the local highway network, the LHA has raised no objections taking into account the likely speed of vehicles on Trafford Boulevard, the siting of the structure, which will be seen in the context of existing views of the motorway infrastructure, and the relatively long approach to the advert along this road, which will give drivers sufficient opportunity to assimilate the information. The LHA comments that, from Trafford Boulevard, the advertising unit will be visible from a considerable distance and drivers will be able to view the tower and advertising content over a period of approach without being unduly distracted. For drivers on the local highway network at Junction 10, the advertising unit will be well above their normal sight line and also well above the level of traffic signs and signal heads and would therefore not constitute a significant distraction for drivers on the roundabout at Junction 10.

13. In respect of the motorway network, whilst the Highways Agency is not empowered to direct local planning authorities in respect of applications for Advertisement Consent, it has recommended that the application should be refused on the grounds that it would increase the potential for accidents on the motorway and, as such, would be detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic.

14. The Agency has considered the proposals in relation to the DCLG Circular 03/07 Appendix B, which sets out the relevant considerations to be taken into account with regards to the effect of advertisements on public safety. This states that “All advertisements are intended to attract attention. But particular consideration should be given to site advertisements at points where drivers need to take more care, for instance at junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, on the approach to a low bridge or level crossing, or other locations where local conditions present traffic


hazards.” The Agency also refers to research that has been published by the Scottish Executive, Transport Planning Group, which is entitled “External to Vehicle Driver Distraction”. The executive summary notes that vehicle distraction is a serious problem in road safety and identifies both internal to vehicle and external to vehicle distraction, stating that external distraction is likely to be a larger contributory factor than is commonly stated and that it seems likely that advertisements are a major contributory factor to such incidents. The Agency considers that this study supports the guidance contained in Paragraph 6 of Appendix B of Circular 03/07, which states that “Local Planning Authorities should ensure that on other land alongside motorways no advertisements which could adversely affect amenity or constitute a danger to traffic are allowed.”

15. The Agency has commented that the proposed location of the advert is clearly intended to attract the attention of drivers where they must pay the maximum attention to the prevailing highway and traffic conditions. By its nature, the advert will attract the attention of drivers as well as providing them with non-essential information and distracting them from the task of negotiating traffic movements. The Agency considers that such distractions will have negative effects on both the reaction time and braking distances of those traveling at speeds of up to 70mph.

16. In this particular case, the following specific points have been considered by the Agency when assessing the proposal: -

The advert is positioned at a location where motorists need to pay maximum attention to the motorway when traveling at speeds of up to 70mph.

The advert is located adjacent to the Junction 10 northbound and southbound slip roads where southbound motorists need to pay maximum attention as they reduce their speed and leave the motorway and northbound vehicles need to pay full attention as they navigate into the correct lane.

The advert is to be positioned next to the Highways Agency gantry which holds important highway information. The non-essential information on the proposed advert could distract from the essential information on the gantry signs.

The proposed advert is to be 25.5m in height and located approximately 3m away from the motorway overlooking the carriageway. There are no other advertisement displays of similar scale or character in the vicinity of the site or at any other location on the M60 motorway and, as a result, this sign will be an unexpected sight to motorists and would therefore distract their attention.

A traffic accident is a Rare Random Multifactor Event and the advert would add an extra factor to the equation and consequently increase the chance of there being an accident.

17. In response to the Agency’s comments, the applicant has stated that the structure would be seen from a considerable distance, which would ensure that drivers would have ample time to assimilate the images being displayed They state that the proposed advertisement would be located in the centre of the junction and not adjacent to the off slip roads and therefore drivers will have made the decision as to whether to leave the motorway before the advert has the potential to attract their attention. Furthermore, they state that, although the structure would be positioned adjacent to a gantry sign, this is located on the eastern bound carriageway only and that the information on the gantry sign only forewarns drivers of the exit to Trafford Park at Junction 9, which is 11/4 km away. They state that there are two more signs providing this information before that junction and that, even if a driver were to miss this sign, the second and third signs would alert them to the exit. They therefore conclude that, in this particular case, the proposed location and the nature of the adverts would not prejudice road safety.

18. The applicant has also submitted a number of appeal decisions relating to large adverts that have been allowed adjacent to motorways, including in London and the


West Midlands as well as two adjacent to the M60 in Greater Manchester. However, it is noted that, in one of these decisions, relating to a 96 sheet poster panel in Oldham, the Inspector stated that other similar decisions “will have been taken on the merits of those particular cases. They cannot be regarded as a precedent with regard to displays next to motorways.”

19. The Agency considers that no conclusive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that roadside advertisements do not distract drivers. It also considers that this particular location is not appropriate due to its proximity to Junction 10 where there is a particular need for drivers to concentrate on the driving conditions and the movements of other vehicles and due to its potential to distract attention from the adjacent essential motorway directional signage. It has therefore concluded that the application should be refused on the grounds that it would increase the potential for accidents on the M60 motorway and, as such, would be detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic. Whilst it is considered that the free flow of traffic cannot be a reason for refusal of Advertisement Consent, the responsible Highway Authority, the Highways Agency, has indicated that the proposed advertisement would have a detrimental impact on public safety on the strategic highway network. In these circumstances, it is considered that the application should be refused on this basis.

CONCLUSION

20. The proposed structure would of a bespoke design in a strategic location and, although it would be very prominent, it is considered that, within the particular context of the motorway and the very large commercial structures in the vicinity of the site, the scale and design of the tower would not be inappropriate. The proposed advertising tower is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of amenity. However, in terms of public safety, whilst no objections are raised in respect of the local highway network, it is considered that the proposed advertisement is likely to cause an unacceptable distraction to drivers traveling at speeds of 70mph on the motorway, particularly at this location close to a busy junction and adjacent to existing highway directional signage. It is therefore considered that the proposal will increase the potential for accidents and will have a detrimental impact on highway safety on the strategic motorway network. On this basis, it is recommended that the application should be refused.


1. The proposed advertisement, by reason of its siting, size, height, design and luminance, would cause an unacceptable distraction to drivers on the motorway in close proximity to a busy junction and adjacent to highway directional signage and would therefore increase the potential for accidents and have a harmful impact on public safety on the strategic motorway network’ The advertisement would therefore be contrary to Proposal D10 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Planning Guidelines, Advertisements.

SD



Rose Bank

BM 23.48m#



WARD: Timperley H/71517 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF A DWELLINGHOUSE INCLUDING ACCESS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING.

Land to the rear of 89 Bloomsbury Lane, Timperley,

APPLICANT: Ian Hunter Architects

AGENT: As above


Councillor Taylor has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Development Control Committee for the reasons set out in the report.

SITE

The application site comprises a vacant, overgrown site on the north side of Bloomsbury Lane. The site was formerly the rear garden of No. 89 Bloomsbury Lane and is accessed via a vehicular access to the side of this property which opens out into a rectangular area measuring approximately 31m by 15m enclosed by the rear gardens of surrounding residential properties. The boundary treatment enclosing the site is predominantly a mixture of native hedge species and fencing approximately 1.8m - 2m in height.

The application is located within a predominantly residential area of mixed residential character.

PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the erection of a 3 bedroom dwellinghouse. This is a full application and includes details of landscaping, access and parking. The proposed dwelling would have a maximum height of 6.4 metres and would include accommodation at ground and first floor level within the roof. A solar hot water heater is proposed in the roof.

The proposed access would utilise the existing unmade vehicular access off Bloomsbury Lane. Parking on the access drive would be restricted to a 12 metre section closest to the road by the installation of bollards.

The plans have been amended from those originally submitted in relation to siting, roof heights, window details and landscaping details.


PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICIESRDF1 – Spatial PrioritiesL4 – Regional Housing ProvisionMCR1 – Manchester City Region PrioritiesMCR3 – Southern Part of the Manchester City Region





None


H1 – Land Release for New Housing Development H2 – Location and Phasing of New Development H3 – Land Release for Development H4 – Release of Land for Development ENV16 – Red Rose ForestOSR9 – Open Space in New Housing DevelopmentD1 – All New Development D2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential DevelopmentD13 – Energy Considerations in New Development


H/OUT/47058 – Erection of a detached house and integral garage and provision of 3 parking spaces – Planning permission refused on 03/06/1999 for the following reason:

‘The proposed development by reason of its location at the rear of the existing properties would be out of keeping with the character of the area. Furthermore, the use of the proposed vehicular access and parking area in close proximity to 89 and 91 Bloomsbury Lane and 4 and 6 Alexander Drive would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of those properties could reasonably expect to enjoy and the position of the proposal would provide the potential for overlooking leading to loss of privacy and amenity of the those affected neighbours. As such the proposal would be contrary to proposals D1 and D3 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Planning Guidelines New Residential Development.’

A subsequent appeal was dismissed on 13 March 2000 with the Inspector concluding that the development would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area but would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of local residents.

H/OUT/47931 - Erection of a detached bungalow and integral garage. Planning permission refused on 21/10/1999 for the following reason:

‘‘The proposed development by reason of its location at the rear of the existing properties would be out of keeping with the character of the area. Furthermore, the use of the proposed vehicular access and parking area in close proximity to 89 and 91 Bloomsbury Lane and 4 and 6 Alexander Drive would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of those properties could reasonably expect to enjoy. As such the proposal would be contrary to proposals D1 and D3 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Planning Guidelines New Residential Development.’

A subsequent appeal was dismissed on 3 May 2000 with the Inspector concluding that the development would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area but would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of local residents.

H/OUT/55019 – Outline application for the erection of a two storey dwelling – Planning permission refused on 29/07/2003 for the following reason:


‘The proposed development by reason of its location at the rear of the existing properties and the use of the proposed vehicular access and parking areas in close proximity to 87 and 91 Bloomsbury Lane and 4 and 6 Alexander Road would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of those properties could reasonably expect to enjoy and the position of the proposal relative to the adjoining properties would provide the potential for overlooking leading to the loss of privacy and amenity of those affected neighbours. As such the proposal would be contrary to proposals D1 and D3 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Planning Guidelines New Residential Development.

A subsequent appeal was dismissed on 30 March 2004 with the Inspector again concluding that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area but would harm the amenities of local residents.

H/60776 – Erection of a garage – Planning permission approved on 27/01/2005

H/OUT/69182 – Outline application for the erection of a dwellinghouse with associated access and parking which included bollards restricting the parking area to a 12 metre section adjacent to Bloomsbury Lane. Planning permission was refused by the Planning Development Control Committee on 11/12/08 for the following reasons:

‘The proposed development by reason of the intensification of the use of the proposed vehicular access and parking area in close proximity to 87 and 91 Bloomsbury Lane, the increased coming and goings, resultant noise and disturbance and loss of privacy would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of those properties could reasonable expect to enjoy. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Planning Guidelines New Residential Development.’

‘The proposed vehicular access and parking area by reason of their size and location, would prevent access to the proposed dwelling by emergency vehicles to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.’

A subsequent appeal was allowed on 19th May 2009 with the Inspector concluding the following:

‘The impact on the adjacent properties would not be significantly different from that of other properties in the street where parking is available on driveways….It would have no significant impact on the quietest parts of the gardens at these properties, namely those at the rear, and the impact at the sides and front would be limited by the proposed acoustic fencing. As a result I do not consider that the development would cause unacceptable harm in respect of additional vehicle movements. It is my view that likely pedestrian movements along the access would not differ significantly from the levels of a normal domestic garden environment.

I note that the Greater Manchester Fire Authority, Greater Manchester Police Authority and North West Ambulance Authority have indicated that the access arrangements to the property would be acceptable to them. I therefore conclude that no significant harm would be caused to living conditions at the development by reason of access for emergency vehicles.’

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which addresses in detail the following; Location and Context, Site History including Inspectors Comments, Planning Policy, Use and Amount, Layout, Scale and Massing, Appearance, Sustainability, Landscaping, Access and Noise. The main conclusions are as follows:


By nature of its previous use as curtilage to 89, Bloomsbury Lane, the site is classed as Brownfield land and is therefore suitable in principle for such a development

The orientation and massing of the proposals would not cause unacceptable overshadowing or overlooking of the adjoining properties

Vehicular access and parking has been proved acceptable and suitable by the previous planning approval and this application utilises these proposals without making a material amendment

The proposal will make a positive contribution to the area The principle and design of the proposal is acceptable and suitable The proposal in terms of design and layout are sympathetic to the area and adjoining

properties With regards to the Code for Sustainable homes, the intention is to include a Solar Hot

Water heater; the remaining aspects to achieve level 3 or 4 relate mainly to the specification of materials, ensuring adequate daylighting, reduction in the water consumption (including the use of rainwater/ grey water), the use of energy efficient appliances and lighting, the reduction in construction waste etc

Emergency vehicles have no requirements to enter the site The proposals conform to local and national planning policies including D1 and D3 of the

Revised Trafford UDP.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Highway Authority – The proposals are for a three bedroom dwellinghouse. To meet the Council’s car parking standards the provision of three car parking spaces should be made, however, in this case the LHA would accept the provision of two car parking spaces. The proposed parking area at the front of the site provides tandem parking for two vehicles, however, concern remains that the provision of high level fencing on either side of the driveway will restrict pedestrian visibility. However, an approval for a dwellinghouse on this site with an identical parking arrangement was approved on appeal in recent months and therefore there is no objection to the proposals on highways grounds. The applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.

Built Environment (Drainage) – Recommends informatives

Environmental Protection – No comments received at the time of writing. Any comments received prior to the Committee meeting will be included within the Additional Information Report.

Pollution and Licensing – The application site is situated on brownfield land and therefore contaminated land condition is recommended.

Strategic Planning And Development – Comments on policy and the principle of the development are incorporated in the Observations section below.

GM Ecology Unit - The site appears to be a neglected and overgrown garden that has become naturalised. It supports a number of semi-mature trees and shrubs including hawthorn, sycamore, holly, yew and hazel and a dense field layer including common nettle, bramble, willowherbs and bedstraws. Some of the trees form overgrown hedgerows at the boundaries of the site. At the time of the site visit we recorded a number of bird species using the site, including Dunnock (Hedge Accentor), a priority species for conservation as listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. We also recorded a number of immature common frogs on the site. The site is not designated for its nature conservation value and it is not adjacent to any designated sites. It is not considered to have high potential to support protected species. It


does not form part of a wildlife corridor. However, the site does have local wildlife interest and does support priority species for conservation as listed in the UK BAP. It is therefore recommended – That no site clearance, including removal of vegetation, takes place during the optimum

period for bird nesting (March to July inclusive). That trees and shrubs forming hedgerows at the boundaries of the application site be

retained (or replaced if removed) as important nature conservation features That care be taken during any site clearance work to avoid harm to amphibians (for

example, by carrying out works during the autumn and/or by capturing any amphibians and moving them to a place of safety)

United Utilities – No objection from Water Services although a separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant’s expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water (water fittings) regulations 1999.

Electricity Services comment that the development is shown to be adjacent to/include their electricity distribution equipment and therefore it is essential that the applicant check that they are within their own land ownership and that United Utilities maintenance and/or access rights are maintained. The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity. In addition, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – The proposed dwelling would be quite isolated, having little relation to the street. Uncontrolled access to the dwelling makes security a concern due to the lack of surveillance. The parking spaces lack surveillance given the distance from the house to the parking spaces. However the proposed use of the land will improve the security of those houses that back onto the vacant plot. The addition of domestic gates to the front of the driveway would provide a reasonable level of security to cars and give clarity of ownership. The proposed house would benefit from Secured By Design standard doors, windows, doors etc which could be dealt with via condition.

REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor Taylor – has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Development Control Committee as he has concerns about the following aspects of the application:- Scale and Massing Loss of wild life Potential fire hazard Loss of privacy Concerns over the drive and reversing out of the drive.

Neighbours - 3 letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 87 and 91, Bloomsbury Lane and 4, Alexandra Drive, raising the following concerns:

Increased overlooking resulting in loss of privacy. The proposed front and rear windows are not the required 15 metres from the gardens of No. 89 Bloomsbury and No. 10, Alexandra Drive.

Loss of outlook –the building is too close to the boundaries and cramped and would be an imposing and dominant structure when viewed from surrounding properties.

Building would be out of character with the area – scale is too big Height – applications may have been approved in the past for houses of this height

but this house is not in the normal housing position and comparisons cannot be drawn. The applicant has referred to the application as one and a half storey but it is a 2 storey building and should comply with the regulations for such a dwelling.


Increased traffic going past the front and rear gardens of the adjacent properties would result in noise that would be detrimental to their living standard. Acoustic treatments would not make any difference to first floor rooms.

Loss of trees and good wildlife habitat No indication of what type of trees are proposed on the site. Previously trees on the

site have had to be cut back as they have been too tall and have blocked out light. Neighbouring properties should have the right to vet the type of trees.

Access would be limited and this was reflected in the LHA’s rejection of the last application but overlooked by the Inspector for reasons unknown. It is now Trafford responsibility to heed the warning made by the LHA.

The statement refers to cycle storage and other storage which indicates that there will be additional structures on the site. These may in the future be used a work areas.

The Inspector stated that the driveway is similar to adjacent properties but No. 91 has two driveways and No. 89 has a much wider driveway. The other properties on the road with long narrow accesses do not have walls either side restricting movement and it is noteworthy that there is increased on-road parking around these properties.

The addition of acoustic boundary treatments would narrow the driveway making it difficult to enter or exit a car easily. Parking in tandem would make it even more difficult to access the deeper car and making on road parking more likely.

Visibility when exiting the driveway would be limited which would impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety

Any bollards fitted should not be easily removable and their position guaranteed. Emergency access into the site would be very difficult Proposal does not accord with the development plan Land ownership – there is a potential dispute regarding the exact border with No. 91,

Bloomsbury Lane. The hedge is a problem as it is shared with No. 89 and it would be difficult to avoid damage to the hedge and fence.

A clause is present in the deeds which mentions that the land should not be used for running any form of business

Noise and disturbance during construction period. Burning of materials must not be allowed.

At the last planning committee it was mentioned that no more such applications should be allowed to go through wasting taxpayers money and time

The application has gone to the Inspectorate four times, the first three were rejected due to loss of amenity to adjacent properties. The last appeal was for a single storey dwelling not a two storey building. There must be a means of sanctuary from this bombardment of serial applications. The variations in the form of the applications are a strategy to confuse.

Neighbours have been re-notified regarding the amendments to the proposal. Any further comments received prior to the Committee meeting will be included within the Additional Information Report.

OBSERVATIONS


1. The application proposes a development of one detached dwellinghouse on the site and as such would have previously fallen to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy published by the Secretary of State in March 2008 – and now formally published (in September 2008) – must carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the former published Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation


and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004). The reasons for this changed position are twofold.

2. Firstly, with regard to new housing provision, new RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance replacement) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a figure of 578 dwellings per year – with the requirement now being expressly described as a minimum figure to be achieved rather than a maximum as previously described in the 2003 published RSS.

3. Secondly, the new target requirement set out in the new RSS means that the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, given that it explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.

4. Arising from the above, therefore, the principal relevant new RSS policies that must now be applied to this application are the Policies RDF1, MCR1, MCR3 and L4.

Policy RDF1 identifies 3 broad priorities for growth across the region – the first being the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool, the second being the inner areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration and the third being the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities (including Altrincham). In relation to the third priority areas for growth, the Policy states that: -

“Development should be focused in and around the centres of the towns and cities. Development elsewhere may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies, notably DP1 to 9. Emphasis should be placed on addressing regeneration and housing market renewal and restructuring.”

Policies L4, MCR1 and MCR3 identify the detailed priorities for growth in the Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the southern part of the Manchester City Region.

Policies MCR1 and MCR3 refer to the Plans and Strategies to be applied respectively across the Manchester City Region and the southern part of the City Region.

Policy MCR1 indicates that as a priority plans and strategies should support interventions to achieve a significant improvement in the economic performance of the whole city region. Specifically in relation to housing it proposes that high quality development in locations that are accessible by public transport to areas of economic growth should be proposed. Emphasis is placed on proposing a high level of development in inner areas to meet the needs of existing residents and attract and retain new population so that a significant increase in the resident population can be secured to support economic growth.

Policy MCR3 refers to the Plans and Strategies to be applied across the southern part of the Manchester city region – the area the application site clearly lies within. Within this area the spatial development priorities expressly spelled out in the policy in relation to new residential development are: -

“To support local regeneration strategies and meet identified local needs (particularly for affordable housing), in sustainable locations which are well served by public transport.”


Policy L4 seeks to monitor and manage the availability of housing land identified in Plans and Strategies and through development control decisions on proposals and schemes. The accompanying text amplifies this position by stating the following: -

“Except in that part of Trafford lying within or adjacent to the Regional Centre, continued careful monitoring and management of housing provision will be necessary to ensure that new housing development does not result in an adverse cumulative impact on local and neighbouring housing markets. Provision should focus on meeting local and affordable housing needs and support agreed local regeneration strategies.”

5. The application proposal as described by the applicant is a wholly general market housing development proposal. As a wholly general market housing proposal it falls to be considered against the RSS criteria (set out in Policy L4 and Policy MCR3): -

a) Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy;b) Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,c) Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport

6. In terms of criteria (b) and (c) the proposal is located in a sustainable location as it proposes the reuse of previously developed brownfield land and bus routes on Grove Lane and Stockport Road are classed as ‘accessible’ in terms of their proximity. In terms of (a) however the merits of the proposal are less clear given its relatively distant location (in excess of 1 km) from the edge of the Altrincham Town Centre Priority Regeneration Area.

7. In conclusion, on the issue of principle, the strategic spatial planning imperative set out within the RSS instructs the Council to manage development within Trafford to support growth firstly within the Regional Centre, secondly in the inner areas surrounding the Regional Centre and thirdly elsewhere in the Borough to support growth in the centre and inner areas of Altrincham and other areas in need of regeneration and to meet affordable housing needs.

8. Whilst the proposal does not strictly align with the development focus set in RSS Policy L4, the development is small in scale and proposes the development of new family housing accommodation. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) therefore it is considered that it would not be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development and therefore this application could not be opposed on housing land policy terms. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed as they arise to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4.

9. Notwithstanding the above it is also noted that outline planning permission has been granted on appeal for a dwelling in this location. Therefore the principle of a residential unit has been established and is considered acceptable.

IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY10. The application site has been the subject of several applications and appeals with regard

to erecting a dwelling on the site. The consideration of these appeals and the Inspectors’ reasoning with regard to the determination of each appeal is a material consideration in this application. In the first three appeals the Inspectors concluded that the development would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area but would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of local residents due to the more intensive use of the access drive by traffic. However the Inspector in the fourth and


most recent appeal considered that the specific design of the previous application (H/OUT/69182) had adequately addressed the potential for disturbance by restricting the vehicular movement within the site through the erection of bollards approximately 12m back from the highway. This would prohibit vehicular access into the site and concentrates this activity to the front of the site where vehicular parking and movement are characteristic. The Inspector considered that:

‘The impact on the adjacent properties would not be significantly different from that of other properties in the street where parking is available on driveways….It would have no significant impact on the quietest parts of the gardens at these properties, namely those at the rear, and the impact at the sides and front would be limited by the proposed acoustic fencing. As a result I do not consider that the development would cause unacceptable harm in respect of additional vehicle movements. It is my view that likely pedestrian movements along the access would not differ significantly from the levels of a normal domestic garden environment.’

11. The current proposal shows the same arrangement and subject to a condition requiring the retention of the bollards, is considered acceptable.

12. The current application is a full application for a new dwelling with accommodation at ground and first floor level. The siting of the proposed unit would achieve minimum separation distances of 13.6 metres and 14.8 metres to the rear of No’s 6 and 8, Alexander Drive respectively. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidelines for New Residential Development state that ‘where overshadowing is likely with a main elevation facing a two storey blank gable the minimum distance of 15 metres should normally be provided’. This is to ensure that the proposed elevations would not have an unduly over-dominating impact to neighbouring elevations. However the eaves level of the building in the limited area where the new dwelling fails to meet the 15 metre requirement in relation to No’s 6 and 8 Alexander Drive is 3.9 metres in height and is therefore that of a single storey elevation at this point. The 15 metres requirement relates to a two storey elevation and the new dwelling is not therefore required to meet that guideline where it is at ground floor height only. The building would back onto the garden area of No. 10, Alexander Drive and would retain in excess of 15 metres between the remaining proposed elevations and the nearest windows in the adjacent properties on Bloomsbury Lane and Colebrook Road. The design of the building is such that the first floor accommodation is significantly less than the ground floor accommodation and the sloping main roof and low maximum height of 6.4 metres are considered to mitigate against any potential overshadowing or overdomination of the neighbouring properties.

13. In order to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring dwellings, the Council’s Guidelines for New Residential Development refer to a distance of 27m between principal elevations across rear private gardens. As a result of the design of the elevations the only elevation containing main habitable room windows at first floor level from which a view could be gained is the proposed southeast elevation towards Bloomsbury Lane. The proposed siting of the building would achieve a separation distance of approximately 24.2 m in relation to No. 89 Bloomsbury Lane, which is considered acceptable given that it is offset in relation to No. 89 and the window in the south elevation of the proposed dwelling would not directly face the windows in the north facing principal elevation of this dwelling.

14. Rooflights are proposed in the east and west elevations of the dwelling however cross section drawings submitted with the application show that these rooflights would be set a minimum of 1.8 metres above the floor level in the room that they serve. This will ensure that meaningful views out of these windows will not be possible and therefore there should be no loss of privacy to the private garden areas or habitable rooms in the properties to the east or west on Alexander Drive or Colebrook Road. A single window is proposed at first floor level in the northern elevation of the dwelling. As this window would look onto the private rear garden area associated with No. 10, Alexander Drive the plans show that this window would be obscure glazed and fixed shut and would only


serve as a source of natural light to the room which would be a study and would also be served by rooflights.

15. It is noted that in a previous appeal decision relating to H/OUT/55019 the Inspector commented that ‘It seems to me that, if major windows and doors were located on the south-east and north-west elevations of the proposal and it were two storeys in height, there would be negligible overlooking of neighbours’. As this application proposes main habitable room windows at first floor level only in the south-east elevation of the house it is concluded that the impact on the amenity of occupiers of adjacent dwellings would be acceptable.

16. The proposal would achieve sufficient private garden amenity area for a three bedroom property.

DESIGN AND IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA17. As this is a full application the scale and design of the building can be considered. It is

not considered that the proposed layout would constitute overdevelopment of the site as the footprint of the building in combination with the limited first floor accommodation is commensurate with the surrounding residential character.

18. Whilst there is no evidence in national policy guidance prohibiting tandem development or backland development, the Councils Guidelines on Residential Development states that it will not normally be acceptable for amenity issues and visual intrusion. This proposal is not tandem development as it achieves an independent vehicular access. For the reasons outlined above the proposal is not considered to be unacceptable on amenity grounds or to be visually intrusive to the surrounding properties. Backland development is not uncharacteristic of the surrounding area as highlighted in the previous Inspector’s reports, none of which concluded that a dwelling in this location would have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the area. These reports also highlight that the siting of a dwelling would not be unduly intrusive to the surrounding environment in visual terms. Therefore, the principle of positioning a building on this site is considered acceptable and not to be visually harmful or intrusive development. As the property would be located to the rear of the properties around the site it is not considered that the design needs to reflect that of the adjacent properties and in any event this would be unlikely to be acceptable due to the resultant impact on residential amenity. With a maximum height of 6.4 metres the proposed dwelling is relatively modest for a dwelling with accommodation at first floor level particularly when the roof design is considered which mitigates the visual impact of the property. It is therefore not considered that the design or scale of the dwelling would be detrimental to the character of the area.

PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY

19. The history of the site is relevant to the consideration of the proposed parking arrangement. Three appeals on the site have been upheld on the basis of the potential noise and disturbance generated by the use of the vehicular access and the use of parking areas in close proximity to neighbouring residential boundaries. However in the previous application and subsequent appeal the submission proposed erecting bollards at the end of the driveway to prohibit access into the site whilst still enabling two parking spaces to the front of the site. This proposal uses the same arrangement. The Inspector in the appeal for H/OUT/69182 considered that this arrangement, subject to the retention of the bollards, was acceptable. In addition, there is an extant permission to erect a detached garage in the vehicular driveway, and the arrangement approved on appeal would not differ from this approved arrangement. Therefore, it is not considered that the current arrangement (effectively already approved on appeal) would introduce parking or vehicular movement into formerly quiet gardens area as it would contain this activity to


the front of the site. The siting of the bollards and their continued retention should be ensured via planning condition.

20. The LHA have raised no objection to the proposal on the basis that an approval for a dwellinghouse on this site with an identical parking arrangement was approved on appeal in recent months. However concern remains that the provision of high level fencing on either side of the driveway will restrict pedestrian visibility. It is considered that a condition could be attached requiring details of the fencing to ensure appropriate visibility for pedestrians.

OTHER MATTERS 21. With regard to ongoing concerns about emergency access it is noted that the Inspector,

in concluding that the appeal for H/OUT/69182 should be allowed, did not consider that this was a justifiable reason for refusal of the application as the Greater Manchester Fire Authority, Greater Manchester Police Authority and North West Ambulance Authority have indicated that the access arrangements to the property would be acceptable to them.

22. With regard to the objections raised concerning the loss of wildlife, whilst this is a valid objection, the site is not subject to any special designation and therefore the loss of its habitat would not be sufficient to outweigh the provision of a residential unit in this location. However the Greater Manchester Ecology Units comments (set out above) have been noted and conditions and informatives are recommended accordingly to protect the existing wildlife at the site.

23. Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed tree planting at the site particularly with regard to the possibility of large trees on the site overshadowing neighbouring properties. The type of trees to be planted on site will be controlled by the landscaping condition and only a species appropriate to the site will be approved at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.

24. An applicant is entitled to submit as many applications for a site as they wish to if they are varying the applications to try to overcome planning concerns.

25. Concerns have been raised regarding noise, disruption and general mess as a result of the building works. A degree of disruption in terms of noise, storage of building materials and dust is an unavoidable consequence of construction works. However it is temporary in nature and if construction noise or pollution becomes a serious problem, this can be investigated by the Environmental Protection Service under the relevant legislation.

26. Any issues regarding land ownership in relation to boundaries or clauses within deeds are private legal matters and are not a material planning consideration.

27. The application proposes measures to improve the sustainability of the building which should allow for a reduced impact on the environment. This is in compliance with Proposal D13 – Energy Considerations in New Development of the Revised Trafford UDP which states that ‘the Council will seek and promote developments that maximise energy conservation and efficiency and the use of renewable energy, and minimise the emission of greenhouse gases’.

28. The Greater Manchester Policy Architectural Liaison Unit has commented that the addition of domestic gates to the front of the driveway would provide a reasonable level of security to cars and give clarity of ownership. Gates are not proposed as part of the application but could be considered at a later date.

OPEN SPACE AND RED ROSE FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS


29. The Council’s approved SPG for developer contributions towards Red Rose Forest (September 2004) sets out where developments should contribute to tree planting in the Red Rose Forest area. A residential site requires 3 new trees per dwelling and tree planting is normally required to be on site. The development proposes 1 dwelling and should therefore provide 3 trees. It is considered that in this location it would be preferable for the tree planting to be on site to enhance the visual amenity and ecology of the area and this could be dealt with via condition relating to the final landscaping details.

30. The Council’s approved SPG on Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities provision and Commuted Sums (September 2004) sets out when developers will be expected to contribute to such provision. For residential development, there is a set method of calculating the contributions based on the number of dwellings and number of bedrooms. In this case, the number of dwellings is known (1) and the application is for a three (3) bedroom house. On this basis the contribution would be £1639.25 towards open space provision and £778.25 towards outdoor sports provision, a total of £2417.50.


A: That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon the completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such an agreement be entered into to secure a financial contribution towards open space provision and outdoor sports facilities;

B: That upon completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:-

1. Standard Time2. Materials3. Amended Plans4. Landscaping (to include for at least 3 additional trees)5. Tree & Hedge Protection 16. Tree & Hedge Protection 27. Obscure Glazing (First floor NW elevation – study and First floor NE elevation - landing)8. Prior to the commencing of development a scheme for the erection of bollards, as shown

on the plan hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be completed before the building is first occupied and retained as such thereafter.

9. Acoustic Fence – Details to be submitted10. Solar Hot Water Heating – Details to be submitted11. No approval is implied or granted for any garden buildings shown on the landscaping

plan.12. Withdrawal of rights to alter 13. Contaminated Land14. Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved and prior to the commencement of

development, a scheme identifying a porous material to be used in the hard standing for the car parking area or a scheme directing run-off water from that hard standing to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwelling, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved.

15. No development shall be commenced, including the clearance of trees and shrubs in preparation for development, during the nesting season between the months of March and July inclusive.

JJ


TCB

LB)

)



WARD: Hale Barns H/71523 DEPARTURE: Yes

ERECTION OF DETACHED THREE-STOREY DWELLING WITH BASEMENT ACCOMODATION FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING.

52, Brooks Drive, Hale Barns

APPLICANT: Mr Alan Maskell

AGENT: Reid Architects


SITE

The application site is a roughly rectangular site of approximately 0.19 ha on the eastern side of Brooks Drive in Hale Barns and is currently occupied by a single two-storey house. There are detached houses on either side of the application site. There is otherwise open land to the front and rear. Brooks Drive is a private road leading off Hale Road and this stretch is characterised by detached houses of varying styles several of which are recent replacements.

Brooks Drive is covered by a TPO (TPO 174) covering trees along either side of the drive. The application site includes protected trees on the frontage.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to demolish the existing house and to erect a replacement house on the site. The proposed house would be of a contemporary design. It would comprise main living accommodation at ground and first floor level and a second lounge, fifth bedroom and roof terrace on the second floor. There would be a double garage at ground floor level and further living accommodation at basement level. The main external materials would be glazing, timber cladding, Cheshire brick and white render. The building would have flat roofs with an ‘ecoroof’ green roof over the first floor level and photovoltaic panels on the roof over the second floor level.

The house would be located in a similar position on the site to the existing house but would front directly onto Brooks Drive rather than being at an angle like the existing house.


PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICIESRDF1 – Spatial PrioritiesL4 – Regional Housing ProvisionMCR1 – Manchester City Region PrioritiesMCR3 – Southern Part of the Manchester City Region





Green BeltArea of Landscape Value


ENV12 – Species ProtectionENV14 – Tree and Hedgerow ProtectionENV17 – Areas of Landscape ProtectionC5 – Development in the Green BeltD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential DevelopmentD13 – Energy Considerations in New Development


Various historical applications relating to extensions to the property the most recent of which are as follows:

H/27891 – Erection of side extension to form double garage, front extension to form porch and first floor rear extension to form additional bedroom– Approved 1988

H/69605 - Erection of two storey front and rear extensions including balconies and other external alterations to dwelling – Withdrawn July 2008


The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement and a Bat Survey.

The Design and Access Statement addresses in detail the following:- The Brief; The Site; Massing; Appearance; Streetscene; Design; Parking and Access; Sustainability; Planning Policy which are summarised as follows:

- The proposal sets out to provide a high quality, sustainable contemporary family house in the Green Belt to replace the existing

- The existing house is of poor quality construction and has no significant architectural quality or features of merit

- Current planning policy makes it possible to consider a replacement dwelling - The property would have flat roofs. The strong rectilinear geometry of flat roofed

buildings is strongly perceived as a typology with modern design and has enabled the inclusion of three storeys without creating a mass out of step with the adjacent properties. The building is also able to benefit from the establishment of a green roof.

- Large glazed openings break up the visual impact of the building and create transparency and depth to the building. This also allows glimpses through the house to the green belt beyond. Use of glass set in deep reveals gives articulation and visual interest to the elevations.

- Massing is further reduced by layering each of the floors. The first floor cantilevers out over the ground floor block giving the visual appearance of a floating element. The attic floor is positioned centrally and set back which reduces the visual impact.

- The materials proposed are a mix between the traditional aesthetic of Cheshire brick and the more contemporary feel of white render and hardwood timber cladding. These materials are detailed sensitively and work together with the large areas of glass to create a unified composition

- The proposed footprint covers much of the same ground as the existing house and maintains the clear space to the side of the property allowing views through the site. The street rhythm and ribboning evident along the run of Brooks Drive are


maintained. Although the building would have a basement this floor is invisible externally.

- The proposed increase is 44% over that of the existing house but it is considered that this is justified by the quality of the design which, despite the area increase, replicates the mass and presence of the existing structure but with a considerably better designed building. It is also considered that it is justified by an assessment of the precedent set by other planning permissions granted for Green Belt residences in the vicinity

- Visual Impact Assessment – The site is heavily wooded to the edge of Brooks Drive. Assessment of the new house in streetscene terms is therefore valid on a restricted viewpoint as there is a green curtain that partially veils the buildings. Even so the location, height and massing of the new house is comparable to adjacent properties and the materials proposed are found on houses in Brooks Drive.

- The house will accommodate 2 cars in the garage and a further 3 on the driveway- It is proposed to retain the existing access to the site with a new entry gate which will

allow a car to stand off the highway with closed gates- The scheme will seek to achieve secure by design accreditation- The lighting scheme will be designed to minimise light pollution- The landscaping will be similar to the existing with the addition of new gates and

associated walling, re-laying of driveway and perimeter paving. The existing soft landscaping is to be repaired and augmented as part of the site re-instatement works.

- This will be a sustainable building and will allow for a greatly reduced impact on the environment through a variety of measures to include; rainwater harvesting, ecoroof, permeable driveway, ground source heat pump, ultra efficient glazing, low power consumption, solar and photovoltaic panels and increased insulation thicknesses.

- It is considered that for the above reasons the proposal can be justified when considered against the provisions of National and Local Policy.

The Bat Survey concludes that:-- No evidence of use or the presence of a bat roost was detected at the Silverheys

property in April 2009- No bats were seen to emerge from the front or rear of the property and with the lack

of other evidence i.e. droppings or urine stains it would point to this property not having a bat roost.

- Demolition of the building is acceptable and in accordance with the results of the inspection and survey there is minimal risk of the disturbance of roosting bats. As a precautionary measure it is recommended that during the demolition the timber cladding and ridge tiles are removed by hand under the supervision of a licensed bat worker

CONSULTATIONS

LHA – The proposals are for a five bedroom detached house with integral double garage. To meet the Council’s car parking standards the provision of four car parking spaces should be made. The proposals meet the Councils parking standards and therefore there are no objections to the proposals on highways grounds. However, the applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hardstanding to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.

Highways – No comments to make.

Drainage – Recommend informatives.

Environmental Protection – The application site is situated on brownfield land. A condition requiring a contamination report and possible remediation measures is recommended.


NATS – The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly NATS have no safeguarding objections

Manchester Airport – The proposal has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding aspect. Accordingly Manchester Airport has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No comments received at the time of writing. Any comments received prior to the Committee meeting will be included within the Additional Information Report.

REPRESENTATIONS

No comments received.

OBSERVATIONS


Housing Policy

1. There is no issue in principle in respect of housing policy as the proposal seeks to replace one house with another.

Green Belt Policy

2. The main consideration in respect of this proposal is how it relates to Green Belt policy and its impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt.

3. PPG2 - Green Belts sets out that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and that it is up to the applicant to show why permission should be granted. The construction of new buildings is inappropriate unless it is for, amongst other things, the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings. PPG2 goes on to say that the replacement of existing dwellings need not be inappropriate, providing the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces.

4. PPG2 and Trafford’s Revised UDP at Proposal C4 – Green Belts set out the purposes of including land in the green belt which are:- - checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas – the development would not

extend the built up area- prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another – the development would

not contribute to the merging of neighbouring towns- assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the site would not

extend into the open fields beyond- assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban

land – the application relates to a previously developed site so this purpose is achieved.

It is considered that the proposal does not conflict with the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt.

5. A key consideration then is whether the proposed house is materially larger than the existing and what is its effect upon the openness and character of the Green Belt.

6. The proposed house is some 44% larger than the existing house on a measurement of floorspace, including part of the roof area in the existing house – an area that has 1.5 metres minimum of headroom and is therefore considered to be usable space. This is


considered to be materially larger than the existing. The measurement of the proposed replacement does not include the basement area which would be hidden.

7. It is considered that an increase of 44% represents a material increase over the existing dwelling. This would suggest that the proposal represents an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

8. The specifics of a design are not normally an assessment in whether a new build is materially larger than its predecessor. It is however noted that this approach was taken when consideration was given to a replacement dwelling on the adjacent site (50, Brooks Drive) which represented an increase over the original of 55%. That application (H/69721) was in part justified by the specifics of the design - in particular, the concept of a slim folding ribbon (slim horizontal and vertical solid rendered elements) as the solid element to the front and rear elevations infilled with large areas of glazing and other reflective surfaces together with the incorporation of the various cut away sections, would mitigate the visual impact of the house and in particular its impact on openness. In terms of the position of the house it also retained more space in total to the side boundaries. It was considered that as Brooks Drive comprises a ribbon style development within the Green Belt, the views through between the houses are important.

9. In this instance the proposed increase to the property is 11% smaller and the design approach is not dissimilar to that approved by the Planning Development Control Committee for the site next door in November 2008. The design of this property also proposes large glazed openings to break up the visual impact of the building and create transparency and depth to the building. This allows glimpses through the house to the Green Belt beyond. The massing of the building is reduced by layering each of the floors. The first floor cantilevers out over the ground floor block giving the visual appearance of a floating element and the attic floor is positioned centrally and set back which reduces the visual impact. The proposed maximum height above ground level of 9.1 metres also compares favourably with the approval at No. 50, Brooks Drive which had a maximum height above ground level of 9.3 metres. The maximum height above ground level of the existing property at No. 54, Brooks Drive is 8.6 metres. Due to the changing land levels the existing property at No. 54, the approved property at No. 50 and the proposed property at No. 52 would have very similar roof heights and the proposed dwelling is considered characteristic of the heights of many properties on Brooks Drive.

10. In addition, the property would be positioned on the site so that there are slightly bigger gaps overall down each side of the building which improves views past the house to the Green Belt which is particularly important in ribbon development. Although the two storey mass would be slightly closer to the side boundaries (0.9 metres) the overall built development on the site would be set 1.4 metres further away from the side boundaries of the site increasing the space around the site when the existing and proposed footprints are considered. It is noted that this part of Brooks Drive which is essentially ribbon development in the Green Belt has seen the total redevelopment of a number of plots in recent years as well as the addition of significant extensions. The character of the road has become one of significant detached properties and that is somewhat untypical of Green Belt areas.

DESIGN AND IMPACT ON CHARACTER OF AREA

11. It is considered that the design of the house is of a high quality such that it would enhance the architectural quality of the area. In terms of architectural style, Brooks Drive comprises detached houses of varied design and style. The proposed house sits well on the site with an appropriate amount of space to the front, side and rear boundaries. The proposed dwelling would retain a minimum of 1.8 metres to the northeastern boundary (compared with 0.4 metres at the present time) and 7.7 metres to the southwestern boundary (the same as the existing gap). The building would be a minimum of 27.7 metres from the rear boundary and would not intrude on the street scene along Brooks


Drive as it would be set back more than 22 metres from the site frontage and would project only 1.6 metres further forward than the existing property. Mature tree and shrub planting along the frontages provides screening of the site.

Area of Landscape Value

12. Proposal ENV17 sets out that the Council will protect, promote and enhance the distinctive landscape character and quality of the areas identified on the Proposals Map. Where developments are acceptable in principle, the Council will apply three criteria in assessing the suitability of proposals in relation to the landscape type and character of their setting. These criteria relate to the appropriateness of design and materials with regard to regional building traditions, degree and quality or landscaping and the impact on the landscape quality of the immediate area and the wider setting and on features of importance to wildlife.

13. The site is within an area assessed as Wooded Claylands. The Hale Barns section of Brooks Drive (a linear road of large houses of differing designs) does not readily fall within the key features of this Landscape Type and, notwithstanding the Policy Guidelines within the Landscape Strategy SPG that development should complement the scale, design and use of traditional materials, it is considered that the proposed contemporary design would not detract from the landscape character and quality of the area.

Front Boundary Treatment

14. The proposed site plan indicates timber access gates and a Cheshire brick wall along the front boundary although no elevation details have been provided at this stage regarding these aspects of the proposal. Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans to date it is recommended that a landscaping condition be attached to any approval so that full details of the front boundary treatment are submitted for the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority in order to ensure that the impact of the front boundary treatments on the protected trees and the visual amenity of the area is acceptable.

TREES

15. There are protected trees (TPO 174) along Brooks Drive, including trees along the front boundary of the application site. The proposals do not involve the removal of any of these protected trees. The removal of one tree on the boundary with No. 50, Brooks Drives and some conifers immediately adjacent to the front of the existing house is proposed. Subject to adequate tree protection measures being employed during the demolition and development phase, and appropriate design for the parking areas and front boundary treatment there is unlikely to be any adverse impact on the well being of the protected trees and the rest of the trees on the site as the proposed footprint of the replacement dwelling is not dissimilar to the existing.


16. As a result of the size, design and position of the proposed house and its relationship with the properties on either side it is not considered that there would be an undue impact on residential amenity arising from loss of light or overbearing appearance.

17. With regard to privacy the proposal does involve an ‘ecoroof’ over the first floor level. If this area was utilised as an amenity area this could result in a loss of privacy to occupiers of neighbouring properties. It is not intended that the ecoroof be used as an amenity area and a separate roof terrace extending out from the lounge at second floor level has been indicated as a proposed amenity area. This terrace includes a privacy screen to prevent direct views into the private garden area at No. 54, Brooks Drive and


subject to the installation and retention of this privacy screen this arrangement is considered acceptable. However it is also considered that a condition is required to prevent the wider use of the ecoroof as an outdoor amenity area in order to protect the privacy of the occupiers of residential properties on either side of the site.

18. The majority of the habitable room windows are located in the front and rear elevations of the proposed dwelling, facing onto Brooks Drive at the front and open fields to the rear. There are various secondary windows in the side elevations at first and second floor level and it is proposed that they be obscure glazed by condition to prevent any loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. One relatively small (0.8 metres wide) main habitable room window (to bedroom 3) is proposed at first floor level in the northeast side elevation of the dwelling. As this is the sole window to this bedroom it would not be possible to require obscure glazing as this would result in no outlook and an unacceptable level of amenity for the occupier of that bedroom. This window would provide limited views into the grounds of No. 54, Brooks Drive, however in considering the impact on the privacy of the occupiers of No. 54 the existing levels of privacy between the two sites must be considered. At the present time there are three bedroom windows at first floor level in the northeast elevation facing No. 54, one of which is 1.8 metres wide and therefore it is considered that the window arrangement at first floor level would actually result in an improved level of privacy for the occupier of No. 54, Brooks Drive.

19. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would not have an undue impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent residential properties.

OTHER MATTERS

20. It is noted that the applicant has submitted a bat survey with the application which indicates that bats are not present at the property. No comments had been received from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit at the time of writing but any comments received prior to the Committee meeting will be reported.

21. The application proposes a sustainable building which will allow for a greatly reduced impact on the environment through a variety of measures. This is in compliance with Proposal D13 – Energy Considerations in New Development of the Revised Trafford UDP which states that ‘the Council will seek and promote developments that maximise energy conservation and efficiency and the use of renewable energy, and minimise the emission of greenhouse gases’.

CONCLUSION

22. It is noted that the proposed development would be materially larger in floorspace terms than the existing property and therefore an assessment of this proposal is not clear cut, particularly in relation to Green Belt policy. However, for the reasons set out above, in particular the improvement of space to the boundaries and the use of flats roofs and glazing to reduce the visual impact of the development it is concluded, on balance, that the development is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:-

1. Standard2. Materials 3. Amended Plans4. Landscaping 5. Tree Protection 16. Tree Protection 2


7. Restrictive use of roof top area8. Provision and retention of privacy screen9. Obscure glazing 10. Contamination 11. Photovoltaic panels – details to be submitted12. Withdrawal of rights to alter

JJ



Pond

TheSpinney

62

Brooks House

Trough

White Haven

Trough

BM 54.43m

High Sheddon

Golf Course

Wood

Tregenna

Willowmead

Beechwood

51.8mWood

Humphreys

SilverheysHumphreys

Dundrum

#



WARD: Clifford H/71565 DEPARTURE: NO

CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (CLASS A5) AND INSTALLATION OF EXTRACTION FLUE TO REAR

139 Ayres Road, Old Trafford

APPLICANT: Mr Tahir Saleem

AGENT: N/A


Councillor Malik has requested that this application be determined by the Planning Development Control Committee for the reasons set out in the report

SITE

The application site lies to the south east of Ayres Road within a two storey row of six shops in a designated local shopping centre. The row has various shop units to the ground floor with residential accommodation located to the first floor. A pharmacy lies to the north east of the application site and a newsagent lies to the south west. A clothes shop, grocery store and vacant butchers shop make up the remainder of the ground floor retail units within this row. Opposite Ayres road to the north east of the application site is a terrace of two storey residential dwellings. Ayres Road is characterised by similar rows of shops with residential accommodation above, interspersed with rows of terraced and semi-detached residential dwellings. The ground floor shop unit at the application site was last used as a hairdressing salon and the application form states that this use ceased in June 2008. A residential flat lies above the shop unit and this is currently occupied.

PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks consent for the change of use of the ground floor unit from a shop (Class A1) to a hot food takeaway (Class A5). An extraction flue is proposed to be installed to the rear and an access ramp is proposed to the front. The proposed hours of opening are stated as Midday to 11pm Monday to Sunday (7 days).

NORTH WEST REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

The Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13) was formally adopted in September 2008 and now forms part of the Development Plan for the Borough.

PRINCIPAL ADOPTED RSS POLICIES

DP4 – Making the Best Use of Existing Resources and InfrastructureRT2 – Managing Travel Demand



The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13) now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


Local Shopping Centre

PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/PROPOSALS

D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD9 – Hot Food Take Away ShopsS10 – Local and Neighbourhood Shopping CentresS14 - Non Shop uses Within Local and Neighbourhood Shopping Centres


H/39755 – Change of use of ground floor from shop to hot food takeaway (Refused November 1994).

H/58866 – Installation of new entrance to first floor flat to front elevation and erection of single storey rear extension to shop for use as storage (Approved April 2004).


The applicant has submitted a letter and a design and access statement with the application and these state that the shop has been empty for quite some time and the applicant is struggling to find a tenant for it. The economic down-turn, with people not willing to take a risk by opening up a business is putting a financial burden on the applicant, who is struggling to find the money to meet bill payments.

Ayres Road is a popular shopping area and there is ample street parking available, with shops offering great choice and products from lots of different cultures. The applicant has owned the shop for 20 years and has been trading on Ayres Road for over 25 years, has close ties to the area and would like to continue his contribution to it. With more people eating out due to busy lifestyles, a takeaway would benefit the local community and offer them greater choice on their doorsteps.

CONSULTATIONS

Environmental Protection: Recommend refusal to prevent detrimental impact on amenity which would arise from the proposal. Should permission be granted, the following conditions should be attached to the permission: Opening hours restricted to 12pm-10pm Scheme for sound insulation to be submitted and approved in relation to transmission of

noise to self contained flat above Suitable extract ventilation to be submitted and approved, flue not to terminate not less

than 1m above eaves level with efflux velocity of 8m/s

Local Highways Authority: No objection, although there is a high demand for parking on Ayres Road

Strategic Planning and Developments: No objection


REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor Malik and Councillor Sophie Taylor are supportive of the application, stating that Ayres Road is the only shopping area in Old Trafford and in the current economic climate the centre is dying away as a lot of shops are vacant. Regeneration is a priority in Old Trafford and it would be better to have a takeaway than a closed shop which is a financial burden to the owner.

Five objections have been received from the occupants of; No.218, No.220, No.222, the flat above the adjacent newsagents at No.141 and No’s 1 and 2 Reynolds Road. The main concerns raised by the occupants include:

The residents of the residential dwellings opposite are elderly and some are in poor health. If the shop were to open late, noise and youths congregating outside and inside would make it difficult to sleep in the otherwise quiet area, reducing quality of life

All other shops within the row close at a reasonable hour and the proposal will materially affect the lives of residents who live in the surrounding area

The proposal would result in considerable extra noise, traffic, disturbance, litter, light pollution and smell/odours from cooking to the residential properties nearby due to late night opening and this would be exacerbated if a delivery service was offered

The small waiting area will cause people to congregate on the street, causing noise and litter and cars will park on the pavement in front of the shop

Ayres Road is busy and congested with limited parking. The proposal will lead to double parking, obstruction of driveways, overspill to Reynolds Road and raise concerns over pedestrian safety, including to the pupils of nearby schools

There is an ongoing issue with pigeons at these shops, of which the Council is aware and waste from the takeaway will add to this. Bin storage at the rear of No.139 has led to involvement by Environmental Health due to vermin and litter

Creating ease of access to unhealthy fast food to impressionable youngsters at the local school less than 50 metres away would be irresponsible. An example has been sited of Waltham Forest Council, which has policy to restricts fast food outlets opening within 400m of schools, parks and leisure centres to curb obesity levels and has refused planning permission for takeaways within this distance

OBSERVATIONS

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

1. A previous application for the change of use of the ground floor to a hot food takeaway was refused in November 1994. At the time of the application, the justification for the refusal of the application related to the detrimental impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties by reason of smells, noise and disturbance, particularly late at night. The current application proposes the same change of use as the previously refused application.

2. The Council’s adopted SPG ‘Hot Food Takeaway Shops’ states that applications for hot food takeaways where there is residential accommodation nearby, be it on either side, above or opposite are likely to be refused due to the noise and disturbance which would ensue to neighbouring residents. The guidelines further state that applications for hot food takeaways in small shopping parades (no more than 6-8 shops) in quiet residential surroundings are likely to be refused. The application site has a separate residential flat at first floor above the proposed hot food takeaway, which does not form part of the application. The adjoining newsagent at No.141 also has a flat above and on the opposite side of Ayres Road are residential dwellings. Considering the proximity of the application site to these residential dwellings and that the site lies within a small parade of 6 retail units, it falls to be considered against the above guidance and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused.


The proposed use is considered to be inappropriate within the context of the surrounding area and uses.

3. The proposed hours of opening are from 12pm to 11pm 7 days per week, which is later than both the previous use which occupied the ground floor and later than the other shops within the row. This would result in increased pedestrian and vehicular activity late into the evenings and at weekends when a residential area such as this is expected to be reasonably quiet. This activity includes customers arriving and departing, lingering in the vicinity and conversations and noise from vehicles arriving and departing (closing of car doors, engines starting and revving and car radios) particularly late into the evening and at weekends. It also includes noisy activities which may occur after closing time when residents may be asleep, such as the transferral of waste to bins. It is therefore considered that the proposal would result in undue noise and disturbance to the occupants of neighbouring residential properties and this would result in serious harm to their residential amenity.

4. The Council’s adopted SPG ‘Hot Food Takeaway Shops’ also states that there should be no nuisance caused by smells. The proposed flue to the rear would be located close to the windows of the flat above the proposed takeaway and the flat above the newsagent at No.141 and the dispersion of cooking odours close to these windows would therefore result in nuisance caused by smells to the occupants of these flats to the detriment of the amenity they currently enjoy.

5. Specific consideration must be afforded to the existing residential flat above the proposed takeaway. The internal transmission of noise to the flat above from extract fans and food preparation activities would occur late into the evenings when the shop is open, but also outside opening hours during the morning and late at night. It is considered that the occupants of this flat currently enjoy a level of residential amenity that would be seriously harmed by the proposed use, by reason of noise and disturbance and nuisance caused by smells and the amenity they should reasonable expect to enjoy could only be safeguarded with the refusal of the application.

6. In conclusion, the proposed use is considered to be inappropriate in the context of the surrounding residential area. A condition restricting opening hours could not overcome the serious harm to residential amenity which would ensue from the proposal by reason of smells, noise and disturbance; hence it is recommended that the application be refused due to the significant detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents, particularly the flat above the application site.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

7. As discussed, a previous application for a change of use of the ground floor to a hot food takeaway was refused in November 1994. At the time of the application, the benefits which would accrue from the provision of the service facility were weighted against any detrimental effects that would be generated in the form of litter, smell, noise and disturbance. Similar consideration is afforded to the current application.

8. The application form states that the last use of the premises as a hairdressing salon ceased in June 2008; hence the unit has been vacant for just over a year. With the exception of one of the units, all the remaining units within the row are occupied. It is noted that Mecca Fabrics at No.133 is in close proximity to the site and particularly the proposed flue to the rear and this established business could be more sensitive to the adverse impacts of odour. The proposal could therefore be potentially detrimental to an established retail unit within this parade of shops and given this, the proposal could be detrimental to the retail function of the shopping parade. Although this does not form a reason for refusal of the application, it demonstrates that the


proposed use would be inappropriate within the particular context of the surrounding uses.

9. Although the proposal would bring into use a vacant retail unit at a time when they are becoming more prevalent, this should not be at the expense of the amenity that local residents should reasonably expect to enjoy. There is only one other vacant unit within this parade of shops and the period of vacancy of the application site is not relatively long. It has been demonstrated that the proposal would result in serious harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and bringing into use a vacant unit is a consideration which cannot outweigh this harm.

DESIGN AND STREET SCENE

10. An access ramp is proposed to the front elevation and this is considered to be acceptable in terms of design and would have no detrimental impact on the street scene.

11. Although the proposed flue would be located to the rear of the property and would

not be visible from the street scene, it would be visible from the rear garden areas of neighbouring properties at the rear. It is acknowledged that although full details of the flue have not been submitted, it could be sensitively designed and painted to minimise its visual impact to these residents. It is considered that the proposed flue could potentially be acceptable in terms of its visual impact on neighbouring residents to the rear, hence its design does not form a reason for refusal of the application.

ACCESS, HIGHWAYS AND PARKING

12. The proposed change of use to a takeaway would generate more traffic and at different times than the previous retail use and as discussed, this includes late into the evenings and at weekends. No off-street parking provision is proposed or available within the vicinity of the site; hence customers will therefore park on Ayres Road where there are no on-street parking restrictions. Ayres Road is a designated local shopping area and it is considered that as off-road parking could not be provided at the site and the location is relatively sustainable, no off road parking provision would be deemed to be required.

13. Traffic generated by the proposal would result in increased numbers of vehicles parking on Ayres Road to access the takeaway, particularly in the evenings when on-street parking is in greatest demand by residents. As discussed previously, the main concerns of these additional comings and goings relate to residential amenity; hence there is no objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds.

CONCLUSION

14. Although the proposal would bring into use a vacant retail unit, this consideration does not outweigh the significant harm which would result to the occupants of neighbouring residential properties, including the flats above both the application site and the adjacent newsagent nor the residential dwellings opposite Ayres Road. Hot food takeaways by their very nature do most of their business in the evening, at times when occupants of residential properties can reasonably expect to enjoy peace and quiet. The proposed use is considered inappropriate within the context of the surrounding residential area as the proximity of this use will result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents. The proposed use is contrary to Proposals D1 and D9 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s adopted SPG ‘Hot Food Takeaway Shops’ and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused.



1. The proposed development, by reason of its close proximity to residential properties would result in a significant number of comings and goings, particularly at weekends and late into the evenings, resulting in a level of general noise and disturbance that would be to the detriment of the amenity and quietude that the occupants of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to Proposals D1 and D9 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council's adopted SPG 'Hot Food Takeaway Shops'.

2. The proposed flue, by reason of its close proximity to nearby residential properties, in particular to the first floor windows of the residential flats at 139 and 141 Ayres Road, would result in the discharge of cooking odours and associated noise to the detriment of the amenities of the occupants of both properties. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to Proposals D1 and D9 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidelines ‘Hot Food Takeaway Shops.'

DR



30.0m

El Sub Sta

30.52mBM

TCBs

Primary School

Seymour Park Community

Seymour ParkCommunityPrimary School

#

))



WARD: Broadheath H/71580 DEPARTURE: NO

ERECTION OF 1.85 METRE HIGH FENCING TO BOUNDARY WITH HUXLEY STREET.

Parflo Building, Huxley Street, Altrincham

APPLICANT: Parflo Engineering Ltd.

AGENT: N/A


This application is referred to Planning Development Control Committee as the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Colledge, is on the board of directors for the applicants.

SITE

The application relates to a small industrial site located on the north side of Huxley Street immediately to the north of the Homebase unit within the Broadheath Retail Park. The surrounding area is of mixed character with houses at the western end of Huxley Street and other commercial units to the north. The site is occupied by two main buildings comprising an office building and a pre-fabricated annex building.

PROPOSAL

To erect 1.85 metre high fencing to the Huxley Street boundary of the site. It would incorporate a sliding vehicular access gate and a pedestrian gate to the existing parking area. It would not extend along the whole frontage but along a stretch of approximately 55 metres from the boundary with 7 Huxley Street, effectively along the extent of the car park.

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICIES

None




S12 – Retail Warehouse Park Development


D1 – All New Development



H/51014 - Erection of 2.13 metre high railings and two entrance gates to front. Planning permission granted on 20 March 2001.

H/20799 – Retention of existing workshop, store and office buildings and erection of five industrial units totalling 659 sq. metres. Construction of vehicular access to Davenport Road and alteration of existing vehicular access on to Huxley Street. Provision of car parking facilities and the landscaping of the site. Planning permission granted on 14 February 1985.


The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement with the application:-- it is proposed to replace existing bow section fencing with wrought iron style fencing- a new sliding gate is proposed at the existing driveway location- the purpose of the fence is to provide increased security and a deterrent to vandalism

and litter problems- the fence will be more aesthetically pleasing than existing and more in keeping with

the area- landscaping will be retained as far as possible and damaged shrubs replaced- there is a mix of fencing in the vicinity

CONSULTATIONS

LHA – No comments received.

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours – No comments received. Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

OBSERVATIONS

VISUAL AMENITY

1. The main issue surrounding the proposal is the visual impact of the proposed fence. This is an area of mixed character with different types and heights of boundary treatment evident. The proposed railings would be of a reasonably attractive design. No detail has been provided on the final finish though it is considered that a black painted finish would be the most appropriate.

2. The scheme would incorporate a sliding gate for vehicle access to the car park using the existing access; a pedestrian gate would also be provided. Existing planted areas would be retained.

3. It is considered that the proposed fencing in terms of its height, design and location is acceptable and would not adversely affect the street scene. The Council’s Planning Guidelines for Fencing also support the use of steel railings for commercial sites.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:-

1. Standard2. The railings and gates hereby approved shall be painted black unless otherwise

agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.GE



181

TCB

PH

173

Hall

Works

El Sub Sta

26.2m

PH

GEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAYGEORGE RICHARDS WAY

Altrincham Retail Park

)

#



WARD: Urmston H/71588 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF A PART THREE, PART TWO STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE A 63 BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME, PROVISION OF ASSOCIATED PARKING AREAS AND LANDSCAPING (REVISED SUBMISSION)

130 Stretford Road, Urmston

APPLICANT: Southern Cross

AGENT: Street Design Partnership


SITE

The application site is located to the south side of Stretford Road and is currently occupied by the former Manor Hey Hotel. The hotel has now closed and the building is vacant and in a dilapidated condition, having suffered a fire. The site is approximately 0.3 hectare in area.

The character of the area is mainly residential and the nearby uses include private dwellings, sheltered accommodation and another residential care home. The surrounding buildings are mainly two and three storey and include traditional Victorian buildings and more modern developments.

The main hotel building at the front of the site is a three storey rendered Victorian building with a projecting gable and dormer windows on the front elevation. The building is of traditional character but has been extended by a single storey lean-to extension that projects forward of the main building and a three-storey side extension with an archway/tunnel allowing access through to the rear parking area. The main frontage of the building is set back approximately 16-18 metres from Stretford Road with a parking and turning area to the front.

To the rear of the main building, there is a single storey flat roofed function suite building that extends for a length of approximately 45m further towards the rear of the site. To the south and west of this is a large car park. The boundaries of the site at the rear are a mixture of brick walls, timber fencing and hedges.

The application site slopes very gently upwards from Stretford Road to the front of the existing building and then downwards from the rear of the main building to the southern boundary with the houses on Torbay Road. There are some mature trees close to but outside the boundaries of the site, including two trees on the footpath on the Stretford Road frontage and some on Lime Tree Close to the west.

To the east and south, the site backs onto the rear gardens of two storey semi-detached dwellings, which front onto Torbay Road. To the west, the site borders onto an adjacent residential care home, number 128 Stretford Road. To the rear of this, it borders onto an open area of land on Lime Tree Close with two storey houses on the opposite side of the road.


PROPOSAL

The application proposes a number of relatively minor alterations to a previous development scheme approved by the Committee in September 2008 under application reference H/69757. The key elements of the development are essentially the same as that which was approved (i.e. the demolition of the existing hotel buildings and the erection of a 63 bedroom nursing home within a part three and part two storey building).

Alterations to the approved internal layout of the building are proposed, which also necessitate relatively minor changes to its external appearance and design including the numbers and positions of windows and doors. The building footprint is to remain approximately the same as approved previously, with the exception of minor changes to the footprint of the two storey link section on the side facing the internal courtyard. The changes to the internal layout of the building include alterations to the position of the bedrooms and communal areas to aid the day-to-day function of the care home. The overall number of bedrooms remains the same as approved previously.

At the front of the site, adjacent to Stretford Road, the application proposes a three storey building which would be set back between 16-18 metres from the road on approximately the same footprint as the main existing building. In the current revised scheme, this section of the building would contain 15 en-suite bedrooms as opposed to 10 in the previously approved application. At the rear of the site, a two and three storey building would be sited on part of the area currently occupied by the car park and would now contain 44 en-suite bedrooms as opposed to the 43 approved previously. Between these two residential blocks, a two storey link element is proposed, which would run parallel to the eastern boundary of the site. This element is now proposed to contain 4 en-suite bedrooms as opposed to 10 approved previously. The proposed changes to the location of bedrooms would result in the concentration of the communal areas such as the dining rooms and lounges within this central element of the building.

The main changes to the elevations would be as follows. Within the two storey link element, the footprint of the proposed café/tea lounge at the southern end of the internal courtyard elevation would be reduced and the footprint of the building at the northern end of this elevation would be increased by the introduction of a double storey projecting section containing bedrooms. In addition, also within the internal courtyard, an angular projecting bay feature would be added to the north elevation of the three storey building at the rear of the site and an additional dormer and additional window would be inserted. Within the three storey building at the front of the site, the two windows that were previously proposed in the side elevation facing 2 and 4 Torbay Road would be omitted. Within the building at the rear of the site, two new stairway windows would be added to the side elevation facing 14 and 16 Torbay Road. In addition, new double doors at ground floor level and a new dormer window at first floor level would be added to the southern end of the two storey link section at right angles to the boundary with the rear gardens of the houses on Torbay Road. Various other minor changes are proposed to the design and layout of window openings.

The submitted layout plan shows a small parking area of seven spaces on the Stretford Road frontage and a separate parking area of nine spaces in the centre of the site, accessed along the western side of the frontage building (in the position of the existing access drive). To the rear of the buildings, the plan shows a small area of landscaped gardens adjacent to the south and west boundaries of the site. These elements remain largely unchanged from the scheme that was previously granted permission.

The site currently has two vehicular accesses onto Stretford Road. The application proposes the closing off of the eastern access and the retention and alteration of the other existing access at the western end of the site frontage. This arrangement also remains unchanged since the previous permission.


NORTH WEST REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

The Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13) was formally adopted in September 2008 and now forms part of the Development Plan for the Borough.

PRINCIPAL ADOPTED RSS POLICIES

DP1 – Spatial PrinciplesDP2 – Promote Sustainable CommunitiesDP3 – Promote Sustainable Economic DevelopmentDP4 – Making the Best Use of Existing Resources and InfrastructureL1 – Health, Sport, Recreation, Cultural and Educational Services ProvisionL2 – Understanding Housing MarketsL4 – Regional Housing ProvisionMCR1 – Manchester City Region PrioritiesMCR3 – Southern Part of the Manchester City Region


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


None


D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential DevelopmentH7 – Accommodation for Elderly Persons


H/69757 - Erection of a part three, part two storey building to provide a 63 bedroom residential care home, provision of associated parking areas and landscaping (revised submission) – Approved 17th September 2008

H/OUT/66944 – Outline application for part four, part three and part two storey building to form 63 bedroom residential care home. Provision of associated parking and landscaping – Approved 16th August 2007

H/OUT/65511 – Outline application (including details of layout, scale and means of access) for the erection of a part two storey, part three storey building to provide a 65 bedroom nursing home, provision of associated parking areas and landscaping – Refused – 8 th

December 2006 – Appeal Withdrawn

H/26566 – Erection of side extension to form 8 new bedrooms (Approval of Reserved Matters) – Approved 23rd August 1988

H/24350 - Erection of side extensions to form 8 new bedrooms (Outline) – Refused 3 rd

February 1987. Appeal allowed 15th September 1987


H/23672 – Erection of single storey front extension to lounge bar and single storey rear extension – Approved 11th September 1986

H/23281 – Erection of extensions including a two storey rear extension on piers above existing function suite to form 24 bedrooms, single storey front extension and single storey rear extension - Refused 5th June 1986

CONSULTATIONS

LHA – No objections subject to conditions requiring cycle parking and Travel Plan

Built Environment – No objections. The construction of the new access and re-instatement of the existing access is to be agreed with the LHA.

Environmental Protection – No objections subject to a condition requiring a site investigation for contamination and landfill gas.

GM Police – No further comments beyond the previous application, therefore no objections subject to the following measures which have been agreed with the applicant: -

To prevent unauthorised access to the site, the security will be increased through the provision of a pedestrian and vehicular access gate to the rear part of the site. This should be closed after the shift change in the evening and re-opened for the first shift change of the day. This gate should be on a key fob / proximity reader for staff and should also be linked to a video entry system in the staff office.

The main entrance door should be operated by a video entry phone system linked to the staff office. The reception area also has good visibility of the front door and should be staffed to ensure that all people are greeted on entering the building.

A pedestrian gate should be located to the left hand side of the building. This will create a secure boundary in conjunction with the existing feature Victorian wall that is to remain. In addition, dense vegetation should be planted in front of the ground floor windows to increase their security.

A pedestrian gate and railings should be located to the rear of the site, opposite the entrance to the building, to prevent people accessing the rear of the site.

Lighting is to be provided within the site to all access roads and footpaths. Vegetation to be maintained at agreed heights. Bin storage will be within the secure area when the gate is shut and within the public

realm during the day.

United Utilities – No objections provided that the site is to be drained on a separate system. If surface water is to be discharged to the public sewerage system, the flow will need to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities.


The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement. This states that: -

The immediate neighbours have been consulted and all residents have acknowledged that the scheme is an improvement over the outline approval. Supporting statements have been submitted along with a letter of support from the adjacent Ann Challis Care Home and a letter of support from Age Concern.

Over the course of the previous application, four copies of a standard letter of support signed by the occupiers of four neighbouring properties were submitted expressing support for the application. The letters further referred to the recent incidents of fire, criminal damage and burglary to the existing premises and requested that the application should receive the council’s urgent attention and be looked on favourably by the Planning Committee. A letter


to the same effect has been received signed by the occupants of No’s 12 and 14 Torbay Road. A letter of support from the Ann Challis Care Home was also received previously similarly requesting that the application be considered favourably at the earliest opportunity in view of the recent fire and break-ins to the building. A letter of support from Age Concern was equally supportive of the previous application, noting the great current and future need for high quality residential care facilities in the area.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received. The concerns raised by the objector include:

Concerns relating to the scale, massing and height of the larger part of the development

Concerns about the demolition of the Hotel, recommending that development should incorporate the existing façade of the Manor Hey Hotel. Too many of the landmark buildings of Urmston have been demolished in recent years and this is having a detrimental impact on the character of the area. The building is an important feature on the Stretford Road approach to the centre. Given the extensive redevelopment taking place in the town centre at present, the Council should be looking at how the change in the character of the area can be minimised. It is unfortunate that the recent fire has damaged the façade but this could be put right with careful planning

Concerns relating to the works associated with the proposed demolition due to the close proximity of the neighbour’s garden, garage and access, the applicant’s agents have previously accepted the necessity for a Method Statement in terms of the demolition of the frontage building and sent this to the neighbour. The neighbour was verbally offered a small amount of financial compensation for these proposed works but considered this insufficient. The neighbour was then told that, if this was not accepted, the development would proceed without the safety measures outlined in the Method Statement

The occupant of No.14 Torbay Road has withdrawn their support for the application as they have been unable to clarify the proposed boundary treatment to their rear garden with the applicant. They are in favour of the development should this issue be resolved. The occupants of No.2 Torbay have written to say they would not support any additional windows which would overlook their property. (The windows have been removed from the current proposal and a condition will be attached to the permission preventing further window openings to this elevation).

OBSERVATIONS


1. The principle of the proposed use of the site as a residential care home has been established by the previously approved application reference H/69757. The site is within a predominantly residential area and the proposed use would therefore not be out of keeping with the general character of the area.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY

2. The height, scale and massing of the proposal remains the same as previously approved, with a ridge height lower than that of the adjacent Ann Challis home. The front elevation to Stretford Road remains unchanged, with the proposed building being three storeys and reaching 11.5m in height to the ridge. The main roof would be hipped with gables projecting slightly forward at either end of the front elevation. The design of the building is considered to be generally appropriate, although it is


considered that it would be improved by the insertion of a prominent front door on the main front elevation to provide more activity to the street scene.

3. Minor alterations are proposed to the remaining elevations, necessitated by the revised internal layout. A small two storey projecting element would be added to the courtyard elevation of the two storey link element. In addition, also within the internal courtyard, an angular projecting bay feature would be added to the north elevation of the three storey building at the rear of the site and an additional dormer and additional window would be inserted. These alterations are considered to be acceptable in design terms and would make very little visual impact, being contained with the internal courtyard. Within the three storey building at the front of the site, the two windows that were previously proposed in the side elevation facing 2 and 4 Torbay Road have been removed. This would result in a relatively large blank elevation but, as this is not directly adjacent to the road, it is considered that this would be acceptable in design terms. Within the building at the rear of the site, two new stairway windows have been added to the side elevation facing 14 and 16 Torbay Road. It is considered that these would add interest to the elevation and are acceptable in design terms. A projecting element in the roof on the elevation to Torbay Road (which would have accommodated the lift shaft) has also been removed, which is an improvement in terms of design. Some window sills and heads have also been omitted on the rear elevation and the elevation to the houses on Torbay Road, but these are not in prominent positions and the alterations to these details would not have any significant impact in terms of the visual appearance of the building. Overall, these minor alterations to the design of the proposed elevations are considered to be acceptable and would have no significant detrimental impact on the street scene.

4. The landscaping scheme also remains the same as previously approved. The landscaping immediately adjacent to the road would vary in width between 0.8m and 2.4m in depth and is proposed in the form of a raised planter with instant hedge planting. Further areas of planting are proposed within the front parking area and adjacent to the building as well as two large street trees immediately outside the site. The appearance of the site frontage would be acceptable in this respect.


5. Minor changes would be introduced to the position of windows and doors in the side elevation facing the houses on Torbay Road. The windows in the side elevation of the frontage building facing No’s 2 and 4 Torbay Road would be omitted. Two new windows would be added to the side of the building facing No’s 12 and 14 Torbay Road. These windows are proposed to serve the staircases and their position is considered to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring them to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to prevent any overlooking to the private rear garden areas of the dwellings to Torbay Road. An additional access door and small window within the eaves are also proposed to the part of this elevation that is set further back from the boundary. These would be about 24m from the boundary with the residential gardens and would have no detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The amendments to the Torbay Road elevations are therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity.

6. The two storey link section of the development, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, would remain as previously approved except for the insertion of new double doors at ground floor level and a new dormer window at first floor level in its southern end, at right angles to the boundary with the rear gardens of the houses on Torbay Road. There would be no loss of privacy from the ground floor doors as screening would be provided by the proposed boundary treatment. Whilst there may be some limited additional noise due to the doors being in this position, it is considered that, given the nature of the use and the length of the adjacent rear gardens, this is not likely to result in a serious loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of the adjacent


properties. The first floor dormer window would be approximately 2.2m from the boundary with the garden of 14 Torbay Road and although it is at right angles to the boundary, it is considered that there could be some additional overlooking of the adjacent gardens. It is therefore recommended that a condition should be attached requiring that this window is obscure glazed.

7. The proposed reduction in the building footprint in the inner courtyard area would have no impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposed increase in the building footprint at the northern end of the elevation to the inner courtyard introduces two bedrooms to this elevation with habitable room windows facing the amenity space of the Ann Challis care home. The distance from these windows to the boundary would be 10m, which is 500mm less than the 10.5m required by Council guidelines between habitable room windows and the boundary of private garden areas. Taking into account that this amenity space is a large communal area rather than a small private garden and that the proposal is only marginally short of the required distance, it is considered that this amendment would not result in any undue loss of privacy to the residents of the Ann Challis home. This aspect of the application is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of the amenity of the adjacent care home.

8. Also within the internal courtyard, an angular projecting bay feature would be added to the north elevation of the three storey building at the rear of the site. The proposed projecting bay has been added as a result of the introduction of a greater number of bedrooms into this section of the building and includes principal bedroom windows to the ground, first and second floors. The bay has been angled so that there would be two windows serving each of the bedrooms, one facing north-west towards the amenity space of the Ann Challis home and the other facing north east into the amenity area of the application proposal. This would allow the windows facing the Ann Challis home to be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking to the amenity space whilst the others would be clear glazed and would have no detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. A condition would need to be attached to this effect.

9. The other alterations to window openings in this elevation relate to non-habitable room windows and it is considered that, subject to the same obscure glazing condition as on the original permission, there would no additional loss of privacy.

10. In conclusion, it is considered that the amended scheme would be acceptable in terms of residential amenity.

ACCESS AND PARKING CONSIDERATIONS

11. Access and parking considerations remain unchanged since the approval of the previous application and it is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of highway safety. The application proposes a total of 16 parking spaces for a 63 bedroom care home. The LHA consider that this amount of parking provision would be sufficient to meet the needs of the development, particularly as this is a reasonably sustainable location with regular buses passing the site along Stretford Road. A Travel Plan and cycle parking provision are also required and should be secured through conditions.

AMENITY SPACE

12. The alterations proposed in the current application would not result in any significant reduction in amenity space compared with the previously approved scheme. In terms of the residential amenity for the occupants of the nursing home, the proposed layout includes an area of approximately 400 square metres of outdoor amenity space at the rear of the site as well as other areas of incidental open space around the perimeters of the site and the parking areas.


COMMUNITY SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

13. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no further comment on the proposal since the previous scheme was approved. During previous consultation, the developer agreed to implement the following measures to ensure the site is satisfactory secured:

a. A secure gate with key fob / proximity reader and video phone entry system at the western side of the building

b. A secure gate at the eastern side of the building;c. The retention of existing boundary walls and fencing;d. The main entrance door to be operated by a video entry phone system;e. Dense vegetation to be planted in front of the ground floor windows on the

front elevation;f. Lighting to be provided to all access roads and footpaths;g. Maintenance of landscaping within requested dimensions;h. Bin storage to be within the secure area.

14. On the basis of the above measures, the Police Architectural Liaison Officer raised no objections to the proposed scheme and conditions were attached to the previous permission to this effect. It is therefore recommended that these conditions should be attached to the permission should the Committee resolve to grant the application.

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

15. At the time of the previous approval, H/69757, a financial contribution of £5906.25 was required towards public transport improvements in accordance with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, “Developer Contributions towards Highway and Public Transport Schemes”. This payment has already been made in respect of the previous scheme but it is considered that the Section 106 Agreement will need to be varied to ensure that the payment relates to the development now proposed.

CONCLUSION

16. In conclusion, the principle of the proposed use has been established by the previously approved application reference H/69757. It is considered that the relatively minor alterations proposed by the current application would be acceptable in terms of design, visual amenity and residential amenity and it is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to a revised Section 106 Agreement requiring a financial contribution towards public transport and subject to appropriate conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT, subject to Section 106 Agreement: -

A. That the application will propose a satisfactory development of the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such legal agreement be entered into to ensure compliance with covenants contained in the Section 106 Agreement linked to application H/69757.

B. That upon the satisfactory completion of the legal agreement referred to at A above, planning permission be granted, subject to conditions: -

1. Standard Time Limit;2. Submission of Materials;3. Submission of sections through front elevation to show depth of window reveals;4. Details and implementation of landscaping;5. The permission hereby granted relates only to a residential care home with a

maximum of 63 bedrooms and to no other use within Class C2 of the Schedule to the


Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification;

6. Provision of access, parking, turning and servicing areas in accordance with approved plans. Surfacing of access, parking and turning areas to be submitted and approved;

7. Retention of access, parking, turning and servicing areas;8. Pedestrian visibility splays to be submitted and approved and thereafter retained;9. Details of secure cycle parking to be submitted and approved;10. Windows in the east elevation of the building facing the rear gardens of numbers 14

and 16 Torbay Road to be obscure glazed and non opening. No further windows to be formed in any part of the east elevation;

11. No windows to be formed in the west elevation of the building on the Stretford Road frontage (facing 128 Stretford Road);

12. Any windows in the north elevation of the building at the rear of the application site that would directly face the rear amenity area of the care home at 128 Stretford Road, and the windows in the north-west elevation of the projecting bay in that elevation, shall be obscure glazed and non-opening. No further windows to be formed in this elevation;

13. The first floor window in the southern end of the two storey link section to be obscure glazed.

14. Details of existing and proposed ground levels to be submitted and approved;15. Details of lighting to external access and parking areas to be submitted and

approved;16. Site investigation for landfill gas and contaminated land to be submitted to and

approved prior to the commencement of development. Any necessary remediation works to be implemented in accordance with the approved details and a Site Completion Report to be submitted and approved;

17. Drainage details to be submitted and approved;18. Details of bin storage facilities to be submitted and approved;19. Travel Plan to be submitted and approved;20. Provision and retention of video entry phone system to main entrance door and gate

on western side of building.

DR



PW

Car

FB

ParkP's

Meadowside Adult Training Centre

5

53

63

ElSub Sta

21.6m

144

149

1 to

4

P's

147a

147c

Mulberry Court

Hotel

22.3m

)

)

)

)

)

)This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ©


WARD: Sale Moor H/71614 DEPARTURE: No

CONVERSION OF EXISTING DWELLINGHOUSE TO PROVIDE 4 NO. TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS AND 1 NO. ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO ALL ELEVATIONS, INCLUDING INSERTION OF NEW WINDOWS AND CREATION OF BASEMENT LIGHTWELLS. CREATION OF CAR PARKING FOR FIVE VEHICLES AND ERECTION OF NEW BIN STORE ENCLOSURE

158 Broad Road, Sale

APPLICANT: Beckhall Properties

AGENT: None

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT, SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

SITE

The application relates to the left hand property of a pair of three storey Victorian semis on the south-west side of Broad Road between its junctions with Skaife Road and Old Hall Road. The property is situated within a primarily residential area to the north of Sale Moor Local Centre. Gardens extending to the rear, side and front have been poorly maintained and are overgrown. A low stone wall with a holly/privet hedge defines the front boundary of the site although a driveway with gate posts leads off Broad Road close to its western boundary. This driveway does not appear to have been used recently and is covered with moss and lichen. A mature copper beech tree and two semi mature limes within the front garden area are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (No. 61). This is one of several similar large Victorian dwellings in the area, but its general character is one of more modest family housing. The property was previously occupied as a family dwelling. It lay vacant for a period of several years, but has recently been updated and is currently rented out. The adjoining semi appears to be occupied as a family dwelling.

PROPOSAL

The application seeks consent to convert the existing property from a family dwellinghouse to provide 5 no. apartments (4 no. two bedrooms apartments and 1 no. one bedroom apartment). Accommodation would be provided across all four floors of the property, including the basement providing a mix of duplex apartments and single level apartments. The properties would each be accessed via the existing front door which will lead to a communal hallway and stairs. Whilst no extensions are proposed to the building, a number of large lightwells will be created to provide light and a recessed terrace to the basement flat. These lightwells will be created at the front, side and rear of the building. The application also involves alterations to the external elevations, including the creation of a first floor window on the rear elevation of the existing two storey outrigger; the enlargement of the existing ground floor window on the rear elevation; creation of two first floor obscure glazed windows on the side elevation of the main property; and the insertion of new rooflights. Railings will be provided around the proposed lightwells/subterranean terraces; and an existing doorway to the rear of the property will be bricked up.

To the front of the property the applicant proposes the creation of a 5 car parking spaces using the existing access from Broad Road and the creation of a separate pedestrian access with a path leading to the front door of the property. A bin store enclosure will be provided to


the side of the property behind the car parking spaces. The rear and side garden will be retained providing communal amenity space for future residents.



PRINCIPAL ADOPTED RSS POLICIESDP4 – Making the Best Use of Existing Resources and InfrastructureDP7 – Promote Environmental QualityL4 – Regional Housing ProvisionMCR1 – Manchester City Region PrioritiesMCR2 – Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City RegionRDF1 – Spatial Priorities

REVISED UDP PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION None

PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential DevelopmentH1 – Land Release for DevelopmentH2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing DevelopmentH3 – Land Release for DevelopmentH4 – Release of Other Land for DevelopmentENV14 – Tree ProtectionENV16 – Red Rose ForestOSR9 – Open Space in New Housing Development


156 & 158 Broad Road

H/OUT/59828 - Retention and conversion of existing pair of houses and erection of three-storey extensions to form 17 apartments. Provision of basement parking for 18 cars and surface parking for 7 cars (total 25 cars). Retention of existing vehicular accesses to Broad Road. Provision of amenity space and landscaping of site. Refused 1 October 2004 for reasons relating to oversupply of housing land, overdevelopment and impact on adjoining residents.

H/58303 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 3-storey block of 17 apartments. Provision of basement parking for 15 cars and surface parking for 10 cars (total 25 parking spaces). Closure of existing vehicular access and alterations to one vehicular access to Broad Road. Refused 18 March 2004 for reasons relating to housing land supply and overdevelopment of the site. Appeal dismissed 19 May 2005.


The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement which is summarised below:

The existing building envelope is unchanged other than adaptations to windows etc. allowing the architectural character and the streetscape to be retained;


The addition of lightwells will provide a good level of natural light, views out for the basement apartments;

External parking has been laid out to the front and use of bound gravel will provide a quality and subtle appearance to this area;

Parking is well set back from the side boundary with planting in between to limit impact upon the neighbours;

The level of parking is felt to be appropriate for this location and apartment size, balancing the needs of residents with the desire to limit areas of hardsurfacing.

CONSULTATIONS

Built Environment: Recommends standard drainage conditions

LHA: To meet the Council’s parking standards the provision of 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit is required, however in this case the LHA will accept the provision of 1 car parking space per residential unit and therefore the provision of five spaces is acceptable. However, in its current form the proposed site layout plan but makes it very awkward for three of the vehicles to exit the site in forward gear. It is noted that there is an area kept clear for vehicles to turn, however it is felt that this turning area is too narrow to be useable and therefore the LHA requests that this is widened and marked out clearly as a turning area.

It is also my understanding that the proposed vehicle access is just 2.4m wide, this needs to be increased to 3.1m in order to be acceptable on highways grounds. I would also request that the applicant’s attention is drawn to the need to gain further approval from Trafford Councils Streetworks Section for the construction, removal or amendment of a pavement crossing under the provision of section 184 of the Highways Act 1980.

The applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.

Subject to the above amendments there are no objections on highways grounds to the proposals.

Renewal and Environmental Protection: No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

14 letters of objection have been received from local residents. The main points raised are summarised below:

Still feel development represents overdevelopment of the site, given the number of flats proposed;

Residents of Old Hall Road and visitors to local shops already park on-street making it difficult for residents to access driveways and causing highway safety problems and a danger to children walking to nearby schools/nurseries. The proposal will only exacerbate this;

This part of Broad Road is populated by large family houses, a 5 block apartment is completely out of character and the property should be retained as a large Victorian family home;

The Broad Road/Old Hall Road junction is already busy and at morning rush hour is almost gridlocked, the proposal will only increase traffic;

Development represents pure greed of developer making maximum profit with the least consideration for local residents;

Proposal will result in additional noise from vehicles arriving and leaving the premises; Development will result in greater overlooking to neighbouring properties;


The property is not vacant as stated on the application form, but has recently been refurbished and is currently rented out to several people. Property is also currently being marketed for sale at an over inflated price;

Size of second bedrooms seems disproportionate and no thought has been given to disabled access to the property;

There are many properties in Sale available to rent or buy and we feel that this development would only add to the oversupply of flats when family houses are needed;

The tree survey shows trees on both 156 and 158 Broad Road. This reflects previous proposals for the site and is out of date.

1 letter has also been received from a local resident who does not object to the application, but requests that the two lime trees on the common boundary with no. 160 are removed as they are affecting the foundations of adjoining properties.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT – RSS SPATIAL/HOUSING POLICY

1. The proposal would normally fall to be considered against the provisions of the adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. The North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 published by the Secretary of State in September 2008 must now, however, carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications to the extent that it must take precedence over the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the adopted SPG (September 2004).

2. With regard to new housing provision, RSS Policy L4 significantly raises the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a net (excluding clearance) figure of 270 dwellings a year to a net figure of 578. Additionally, this requirement is expressly described as a minimum figure. In relation to this new target requirement, therefore, the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, which explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.

3. The relevant policies from the Regional Spatial Strategy that can now be applied to this proposal are as follows:

DP4 – Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and InfrastructureRDF1 – Spatial PrioritiesL4 – Regional Housing ProvisionMCR1 – Manchester City Region PrioritiesMCR2 – Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the Manchester City Region

4. Policy DP4 states that priority should be given to developments in locations consistent with the regional and sub-regional spatial frameworks set out in the document and sub-regional policies. This requires development to build upon existing concentrations of activities and infrastructure and not require major new investment in infrastructure. Development should accord with a sequential approach where existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements are used first. Sustainable construction and efficiency in resource use should be promoted.

5. Policy RDF1 identifies 3 priorities for growth. The first priority for growth should be the Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool. The second priority should be the


Inner Areas surrounding these centres, with emphasis placed on areas in need of regeneration. The third priority is the centres and inner areas of a number of important towns and cities, which includes Altrincham.

6. The application proposal is a wholly general market housing development which falls outside the priority areas described in the paragraph above. As a wholly general market housing proposal in this area it falls to be considered against the RSS criteria (set out in Policy L4 and Policy MCR3): -

(d) Whether or not the proposal supports a local regeneration strategy and/or meets an identified local need;

(e) Whether or not the proposal is located in a sustainable location, and,(f) Whether or not the proposal is in a location that is well served by public transport.

7. In terms of criteria (b) the proposal can be agreed to be acceptable as the site is previously developed land and is not greenfield land. It is considered to be within a relatively sustainable location given its proximity to Sale Moor Local Centre where comprehensive services and facilities are available.

8. In terms of criteria (c) the site is considered to be well served by public transport as there are bus stops on Northenden Road within easy walking distance. Furthermore, it is classified as an ‘accessible’ area in the Council’s SPD1 ‘Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes’.

9. In relation to criteria (a), however, the merit of the proposal as a development supportive of a local regeneration strategy is less clear given that the site is not within one of the Priority Regeneration Areas designated by the Council. Furthermore, the building is in a good condition and is currently occupied by tenants. Whilst the garden is overgrown, it merely requires maintenance. Therefore, whilst the proposal does not strictly align with the development focus set out in RSS Policies L4 and MCR3, it is modest in scale and cannot be said to conflict with the development focus set by these Policies (the application site being located within the southern part of the city region).

10. At this point in time (effectively at the commencement of a new planning policy regime) it is considered that it would not be possible to demonstrate from the available land supply and housing market monitoring information that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local and neighbouring housing markets and in consequence that harm to the RSS strategy would arise from this development. This position of course will need to be kept under review and the effects of further development proposals assessed to determine their impact upon the land supply and housing market position to meet the development monitoring and management requirements of RSS Policy L4.

11. As such it is considered that in principle the proposed conversion of the existing property from a single dwellinghouse to several flats is acceptable.

DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

12. The applicant proposes only minor external alterations to the existing property as part of this proposal. This would include the creation/enlargement of several lightwells around the property to provide light to the basement flat. These lightwells will each be enclosed by 1m high railings. New windows are proposed on both the side and rear elevations and rooflights are proposed to the front and rear. To the front of the property, the existing driveway will lead onto an enlarged car parking area providing 5 spaces. The applicant states that this area of hardsurfacing will be laid out in a bound gravel finish. Landscaping is provided around the car parking area and to the


side boundaries and the existing stone wall to the front is to be retained, albeit with a new pedestrian access proposed close to the west boundary.

13. These alterations are considered to be minor ensuring the character of this attractive Victorian property is retained. The car parking area would be well screened with landscaping and if good quality materials are used would not unduly detract from the streetscene or character of the area. On this basis the proposal is considered to be acceptable in accordance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

14. The property is adjoined on all sides by residential properties. To the east, the adjoining Victorian semi is occupied as a family dwellinghouse. The conversion of the property into 5 apartments is likely to result in more occupants than if retained as a single family dwellinghouse. However, as the two properties have adjoining hallways/staircases on each floor, which would be retained as part of this conversion, any increase in noise between this property and the proposed flats would be limited.

15. To the east, the property adjoins a pair of 1960’s semi detached properties (no.s 160 and 162 Broad Road). The application proposes two additional first floor windows on the side elevation facing towards this property. These windows however will be fitted with obscure glazing and are secondary windows only to these rooms. Subject to a standard obscure glazing condition the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

16. The proposed car parking area is located adjacent to the east boundary of the application site and will extend across the existing driveway and an area of grass/shrubs adjoining this to provide 5 car parking spaces for future residents. A distance of 1.2m (increasing to 5m) is retained between this car parking area and the common boundary with no. 160 Broad Road. Existing planting along the east boundary comprises two existing semi-mature lime trees and low level shrubs. However, the applicant shows additional indicative planting in this area on the submitted Site Plan and this matter can be covered by a standard landscaping condition. Whilst there is expected to be additional noise associated with an increase in vehicles manoeuvring into this new car parking area, this area has previously been used in part as a driveway and it is situated adjacent to the neighbouring properties driveway. Furthermore, proposed and existing planting will help to screen this area from the adjoining property. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unduly significant impact on the occupants of this property.

17. To the south, the rear garden of the application site adjoins the rear gardens of properties on Skaife Road and Old Hall Road. An additional first floor window is proposed on the rear elevation of the existing two storey outrigger facing towards these rear garden boundaries. However, as the property has a relatively long garden (measuring 18m in length) the development would comply with the Council’s New Residential Guidelines in this respect which recommends a minimum separation distance of 10.5m in such circumstances. The proposal would not therefore result in a loss of privacy for the occupants of properties to the south.

18. On the rear elevation of the outrigger, the applicant proposes a Juliet balcony to the lounge of the ground floor flat. The ground floor internal floor levels are slightly elevated above the external floor levels and this balcony would be situated close to the rear garden boundary of the adjoining semi-detached property, no. 156. However, the adjoining semi has a single storey rear extension which measures approximately 3m in length and which would restrict any views from this balcony to the garden of the adjoining property.


19. In terms of amenity space, the Council’s guidelines recommend 18sq.m is provided for each flat, giving a total requirement of 90sq.m in this instance. The existing side and rear gardens are currently poorly maintained within limited planting, although trees/shrubs overhanging from the adjoining gardens help to soften this area. The applicant intends to landscape these gardens providing a communal amenity space for future occupants of the development. This area measures 260sq.m exceeding the Council’s requirements in this respect. The indicative plans shows planting around the boundary of the existing rear garden and seating to encourage residents to use this area. Subject to a condition requiring the submission and agreement of a detailed landscaping scheme for this area the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

HIGHWAYS AND CAR PARKING

20. The applicant proposes 5 car parking spaces, one space per flat. The Council’s Car Parking Standards state that a maximum of 1.5 car parking spaces should be provided for each flat, equating to a total of 7.5 spaces. However, in accordance with Government Guidance in PPG13, it should be recognised that these are maximum standards. On this basis the level of car parking proposed is deemed to be acceptable. Several residents have objected to the proposal on this basis and raise concerns that the proposal will exacerbate existing problems with on-street parking in the area. However, it is felt that the level of car parking proposed is reasonable for the development and any on-street parking resulting from the development would be limited.

21. The LHA have requested several amendments to the car park layout and access arrangements to ensure that there is sufficient space for vehicles to manoeuvre within the site, and exit in a forward gear. This matter is being addressed by the applicant and an update will be provided in the Additional Information Report.

IMPACT ON PROTECTED TREES

22. A mature copper beech tree and two semi-mature lime trees within the front garden are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. These are supplemented by an overgrown hedge along the front boundary, several shrubs and grassed areas. The applicant intends to retain these existing trees and supplement this planting with several additional shrubs and trees. Subject to standard landscaping and tree preservation conditions, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Proposals ENV14 and D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

23. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, ‘Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest’ was adopted in September 2004 and seeks to further the establishment of the Red Rose Community Forest. Under the terms of this guidance, the development falls within a category for which a financial contribution towards off-site tree planting is normally appropriate. However, it is accepted that on-site tree planting can be offset against any required Red Rose Forest contribution if the trees planted are of an appropriate size (minimum nursery ‘standard size’). In this case, the size of the development would create a requirement for the provision of 5 trees. The Proposed Site Plan indicates several additional trees. However, given the canopy spread of the existing copper beech and lime trees within the site and several trees within the gardens of the adjoining properties, it is likely that any new trees planted would be small in size. As such a financial contribution of £1,175.00 is to be sought in this respect.

24. Proposals OSR3, OSR4 and OSR9 of the Revised Trafford UDP and the Council’s Adopted SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities


Provision and Commuted Sums’ seek the provision of financial contributions towards play and outdoor sports facilities for all new residential developments. This site is identified as being within an area of insufficiency for play facilities and outdoor sports facilities. In this instance, based on the residential accommodation proposed (4 X 2-bed apartments, 1 X 1-bed apartment) the level of contribution required would amount to £8,596.01 (to be split £3,253.27 towards outdoor sports facilities provision and £5,342.74 towards open space provision).

25. If committee members resolve to grant planning permission, these matters should be secured through a S106 legal agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

26. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of its design, layout and impact on residential amenity. It would not significant impact on the existing streetscene and it is therefore considered that the scheme complies with the relevant policies of the Revised Trafford UDP and the Council’s Adopted SPG ‘New Residential Guidelines’. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards the Red Rose Forest and Outdoor Sports and Play Facilities.


(A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and such legal agreement be entered into to secure a contribution of £8,596.01 towards outdoor sports and play facilities in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities Provision and Commuted Sums’ and £1,175.00 towards off-site tree planting in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest’.

(B) That upon completion of the legal agreement referred to at (A) above, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard condition;2. Materials condition;3. Landscaping condition, including retention of front boundary wall, gateposts and

hedge;4. Tree Protection Condition 1;5. Tree Protection Condition 2;6. Amended Plans condition;7. Provision of access facilities condition 2;8. Retention of access facilities condition;9. Obscure Glazing condition, allowing the upper half of the proposed side windows to

open for ventilation;10. Detail of bin store to be submitted and agreed in writing.

VM



LB

28.7m

28.7m

CourtWorthington

28.7m

)



WARD: Flixton H/71633 DEPARTURE: Yes

DEVELOPMENT OF ECO-CENTRE WITHIN SCHOOL GROUNDS COMPRISING SINGLE STOREY TIMBER LABORATORY BUILDING, 3 NO. GLAZED GEODESIC DOMES (SOLAR DOMES) AS LABARATORY GREENHOUSES, POND AND REED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY CHANGING ROOM BLOCK AND GROUND STAFF STORE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED BOUNDARY TREATMENT AND ASSOCIATED ANCILLARY WORKS

Wellacre Technology College, Irlam Road, Flixton

APPLICANT: Wellacre Technology College

AGENT: Ansell and Bailey Chartered Architects


SITE

The application relates to Wellacre Technology College, a secondary school complex on the south side of Irlam Road in Flixton. Most of the school buildings date from the 1970’s and are of typical concrete panel construction, however to the front of the site, a modern three storey sixth form centre is currently under construction and nearing completion. The school’s playing fields extend to the south of the main buildings.

This application specifically relates to a small area of woodland to the west of the main school building situated between an existing all weather playing field and the boundary with Delamere School. The site was previously used in part as a general storage area for the maintenance staff, however it is understood that a residential property on this part of the site was demolished a number of years ago. Part of the site is covered in a mix of self seeded semi mature and young trees and scrub planting. To the north the site adjoins the boundary with Delamere Special School, to the west it adjoins a mini rugby pitch and to the south there is an all weather pitch which is enclosed by paladin fencing.

The wider surrounding area is predominantly residential with the nearest properties on the opposite side of Stott Close to the west of the school grounds, Irlam Road to the north and Woodsend Road to the east. However, immediately adjoining the site to the west is Delamere School and to the east is St John’s Church, Church of St Monica’s and St Monica’s RC School.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes a new eco-centre development to promote pupil and community awareness of the environment. This development comprises a single storey timber ‘laboratory’ teaching building; a pond with a wooden bridge crossing; 3 geodesic greenhouses; and an area of planted beds. Also included within the application are proposals for a single storey changing room block and storage accommodation for the existing ground staff.

The proposed laboratory teaching building (which will accommodate circa 30 pupils) would measure 12.9m in length and 7.4m in width. The building will have a low pitched roof which measures 3.4m in height to the ridge and 2.6m in height at the eaves. The roof would comprise a mix of timber shingles and sedum whilst the elevations would be clad in larch


wood. A wooden pergola and decked area extends across the south elevation of the building and this leads onto a wooden bridge which extends over a large pond to the south. The proposed pond would be split into three separate areas, an amphibian pond to the north, a deep fish pond in the centre and a dipping pond in front of the proposed building. To the south of the proposed pond, three geodesic greenhouse pods are proposed, two measuring 6.1m in diameter and a larger one measuring 7.5m in diameter. The structures would measure 3.2m in height and 3.8m in height respectively. The proposed planting beds would extend to the north of the building and would be enclosed by a gabion wall with trailing espalier fruit trees, separating this area from the ground staff area to the north.

This ground staff area would comprise a new store building situated within the existing landscaped area adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. The proposed building would measure 10.2m in length and 6.7m in width. The elevations and roof would comprise colour coated profiled metal sheeting, with four garage doors extending across the front elevation. This building again has a low pitched roof measuring 2.8m in height to the roof ridge and 2.1m in height to the roof eaves. The area between this building and the gabion wall to the south will be used by ground staff to store materials.

The proposed single storey changing room facility would be situated to the east of the eco-centre and would measure 18m in length and 10m in width. This building again would have a relatively shallow pitch and would measure 2.5m in height to the roof eaves and 3.5m in height to the roof ridge. As with the proposed teaching building, the roof would comprise a mix of timber shingles and sedum whilst the elevations would be clad in larch wood.



PRINCIPAL ADOPTED RSS POLICIESRDF4 – Green Belts

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Green BeltAreas of Landscape ProtectionMersey Valley

PRINCIPAL ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSC4 – Green BeltC5 – Development within the Green BeltENV17 – Areas of Landscape ProtectionD1 – All New Development


H/56417 - Erection of two storey extension to north elevation to provide six additional classrooms. Approved with conditions June 2003.

H/58379 - Construction of synthetic turf pitch with 8 no. 15 metre high floodlights and surround fence (3 metre high along the sides and 4.5m high at the goal ends). Approved with conditions July 2004.

H/62708 - Extensions to form IT and food technology classrooms and extension to dining hall. Approved with conditions September 2005.


H/67034 - Erection of two no. Northlight studios as extension to western end of school buildings. Approved with conditions August 2007.

H/LPA/68582 - Construction of three storey block and enclosed yard for use as a vocational teaching facility for 16 to 18 years olds. Provision of hard and soft landscaping, replacement playground area; 21 no. staff parking spaces and development ancillary thereto. Approved 22 May 2008.


The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement, Ecological Assessment and Evening Bat Survey with the planning application. These are summarised below:

Bat Survey

No bats were seen to emerge from the existing trees. Four trees that have been identified as having bat potential, should be section felled and any cavities inspected at ground level.

Design and Access Statement

The school have been awarded funds from Trafford Council 14-19 Education to deliver the proposed eco-project;

The proposal will provide improved understanding of plants and animals and sustainability and environmental management to support a new diploma course;

The proposed eco-centre is intended to be a community facility, not just a school facility. This could include visits from other schools, including Delamere Special School;

Siemens, a local company propose to install a range of equipment within and on the building to allow students to monitor changes in the weather or which ensure the building is sustainable. This includes a biomass boiler, nocturnal animal watch system, and a weather station.

The scale and size of the building is deliberately low key to reduce its impact on the surrounding area.

Ecological Assessment

Recommended that mature trees and scrub be retained around the site boundaries and recognises that the proposal provides an excellent opportunity to increase the opportunity for wildlife habitat.

CONSULTATIONS

LHA: No objection

Renewal and Environmental Protection – The site is within 250m of a known landfill site or area of ground that has the potential to create gas and recommend a contaminated land condition. No comments relating to nuisance.

REPRESENTATIONS

No representations had been received from local residents at the time of report preparation. However, committee members should be aware that the 21 day consultation period triggered by the site notice expires on the day of the committee meeting.


OBSERVATIONS


1. This site falls within the Green Belt where government advice in PPG2 states that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. A number of categories of development in the Green Belt are identified in PPG2 as appropriate. Whilst the proposed changing room block, which is considered to be an essential facility for outdoor sport and recreation which preserves the openness of the Green Belt, is identified as appropriate, the other elements of the development including the new laboratory buildings and ground staff enclosure do not fall within any of these. These aspects are therefore by definition inappropriate development. In accordance with PPG2, inappropriate development may only proceed if very special circumstances exist which would outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt, together with any other harm. The advice in PPG2 is carried through into Proposal C5 of the Revised UDP.

2. Wellacre Technology and Vocational College has been classed as a ‘high performing specialist college’ due to high and consistent GCSE results. The school were invited by Trafford Council to bid for funding from Trafford 14-19 Education to promote pupil and community awareness of the environment. The school were successful in securing this funding and the proposal would provide a purpose built environment for a specialist Diploma course on Environmental and Land Based studies. The school have also been successful at securing funding from a local company, Siemens to provide a range of high technology equipment and facilities within the development.

3. The school has a proven track record in delivering high standards of education and although land may be available at other schools in the area which are not in the Green Belt, other schools in the surrounding area have not successfully qualified for this grant. The nature of the course and the desire to create a variety of habitats for wildlife which can then be monitored and studied by students means that its position at the edge of the urban area adjacent to school playing fields and open land to the south is imperative. The proposal would enable the school to provide essential facilities for this new course which are of the highest standard and allow pupils and any other users to interact with the various aspects of the development. The opportunity to provide this new eco-centre within the school grounds would also provide significant benefits to the wider community as the school aims to open these facilities to other neighbouring schools and local community groups. In particular Action for Sustainable Living and STEMNET, an organisation which links professionals with students providing extra curriculum support, have been actively involved in the design of the development.

4. The proposed ground staff building would replace several existing dilapidated metal storage boxes currently used by the ground staff on this part of the site. The proposal will provide new and improved facilities replacing these existing long standing storage boxes which no longer serve the school’s requirements.

5. As the whole school site falls within the Green Belt, there are no opportunities to site these school facilities elsewhere outside of the Green Belt. The development proposals would occupy only a relatively small part of the school site and would be sited on previously developed land adjacent to the main school buildings. Furthermore, they would not extend onto the school’s playing fields to the south and west which are allocated as Protected Open Space.


6. It is therefore considered that very special circumstances can be demonstrated in the case of these proposals which would justify a grant of planning permission, despite the development being deemed inappropriate within the Green Belt.

IMPACT ON GREEN BELT, DESIGN AND STREET SCENE

7. The proposed development would be situated to the west of the main school buildings, between the existing all weather pitch, the mini-rugby pitch and the school boundary with Delamere School. The development has been designed as far as is possible to reduce its visual impact on the green belt and the surrounding area. In particular, in this location it would be screened by the existing school buildings in part and by mature trees/planting which extend around the south, west and north of the development.

8. Each building is single storey in height with a low pitched roof. The buildings have been designed to sit amongst the existing mature trees where possible helping to screen the development from the surrounding area and soften its appearance. The proposed laboratory and changing room buildings would comprise wooden structures with green sedum roofs, whilst the geodesic domes will be fully glazed, further assimilating the development into the surrounding landscape. The proposed laboratory building would also include a number of renewable technologies such as rainwater recycling, a biomass boiler, photovoltaic panels, sun tunnels and passive ventilation making it a very sustainable development.

9. The proposed ground staff building is to be constructed in metal profile cladding rather that the high quality materials proposed for the laboratory and changing room buildings to the south. However, this building will be well hidden within the existing landscaping and if colour coated in a dark green would not be visible from the adjoining playing fields or from outside the school grounds.

10. The plan also indicates fencing around the eco-centre and ground staff area with a gabion wall between these two facilities. Full details have not been provided with the planning application, however the school have confirmed that the fencing would comprise colour coated paladin fencing measuring 2m in height. This type of fencing is considered to be appropriate as it would allow views to be retained through across to the playing fields to the school and would match existing fencing used around the all weather pitch to the south. Set within a back drop of landscaping and mature trees, this fence type would not be considered unduly out of character and would not significantly impact on the openness of the green belt or the character of the surrounding area. The school maintain that the proposed gabion wall is an essential element of this new facility providing a habitat for insects and providing a support for espalier fruit trees. It will also be used as a support for several compost bunkers. Subject to a condition ensuring the submission and agreement of details of these boundary treatments, this element of the development is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

11. The new buildings and associated works would sit satisfactorily within the existing school site, with a good relationship to the existing buildings. They would not be visible from Irlam Road to the north, and would be well screened from the open fields to the south and west. Given their design and choice of external materials, it is considered that the development would have only a limited impact on the openness and visual amenity of the surrounding area and would not conflict with any of the purposes for including it within the Green Belt.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

12. The nearest residential properties to the proposed development are located over 100m away to the west on Stott Drive. Due to the distance between these properties and the proposed development and the intervening playing fields and significant tree cover, the proposal would not be visible to these residents. Furthermore, due to the nature of the


development and its position adjacent to existing school playing fields, it is considered that it would not generate a substantial level of noise or disturbance for these residents. Other residential properties surrounding the school grounds on Irlam Road and Woodsend Road South are between 140m and 350m away and the development will be screened from these properties by the existing schools buildings to the north and east. The development would not therefore have a significant impact on the occupants of these properties.

13. Whilst the proposal will allow the school to offer a new diploma course, there will not be an increase in the number of staff or pupils on site. The proposal will also be used by local community groups which would lead to a slight increase in activity at and around the school premises in the evening and at weekends. However, given the size of the development, this is expected to be minimal and would not result in a significant increase in the level of noise and disturbance to local residents.

14. Although no letters of objection have been received from local residents in response to consultation carried out for this application, it is understood several local residents have previously expressed concern about noise and disturbance from the use of the existing all weather pitch. The applicant has confirmed that there would be no additional usage of the all weather pitch as a result of the proposed changing room facility. The pitch is currently being used to its maximum capacity by local community groups for hockey and football.

ACCESS, HIGHWAYS AND CAR PARKING

15. The Council’s car parking standards for this type of development (college of further education) would require 1 space per 10 students, 1 space per member of teaching staff and 1 space for every 3 members of non-teaching staff. As the proposal would not result in an increase in pupil/staff numbers, no additional car parking is proposed. The school already has sufficient car parking to meet its requirements and has secure cycle parking facilities at several points within the existing school site. They are also in the process of preparing a Travel Plan which includes a number of targets for reducing car use and its associated impact on the surrounding highway.

16. Use of this facility by local community groups is expected to be outside of typical school hours and outside of existing peak traffic periods and any impact on residential amenity would therefore be extremely limited in this respect.

CONCLUSION

17. Although this scheme comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt it is considered that very special circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant it proceeding. The visual impact of the development on the openness and amenity of the green belt and surrounding area are limited, nor would it have a detrimental impact on residential amenity or highway safety. The proposal is considered to accord with all relevant Proposals in the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and is therefore recommended for approval.

18. The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction came into effect on 20 April 2009, and states that Local Planning Authorities must refer all planning applications to the Secretary of State for ‘inappropriate’ development on land allocated as Green Belt and which consists of a building(s) where the floorspace proposed measures 1,000sq.m or more or where it is considered that the development would have a significant impact by reason of its scale, nature or location on the openness of the Green Belt. The combined floorspace of the development proposed is 419sq.m and as outlined above the proposal by reason of its siting, design and materials would not have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. On this basis the


application does not need to be referred to the Secretary of State and can be determined by the Local Planning Authority.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions:

1) Standard.2) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of the

materials to be used in the construction of the building including metal cladding, timber, photovoltaic panels, northlights, ventilation stacks, sun tunnels, roofing materials, doors, window frames and rainwater goods shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

3) Landscaping condition, including full details of boundary treatment;4) The proposed laboratory building premises to which this application relates shall be

used as a school/community classroom and for no other purpose (including any other purpose within Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification);

5) Tree Protection Condition no.1; 6) Tree Protection Condition no.2;7) Contamination condition.

VM



8

DE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSEDE BROOK CLOSE

3

El Sub Sta

St Mo nica 'sR C Scho ol

Pre sb y tery

28

RC School

St Monica 's

84

23

86

Mar lfield

24

13

1 to 3

9

14

C our t

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

LONG

WOR

TH C

LOSE

8

19 .8m

10

Ch urc h of

Ch u rc h

FS

St Monic a

Ha l lSt J oh n 's

Po n d

Re d L io n

20 .1m

(PH)

12212 613 4PH

14 0130

Pon d

Vic ara g e

Technology CollegeWellacre

El Sub Sta

Ac re Ha ll Primary Sc ho ol

19 .8m

Wellac re Tec hnolog y C olle ge

Sc ho olD ela mere

5

10

Woodlands

)

