Submitted Planning Applications Status: for Publication

Subject: Submitted Planning Applications Status: For Publication

Report to: Regulatory Planning Committee Date: 13/01/2014

Report of: Service Director (Economy and Environment)

Author: See individual agenda reports

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide recommendations to the Committee on planning applications or related consents submitted to the Council and requiring the consideration and/or determination of the Committee in accordance with the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation.

1.2 To provide information on any other planning or development related matters which may affect the work of the Committee.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Recommendations in respect of individual planning applications are as detailed in the following papers.

3. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The submitted applications on this agenda are to be determined in accordance with the provisions of relevant legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Planning and Compensation Act 1991, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Act 2008, Localism Act 2012 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management) Procedure Order 2010 together with any Circulars and Regulations which support that legislation.

3.2 Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where relevant, any such material considerations will be referred to in the report.

The Development Plan

3.3 All planning applications referred to in this report have been assessed against the relevant policies and proposals of the development plan for the Borough (currently the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan 2006) and any Supplementary Planning Documents or Guidance adopted by the Council.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3.4 In addition, in assessing the submitted planning applications, there is a requirement to have regard to relevant national policies as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the policies of which are a material consideration. Where relevant, the provisions of the NPPF and any other relevant national guidance will be referred to in the report.

4. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters. Members and Officers are required to have full regard to the Code in discharging their responsibilities and duties in relation to planning matters on behalf of the Council. The Code seeks to ensure that all decision making is governed by an open and transparent process and represents a standard against which the conduct of Officers and Member sitting on the Committee will be judged.

4.2 A Declaration of Member Interests Register is taken prior to the commencement of the Committee meeting. Advice on whether any Member sitting on the Committee ought to declare any interest on any item on the submitted agenda should be obtained from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services or the Chief Planning Officer.

4.3 The Council’s Standards Committee will monitor the operation of this Code of Conduct.

5. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

5.1 The above Acts require Local Planning Authorities to consider planning applications on their individual merits having regard to the development plan and other material planning considerations.

5.2 The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics which are known as protected characteristics. These protected characteristics are Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage or Civil Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex (Gender), Sexual Orientation, socio-economic status and Carer.

5.3 In applying the Equality Act 2010, the Council is required to consider the effects of its decisions on different groups protected from discrimination, including a duty to make reasonable adjustments. In taking account of all material planning considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, the Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services) has concluded all opportunities to promote equality through the planning process have been taken, or where adjustments cannot be made, these are justified on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal.

5.4 The Rochdale and District Disabled Access Working Group comments on relevant planning applications. Where comments are received, these will be included within the reported to Committee. Consideration is given in designing access when dealing with the planning applications. Where applicable, any issues relating to these matters or other equal opportunity matters will be referred to in individual planning application reports.

6. Human Rights Act 1998 considerations

6.1 The submitted applications need to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applications (and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments.

6.2 Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 confer(s) a right of respect or a person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services) has concluded that some rights conferred by these Articles on the applicant(s)/objectors/residents and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

Background Papers

The background papers relevant to the planning applications to be considered on this agenda will include:-

1. The Planning application file and its contents which will include:

i) The planning application form and supporting information, together with scaled drawings/plans and relevant statutory certificates. ii) Letters of response from statutory and other consultees who may have been consulted or commented on the planning application iii) Letters and documents received from interested parties. iv) Notes of telephone conversations, meetings and any information received and of relevance to the submitted proposal

2. For any previous planning application referred to in the agenda report or in the application file, the planning application forms and the decision on that proposal

3. Such other papers (if any) received after the preparation of individual reports on planning applications on this agenda (to be reported verbally at the meeting).

4. Any other guidance or procedural documents adopted by the Council and of relevance to the recommendation and/or determination of any submitted planning applications or related consents

For further information about this report, or if you wish to see any background papers please contact: Sharon Hill, Senior Business Support Officer, in Economy and Environment, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU

Telephone (01706) 924305 or via the online planning services at: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/planning

Application Number: 13/00931/FUL Ward: Norden

Proposal: Erection of 800kw wind turbine with a hub height of 50m and a maximum height of 74m

Site Address: Land To The North Of Stand Lees Farm Ashworth Road Heywood OL11 5UN

Applicant: Viridis (UK)

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to Conditions

Delegation Scheme

This application was taken before the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee because the proposal does not accord with the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan. That Committee resolved that it was minded to approve the application, with the conditions, as recommended.

Site

This application relates to an area of land to the north of Stand Lees Farm. The site of the proposed wind turbine lies 140m to the south of Ashworth Moor reservoir and 170m to the west of Ashworth Road. The site occupies part of a field that generally and gently slopes down from south-east to north-west. The vegetation and the drainage of the field do not suggest that it is being put to any beneficial agricultural use at the present time. There are no trees either within the application site or near to it, apart for a single tree next to the proposed site entrance, at Ashworth Road.

The surrounding area, (apart from the nearby reservoir), is undeveloped agricultural land.

The nearest building to the site is the former farmhouse and adjoining farm buildings of “Yates Farm”, some 270m away on higher ground to the south. Those buildings are currently unoccupied.

Near to the site and close to the western side of Ashworth Road are two telecommunications masts and also an electricity pylon.

One of the telecommunication masts stands 110m to the south of the reservoir, (next to the road), and is a 15m tall, slender, lattice structure, with a small enclosed compound containing a steel equipment cabin at its base. The second telecommunication mast is a similar type of structure, but 20m in height, and again it has a small compound and equipment cabin at its base. That mast stands a further 80m away to the south, albeit at a slightly higher ground level

The pylon supports the electricity transmission lines that run over and above the land here from east to west. The pylon has an approximate height of 30m and it also has an additional ‘tower item’ of infrastructure, (of a height of some 6m), to its southern side, which therefore increases its overall bulk and increases its presence in this location. The pylon stands 30m to the west of the road and 270m to the south-west of the site of the proposed wind turbine, at a ground level approximately 10m above that of the proposed wind turbine.

The current boundary between the field (in which the proposed turbine would stand) and Ashworth Road, is formed by a natural stone wall, which is partially broken down or missing in places. There is a timber five-bar gate into the field from Ashworth Road. There is a semi- mature, multi-stemmed, ash tree that stands just outside the application site, in front of the stone boundary wall. This has suffered from previous inappropriate pruning and which is therefore not in general good condition. Because of the general lack of trees in this vicinity however, its relatively well-developed canopy is still an attractive local landscape feature.

There are several public rights of way running around the site; the closest path, (reference: HeyFp156), passes within some 75m of the proposed turbine to the north of the site. Description of Proposal

This application is for the erection of an 800KW wind turbine having a hub height of 50m and maximum height to blade tip of 74m. The proposed turbine would stand within an open field, in a position 140m to the south of Ashworth Moor reservoir and 170m to the west of Ashworth Road.

The turbine is to stand on either reinforced concrete foundations or on piled foundations, depending on the precise ground conditions. Concrete foundations would typically have a diameter of 15m and a depth of approximately 2m, which would usually be hidden below the ground surface by the ground restoration.

The turbine is to have three blades with a rotor diameter of 48m. The turbine tower, nacelle and blades are all to have either a white or light grey, semi-matt finish, in order to try and reduce their contrast with the background sky and to minimise reflections.

The proposal is to construct an access track to the site from Ashworth Road of a length of 160m and a width of 4m. The track would be of the ‘floating’ type of construction, consisting of a combination of layers of stone material. Next to the turbine, on its northern side, would be a crane-pad hard standing measuring 20m x 30m. This would enable the turbine to be installed and it would remain in place thereafter, to allow any repair/replacement of the apparatus, and also to enable the turbine to be removed from the site when the facility is ultimately decommissioned at the end of the operational period.

The grid connection for the turbine would be via underground cables from a small sub-station, (5m x 2.5m x 2m), installed at the base of the turbine, to a point of connection on the grid network that will be determined by Electricity North West (ENWL).

The construction/installation period is anticipated to take 35 working days, spread over a 3 month period.

The proposed access road into the site from Ashworth Road is to be taken at the bend in that road near to the more northerly of the two nearby telecommunications masts. The access road would involve the temporary removal of part of the existing stone boundary wall and the felling of the ash tree. After the installation of the turbine is completed, the dry stone wall would then be carefully re-instated and the existing timber five-bar field gate re-formed across the field entrance.

New tree planting is proposed within the site, near to the site access to improve the appearance of the site and to increase/improve biodiversity. The existing broken and weathered sign pole is to be replaced by a new ‘public footpath’ sign, as part of the proposal. This new sign would direct the public to the public right of way HeyFp156, which leaves the road at this point.

Relevant Planning Policy

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and creates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (Para 14).

Although the NPPF supersedes government policy through Planning Policy Statements and guidance notes, the advice given through circulars and official publications remains valid and Government endorsed pending a review of the same.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

Part 1, (in bold), and Part 2 Policies:-

G/D/2 Green belt

D/4 Control of new development in the green belt – general

G/RE/1 Countryside and the rural economy

RE/2 Countryside around towns

RE/4 Diversification of the rural economy

RE/5 Access to the countryside

G/A/1 Accessibility

A/9 New development access for general traffic

G/BE/1 Design quality

BE/2 Design criteria for new development

G/EM/1 Environmental protection and pollution control EM/3 Noise and new development

G/EM/12 Renewable energy and energy conservation

EM/14 Wind power developments

EM/16 Sustainable energy sources

G/NE/1 Nature conservation

NE/3 Biodiversity and development

NE/4 Protected species

NE/6 Landscape protection and enhancement

Supplementary Planning Documents

Energy and New Development (SPD)

Biodiversity and Development (SPD)

The “Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines” produced by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant.

Relevant Planning History

None on the application site.

However, it should be noted that there have been several other relevant applications for wind turbines within a reasonably close proximity of the site:

1. There was an application for very similar type of wind turbine, (with a hub height of 50m and with an overall height of 78m to the top of the turbine blade), on land at the nearby “Wind Hill Farm”, on Ashworth Road, (reference: D55512). That site lies some 665m away to the south-east, (on land to the eastern side of that road), and on a higher area of ground, (about 25m higher than the current application site).

That application was refused by the Council in October 2012, (contrary to officer advice), on the grounds that it would introduce a dominant and incongruous feature to the surrounding landscape, which would be incompatible with its rural, countryside setting and which would also adversely affect the openness and the visual amenities of the green belt.

The application was subsequently allowed on appeal however.

2. There have been two recent applications of wind turbines on land at Copped Hill Farm, which lies 1.2km to the south-east, on the eastern side of Ashworth Road:

• The first application was for the erection of a turbine, (of a hub height of 24.6m and a blade tip height of 34.2m), (reference: D55284). That proposed turbine would have stood approximately 1400m away from the current application site. That application was refused in August 2012, (against officer advice), for the same reasons as for the application D55512 at Wind Hill Farm.

• A subsequent application for the erection of two wind turbines, (of a hub height of 15m and a height to blade tip of 17.8m), was then submitted by the same applicants at that farm, but on a different site, some 1050m away from the current application site, (reference: 56284). That application was refused in February 2013 on the same grounds, as for D55284.

There has been no planning appeal for either of these two other applications.

3. There were also two applications for the erection of two wind turbines on land at Silinghurst Farm, Castlehill Road, Bury. (That site is approximately 2.3km away to the south-west of the current application site and it also lies within the Green Belt).

o 2010 – erection of two 30m high wind turbines, (reference D53858). Refused.

o 2011 – erection of two 18m high wind turbines, (revised proposal). (ref: D54731). Refused and dismissed on appeal.

That appeal was dismissed on the summarised grounds that it would have given rise to a proliferation of turbines in that vicinity, which would be harmful to visual amenity. The turbines, being so close to Castle Hill Road, would also pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the many horse riders that use that road.

Consultation Responses

Highways & Engineering:-

No objections.

Chief Environmental Health Officer:-

No objections in principle, subject to the imposition of an appropriate planning condition to limit the maximum noise levels generated by the operation of the wind turbine. Manchester Airport:-

No comments received to date.

National Air Traffic Service, (NATS):-

Object to the proposal on technical operational radar grounds.

The Technical and Operational Assessment (TOPA) undertaken by NATS indicates that the proposed wind turbine would have an unacceptable technical impact on the operation of an en-route radar system (the Manchester Approach Radar). The TOPA concludes that the development is likely to cause false primary plots to be generated by the radar system (radar clutter) and, in addition, it would reduce the radar’s ability to detect aircraft (shadowing and/or obscuration). The proposed wind turbine would therefore interfere with, and compromise the integrity of, specialist communications infrastructure required for the safe and expeditious movement of aircraft in the en-route phase of flight through controlled airspace in the United Kingdom. As a result, the development would pose an unacceptable safety risk to air traffic.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service:-

No comments received to date.

Greater Manchester Ecological Unit:-

There are growing concerns about the cumulative impact of so many wind turbines in this area upon birds. Birds using the open moorland within the sites of Biological Importance at Scout Moor and Knowl Moors will move between the moorland and the feeding areas on farmland and the reservoirs on lower ground. The extent of this bird movement and the degree by which it would be affected by the increasing numbers of wind turbines is currently unknown. It is therefore recommended that future proposals for wind turbines in this local area should consider the other wind turbine developments in the area and the possible cumulative impacts of turbines on local birdlife.

Nonetheless, it is not considered that any objection could be raised to this proposal for a single turbine on this site, subject to an appropriate planning condition being imposed to prevent the installation of the turbine and its associated construction works within the main bird breeding season, (March to July inclusive). The reason for this limitation is because the site is within close proximity of an area known to be used by the ground- nesting species of Lapwings.

If the application is to be approved, then appropriately worded informatives should also be added to the decision notice about the treatment of any badgers that might be found within the vicinity of the site.

Natural England:-

No objections in principle.

Environment Agency:-

No objections in principle. However, the following summarised comments are made:-

• During the construction phase for the access track, appropriate steps should be taken to avoid any pollution of the local water environment;

• If piling is to be used for the foundations for the turbine, then measures need to be taken to avoid pollution of potable groundwater supplies;

• If during the construction period there would be any need to pump out water from ground excavations, then consideration will need to be given as to how that might affect groundwater dependent features in the vicinity. Also, careful thought will be needed as to where such ‘pumped-out’ water would be discharged to. Advice should be sought by the applicants from the Environment Agency;

• Any required storage facilities for oils or fuels need to be provided with secondary containment, (i.e. stored within a bunded enclosure).

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, (RSPB):-

No comments received to date.

Ministry of Defence – Defence Estates:-

No objections

Bury Council:-

No objections, although it is requested that any representations made by any residents in Bury are taken into account.

Rossendale Council:-

No comments received to date.

United Utilities:-

No objections

The Joint Radio Company Ltd (JRC):-

(JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry to assess whether they would have any potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their operational requirements)

No comments received to date.

Representations

The application was formally advertised in the press and by means of site notices that the application represents a departure from the development plan.

To date, one letter has been received from a household in Bury, expressing their support for the proposal, on the grounds that wind energy generation is an essential part of the country’s energy supply and there are far worse things that blight the environment.

Analysis

The principle of the development with respect to green belt policy and ‘very special circumstances’:

The site lies within the Green Belt, where there is normally strict control over new development.

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF reflects UDP policy D/4 and stipulates that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt unless the development falls within one of the following categories:

• buildings for agriculture and forestry;

• provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;

• the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

• the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

• limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or

• limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use 3.

Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. These include:

• mineral extraction;

• engineering operations;

• local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location;

• the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and

• development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order. (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. This proposed renewable energy project does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in the Green Belt as outlined in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and, therefore, the principle of development is inappropriate.

Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that:

• As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that:

• When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

In accordance with paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, development which is not acceptable in principle within the Green Belt should only be allowed in very special circumstances . As a result, the main issue in this case is whether there are any material considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, thereby justifying it on the basis of very special circumstances.

Paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that:

When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources [ emphasis added].

Government policy therefore attaches significant importance to the need to tackle climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in achieving that.

The Government has set very challenging targets for the supply of power using wind power schemes and there is a large gap between the current provision and the current targets for the North West region. It is also clear that slow progress is being made to the achievement of the 2020 targets. This was examined in great detail in the appeal decision to allow the Crook Hill wind farm and that was the strongest reason why that appeal was allowed. Although the power output of the current proposal would obviously be much lower than that of the Crook Hill wind farm, and its contribution to meeting that shortfall in provision would therefore be small, it nonetheless needs to be assessed against the above policy context.

The proposal would represent a sustainable form of renewable energy generation, which would help to contribute towards regional and national targets for renewable energy generation for 2020. This is considered to represent the very special circumstances for allowing this otherwise inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt.

The proposed turbine would make a very small, but still important, contribution towards renewable energy generation. Therefore, the environmental and economic benefits of the proposal weigh substantially in favour of the development. However, in order to determine the presence of very special circumstances, these benefits must be weighed against the harm the development would cause to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the character of the surrounding landscape.

The effect on the openness of the area and the impact on the landscape:

UDP policy EM/14 stipulates that the Council will support proposals for wind power developments and individual wind turbines where there is no unacceptable intrusion in the landscape, having regard to the cumulative impact and inter-visibility of such developments whether within Rochdale or in neighbouring local authority areas, in accordance with 10 criteria. Of these, criteria (a), (f), (g) and (i) are relevant to this proposal’s landscape impact as follows:

• The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character and quality of the landscape or materially detract from the physical record of the historic and cultural evolution of the landscape. Any proposal in conflict with this criterion will need to demonstrate that other locations are not suitable;

• Any proposal must demonstrate the best use of topography, siting, design and colour to minimise the visual impact of the proposal. Any ancillary structures and access roads should employ sensitive design and use of local materials to respect the character and appearance of its setting;

• Every effort is made to route power lines underground where they link a wind power development to the national grid, or link individual wind generators to user buildings. All proposals should seek to minimise the length of cable connection in order to reduce the visual impact of such structures when sited above ground;

• Full consideration of the impact of any proposal including construction, vehicular access, visual and physical impacts and the effect on local residential amenity will be sought by the Council through a detailed statement of the environmental effects, to be submitted preferably at the time of application.

UDP policy EM/16 indicates that proposals for the development of sustainable energy installations will be permitted where they have no unacceptable adverse impacts on local amenity or environmental quality and are shown to make an appropriate contribution to local or regional energy needs. In considering proposals in terms of their siting, design and operation, particular attention will be given to the following (criteria (a), (b) and (d)):

• The effect on the amenity of the surrounding area;

• The effect on buildings and areas of historic and archaeological importance and their setting and character;

• The effect on landscape character and quality;

Furthermore, criterion (a) of UDP policy RE/2 indicates that development proposals which help to sustain or regenerate the economic vitality and environmental quality of the countryside will be permitted where they assist agricultural diversification providing that they “protect or restore landscape character and quality in respect of visual appeal, and cultural and historic features”.

The surroundings of the application site are quite similar to those of the existing Scout Moor wind farm development and also to the consented, (but, as yet undeveloped), Crook Hill wind farm site. Many of the turbines of the Scout Moor wind farm are clearly visible, on higher land to the west and north-west of the current application site.

Unlike both the Scout Moor and Crook Hill sites, the current application site is within an enclosed field. It is not within an area of elevated, open moor, or ‘common land’, (where the general public have the right to roam), rather it is characterised by smaller fields with fencing/hedgerows and stone wall boundaries. Nonetheless, the general landscape around the application site has a similar feeling of openness due to the relatively elevated height of the land, the vegetation type, and the lack of many buildings in the vicinity.

The application site is similar in appearance to, but is probably not quite as visually prominent as , the nearby proposed and approved wind turbine site at Wind Hill Farm, (reference: D55512).

The impact of the turbine on this site is therefore likely to have a similar effect on the openness of this area of the Green Belt, to the existing turbines on the nearby Scout Moor wind farm site and the, as yet, undeveloped 50m high wind turbine on the nearby Wind Hill site.

The turbine would have a hub height of 50m with an overall height of 74m to the top of the turbine blades. Given its relatively elevated and open location, the turbine would inevitably be prominent in view within the surrounding landscape, including viewpoints from the nearby footpaths. The views of the proposed turbine from Ashworth Road however, would be tempered by the presence of the nearby two existing telecommunication masts and the electricity pylon.

The closest of the existing turbines at the Scout Moor Wind Farm is located some 1.7 kilometres away to the north-east of the development site and it also stands at a much higher elevation. Despite this relatively significant separation and the difference in elevation, the proposed turbine will be seen in relatively close context with the existing Scout Moor wind farm.

Given the local context, it is not considered that this proposal for a single turbine in this location would have an unacceptable cumulative impact, when taken into account with the Scout Moor wind farm site or the consented turbine at the Wind Hill Farm site, nearby. It would be for a single turbine, which would have a slender shape and form. It is therefore not considered that the height/scale/massing of the single turbine would have a particularly harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal decision for the proposed wind turbine at Wind Hill Farm:-

In his decision letter the Inspector stated:-

“The appeal site is within a field of improved pasture, and close to the summit of a gentle hill. There are no features which would offer screening nearby and the turbine would therefore be highly visible in the landscape. However, the visibility of the turbine does not equate to a change in overall character of the landscape. It is clear that the immediate locality would be perceived as having a different influence present, but the essential character of the locality, that of rolling pastureland, would be unchanged. It would simply become rolling pasture with the presence of a wind turbine. It is fair to accept the change as being negative given that it would involve the introduction of a discordant and tall element into a pastoral scene where none currently exists. The effect on the landscape character would clearly diminish with distance so that from further afield the influence of the turbine would be reduced. Overall I assess the impact on landscape character to be a moderate adverse and localised impact.

In visual terms the development would be prominent from many local viewpoints, including local footpaths and other rights of way. Its location close to the top of a rounded hill would increase the prominence. Users of public rights of way are sensitive as ‘receptors’ to visual change. In this instance, however, the visual intrusion of the wind turbine would be tempered by topography, which would inhibit visibility from some locations, and by the presence of Scout Moor wind farm in some views. That is not to say that the development would be seen as an offshoot of Scout Moor, which it would not, but that Scout Moor would draw the eye to the extent that this development would be reduced in visual importance.

Where Scout Moor is behind the viewer the turbine would be seen as an individual development, but here there are other vertical influences which come into play. For example the run of transmission pylons running across the area, and the telecommunications mast close to the nearby reservoir. These factors would help to assimilate the turbine in its context.

Taking these matters in the round I consider that the development would have a moderately harmful impact on landscape character, and a similar moderately harmful impact to the appearance of the locality.”

It is considered that the current application site is within a less sensitive localised landscape than the Wind Hill Farm site for the following reasons:-

• The current site is at a lower altitude, (it does not occupy the top of a ‘rounded/gentle hill’ like the Wind Hill Farm site does);

• The currently proposed wind turbine would stand even closer to the existing nearby two telecommunications masts and electricity pylon/overhead power lines, than the Wind Hill Farm site. It would therefore be seen more closely in the context of those existing vertical structures;

There is the question of whether the cumulative impact of this further wind turbine in this area is acceptable on the local landscape. However, it is not considered that there is any overriding reason to resist a further turbine in the location on the basis of cumulative impact when taken into account with the Scout Moor wind farm site.

Impact on surrounding uses:

There are no nearby occupied residential properties within 500m of the site. “Yates Farm” is a largely derelict structure and is not likely to be re-occupied.

In terms of noise, the turbine would be relatively distant from the nearest homes. Having regard to the noise data submitted with the application there have been no objections on noise grounds from the Council’s environmental health team subject to an appropriate condition to limit the noise from the turbine. It is not considered, therefore, that it will result in any significant harm to nearby residents including “Yates Farm”, if it were to be refurbished. Impact on recreation and the rural economy :-

There are various public rights of way near to the site and they form vantage points that would be affected by the presence of the turbine. Public right of way HeyFp156 runs past the site to the north and this path seems to be a popular walking route from Ashworth Road to reach the popular Cheesden and Naden Valley. The closest intervening distance between the turbine and the path would be 75m.

There are no designated bridleways in the vicinity of the site and although Ashworth Road may well be used by local horse riders, the closest distance between the turbine and the road would be 160m. The British Horse Society recommends that an exclusion zone of 200m should be achieved between turbines and routes used by horse riders. However, such detailed matters are not addressed within the NPPF and the rigid use of exclusion zones cannot, therefore, be justified. Whilst horses are known to be generally nervous of sudden movements, the appearance of the turbine and its movement would not be sudden to horse riders approaching the site along Ashworth Road in either direction.

It is accepted that the appeal for the two 17m high wind turbines at Silinghurst Farm, off Castle Hill Road, (reference D54731), was dismissed partly on the grounds that the close proximity of those two turbines to that road would have posed an unacceptable danger to horse riders. However, in the case of that proposal, those two turbines were to stand within only 25 metres of that highway and were also to stand at a higher ground level than that road, so that their rotating blades would be very prominent to the horses and riders as they passed.

In this instance however, the proposed turbine on this site would be some 160m away from the road and it would also stand at a lower ground level. Given these circumstances, it is not considered that the turbine would pose any unacceptable risk to any horses and their riders passing along this section of Ashworth Road.

At its closest point, the ‘Rochdale Way’, (which forms the main recreational route running through Ashworth Valley linking urban and rural areas), is located approximately 500 metres from the site. Whilst the turbine would be visible from various surrounding recreational rights of way, the development, by virtue of its siting, height and separation with surrounding paths would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational routes.

Although the turbine is unlikely to enhance the experience of recreational activities in the countryside, it is not considered that, on balance, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the effects of the turbine would be so harmful as to detract from the enjoyment of the countryside – having particular regard to its impact on quiet relaxation and recreation. Therefore, it is considered that the development would not be in conflict with the objectives of UDP policies RE/2, RE/5, EM/14 and the requirements of the NPPF.

Highways and access:-

The development site would be accessed via a new access track leading off Ashworth Road. This track would only be used for the delivery of the turbine and by construction vehicles accessing the site in order to construct its foundations. The Council’s highway engineers have raised no objection to the application.

Except for delivery of a few large components during the construction phase, the proposal would not introduce any significant traffic movements to the site. The access track would facilitate safe and convenient access for vehicle traffic to and from the site relative to the scale, type and location of the development, and the proposal would have no adverse impact on highway safety. The development is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies A/9 and EM/14.

Impact on ecology:-

The site does not fall within or adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest or Special Area of Conservation.

The turbine would be sited on a clear area of open, (seemingly unimproved), agricultural grassland. Although the site seems relatively poorly drained, there is no area of open water within the site which might have any particularly high ecological value.

The foundation of the wind turbine would occupy a modest footprint that would encroach upon a small area of land. When considered in isolation, the site and its immediately adjoining areas, (having particular regard to a lack of specific features to encourage biodiversity), have little value in terms of enhancing biodiversity in the area.

The GMEU has not raised any objection to the application on nature conservation grounds, so long as the construction works are timed to avoid the main bird breeding season.

The proposed development would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies NE/3, NE/4, EM/14, EM/16 and advice contained within the NPPF.

The technical operational radar objection raised by NATS:

In the application for the proposed nearby wind turbine at Wind Hill Farm, NATS had raised their same concerns about the impact of that turbine upon the operation of the air traffic control radar. The Appeal Inspector acknowledged that concern but concluded that there is a technical means of mitigating against such a risk and he allowed that appeal with an appropriate planning condition to deal with that point.

It is considered that in the light of that appeal decision, there would be no justifiable grounds to refuse the current application on that basis, so long as the same planning condition was to be imposed on the current application.

Summary

The application relates to a site in the Green Belt. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which should only be allowed in very special circumstances.

The contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this, (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development), are considered to constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness.

Whilst the turbine would be readily visible in the landscape, (by virtue of its height, the movement of its blades and also because of the relatively elevated height of the site), it is not considered that the location or design of the turbine would, either individually or cumulatively, (with the nearby Scout Moor Wind Farm or the recently approved single turbine at Wind Hill Farm), introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature that would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape.

The proposed turbine would be distant from the nearest residential properties and it would have no adverse impact upon the surrounding land uses.

The development would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way and it would not unacceptably detract from the quiet relaxation and enjoyment of the countryside. Moreover, the turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated sites nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme.

It is considered that the recent appeal decision for the Wind Hill Farm wind turbine is a very important material consideration. That almost identical proposal on that more prominent site was adjudged by the Appeal Inspector to be acceptable. As the current application site is at a lower elevation and is within an area characterised by several closer features of vertical infrastructure, (the two nearby telecommunications masts and the electricity transmission pylon), it is considered to be far less visually sensitive than the Wind Hill Farm turbine site.

In all of these circumstances, the application is recommended for approval. and subject to the following conditions and reasons:- 1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 This permission relates to the following plans:-

Location plan, scale 1:12500 _ 1:500

and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 No development shall take place until details of a scheme for the mitigation of radar interference has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: In order to minimise the danger of radar interference that would otherwise arise from this proposal, in the interests of the safety of air traffic.

4 No development shall take place until details of the route and construction methodology of any cabling on site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In accordance with policy EM/14 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

5 No development shall take place until details of the proposed route for use by construction traffic (including delivery of the wind turbine) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out as approved throughout the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with policies A/9 and EM/14 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

6 The wind turbine and associated development (including turbine base)hereby permitted shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition on or before the expiration of 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from the wind turbine. Written notification of the first export of electricity shall be given to the Local Planning Authority no later than 14 days after the event.

Reason: The proposed wind turbine has a limited life expectancy and will need to be decommissioned at the end of this period of use. The site falls within the Green Belt and is currently in agricultural use. Following the removal of the turbine, the land should be restored to its previous agricultural use in the interests of the visual amenity, openness and purposes of including land in the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 The restoration scheme required by Condition 6 shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority not later than 12 months before the date of expiry of this permission and the approved scheme shall be implemented within 3 months of its approval.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with policy EM/14 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and the relevant advice of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8 At the reasonable request of, and following a complaint to, the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at their own expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97' published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. The level of noise emissions from the turbine shall not exceed 35 dBA (measured as Leq 15 minutes) at wind speeds of 10 metres per second or less at the curtilage boundary of any noise sensitive premises.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 If the turbine hereby approved fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, the turbine and any associated appurtenances shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period and the land restored to its former agricultural use in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and any associated appurtenances.

Reason: The wind turbine’s function is to generate renewable energy which would contribute to government targets by transferring a proportion of this energy to the National Grid. The benefits arising from this function are considered to constitute the very special circumstances which justify the turbine’s erection in the Green Belt. If the turbine ceases to fulfil this function it will no longer be fit for purpose and these very special circumstances will not exist. In such an instance, the land should be restored to preserving the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy D/4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason:

1 The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the applicant to identify various solutions during the application process to ensure that the proposal comprised sustainable development and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and would accord with the development plan. These were incorporated into the scheme and/or have been secured by planning condition. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.

Report Author Richard Butler

Application Number: 13/00970/HOUS Ward: Norden

Proposal: Two storey and single storey extensions to front and rear, including demolition of existing front dormer, additional windows to front and rear elevations at first floor level and additional window to front at ground floor as part of garage conversion to living accommodation (Resubmission of 13/00279/HOUS)

Site Address: 13 Bankfield Lane Rochdale OL11 5RJ

Applicant: Mr A Hussain

RECOMMENDATION: Refused

Delegation Scheme

This application was taken before the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee for two reasons; it had been ‘called in’ by Councillor James Gartside and also because of the declaration of interest that had been made by one of the Council’s Senior Planning Officers, who lives in the adjacent property at 11 Bankfield Lane, although no comments in support or objection had been raised by that officer.

The Members of the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee, who had made an accompanied site visit before their meeting, resolved that they were minded to approve the application subject to appropriate conditions to cover points of detail.

Site

The subject property is a detached dormer-bungalow standing at 13 Bankfield Lane in an area characterised by a mix of styles of residential properties within the defined urban area. The property has full-width flat-roofed dormers across the front elevation but with no dormers at the rear to provide a bungalow-style aspect.

The property to the north of the site (15) has been subject to alterations and extensions to change its front appearance from a dormer bungalow to a two-storey house with a gable- fronted pitched roof. No. 15 has four windows facing the gable of the application property including a first floor bedroom window set towards the rear.

The property to the south (11) is a semi-detached dormer-bungalow with flat-roofed dormers to the front and rear. It also has a single-storey rear extension close to the common boundary with the applicant’s property.

Description of Proposal

The application proposes to convert the property from its current dormer-bungalow style into a two-storey house via the following works:

• Addition of first floor extension to the front with a gable roof to replace the front roof slope and flat-roofed dormer window. The extension will raise the front eaves up from 2.7 metres as existing to 5.2 metres with a ridge height of 6.8 metres. The appearance of the front façade of the property will contain a two-storey element with a living room and bedroom above and a single-storey element for an extension to the front of the dining room, with the ground floor footprint squared off flush with the existing footprint.

• Addition of a first floor extension to the rear to replace the existing roof slope with the eaves raised up from 3.9 metres to 5.2 metres with a new sloping roof which contains two bedrooms. • Two-storey rear extension projecting out by 3.0 metres from the existing rear elevation with a width of 4.9 metres to provide an enlarged living room on the ground floor and a bedroom at the first floor. The extension has a height of 6.8 metres but as it effectively spans across the previous single-storey roof line it has a ridge length of 7.0 metres from the main ridge line of the house out to the end of the extension. A window faces to the rear at the first floor level and there are doors facing to the rear on the ground floor.

• Single-storey rear extension abutting the new two-storey extension with a depth of 3.0 metres and a width of 3.4 metres with a window to the rear and a sloping roof over.

• Conversion of the existing integral garage into living accommodation via the straightforward replacement of the existing garage door with a window.

The application is a resubmission of a previous scheme (ref 13/00279/HOUS) which was refused in May 2013. The plans submitted for the current application are identical to the previous refusal.

Relevant Planning Policy

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (Para 14).

Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

G/D/1 Defined Urban Area

H/11 Residential Extensions

G/BE/1 Design Quality

BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

Supplementary Planning Documents

Supplementary Planning Guidance note ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’.

Relevant Planning History

10/D52980 – Alterations to dormer bungalow to form a two-storey house including the erection of a rear conservatory: Granted 23 April 2010.

10/D53831 – Two-storey and single-storey front extensions, two-storey rear extension, and alterations to roof including the raising of ridge to form two storey dwelling: Refused 21 December 2010 for the following two reasons:

“The application relates to a detached dormer bungalow at 13 Bankfield Lane, Rochdale. The raising of the ridge height by 1.1 metre would significantly alter the appearance of the dwelling and would result in the application property being out of keeping with the rhythm of the stepped roof lines that currently exists along Bankfield Lane. The cumulative impact of the proposed extensions, by virtue of their size, height, design and scale, would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the area and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development) of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, which requires that new development should demonstrate good design by ensuring that it is compatible with or would improve its surroundings. The proposal is also contrary to Policy H/11 (Residential Extensions) of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan which requires that extensions should be compatible with the property to be extended in terms of scale, size and design, as well as not adversely affecting the character of the street scene. Furthermore the proposal is also contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development which states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area is not acceptable.”

“The proposed rear extension, as a result of its 3 metre projection from the rear elevation, the raising of the ridge height by 1.1 metre and its proximity in relation to the shared boundary with No.15 Bankfield Lane, would create an oppressive outlook for this neighbouring resident and would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of this neighbouring house through loss of outlook and daylight to the window in the first floor of the side elevation which serves an existing bedroom. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of criterion (c) of Policy H/11 (Residential Extensions) of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.”

13/00279/HOUS – Two storey and single storey extensions to front and rear, including demolition of existing front dormer, additional windows to front and rear elevations at first floor level and additional window to front at ground floor as part of garage conversion to living accommodation: Refused 1 May 2013 for the following reason:

“The bulk, scale and massing of the proposed two-storey rear extension with its elongated side wall and roof line out from the existing ridge line of the property would be overbearing to the adjacent properties and would unduly affect the amenity of adjacent residents through overshadowing, loss of outlook and loss of daylight. As such, the application is unacceptable and is contrary to criterion a) of Policy BE/2 and criterion c) of Policy H/11 of the Rochdale UDP along with the guidance of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’.”

Consultation Responses

Highways Officer - No objection.

Representations

The appropriate neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter and one objection has been received from No15 Bankfield Lane. The points raised in the objection and the Officer’s responses are listed below:

• Impact on landscape

Officer Response: It is not considered that the extensions as proposed will have an adverse impact on the landscape.

• Loss of privacy and overlooking

Officer Response: Given that the windows on the extensions are primarily to the front and rear elevations, it is not adjudged that any significant loss of privacy will occur.

• Loss of visual amenity

Officer Response: The design of the extensions as proposed broadly follows the style of the dwelling and also reflects the works to the adjacent property.

• Out of keeping with surroundings

Officer Response: Given that the adjacent property has been subject to a similar form of front extension, it is not believed that an objection can be sustained in terms of the scheme being out of keeping with its surroundings.

• Overshadowing

Officer Response: It is considered that the scheme would result in a loss of light and a degree of overshadowing which would be harmful to the adjacent properties. This is discussed further in the main body of the report.

• Visual intrusion

Officer Response: Whilst the front extension is acceptable, the rear extension would be overbearing and lead to a level of visual intrusion to the adjacent occupiers which is unacceptable.

Analysis

Planning History:

The consent granted in April 2010 ref 10/D52980 allowed works to the front of the dwelling which are comparable to the current scheme and also allowed for changes to the angle of the rear roof slope which again are similar to the subject application. The key difference between the plans for the current scheme (which have already been refused in May 2013) and the April 2010 consent is therefore the replacement of a rear conservatory with a part two-storey and part single-storey extension across the rear of the dwelling.

The scheme which was refused permission in December 2010 ref 10/D53831 proposed to raise the ridge of the property by just over 1.1 metres; the current application (and the May 2013 refusal) retains the existing maximum height of the dwelling as did the April 2010 consent. In addition, the December 2010 refusal proposed a two-storey extension across the full width of the property by an increase in bulk of the side gable; the current scheme proposes a part two-storey and part single-storey with a rear facing gable.

As the current application is identical to the May 2013 refusal it is considered that the proposed development is unacceptable on the basis of the detrimental impact on adjacent occupiers as set out later in this report.

Visual Appearance:

Policies G/BE/1, BE/2 and H/11 along with the guidance of the SPG require new development and extensions to dwellings to be compatible with their surroundings in terms of scale, height, massing, layout, materials and architectural style.

The works proposed to the front of the dwelling are considered to be acceptable given that such changes have already been agreed under the April 2010 consent which, although now lapsed, effectively established the precedent for changes to the façade of the property. The current scheme which proposes a part two-storey and part single-storey addition to the front is adjudged to represent a visual improvement over the previous consent and, as such, the works proposed to the front of the dwelling are considered to be acceptable and adhere to the requirements of UDP Policies H/11 and BE/2 along with the SPG.

The changes proposed to the rear of the dwelling in the form of the rear roof slope, two-storey extension and single-storey extension will reflect the style of the front changes proposed in respect of roof angles and use of materials and accordingly these too are considered to represent acceptable visual changes to the property which are in line with UDP Policies H/11 and BE/2 along with the SPG.

Impact on Adjacent Occupiers:

Policy H/11 along with the advice of the SPG seeks to ensure that extensions and alterations to residential properties do not affect the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents via overlooking, overshadowing, loss of outlook or loss of daylight. The SPG requires two-storey extensions to be limited to 2.4 metres in depth (the current application proposes 3.0 metres) and to achieve a separation distance between a habitable room window and a secondary elevation of 14.0 metres (the current scheme is 3.0 metres from the side facing bedroom window on the adjacent property).

The works proposed to the front of the dwelling are not considered to raise any substantive issues in regard to impact on adjacent occupiers and this element of the application is therefore in accordance with Policy H/11 and the SPG. The single-storey rear extension is also considered to be acceptable in this regard.

The key consideration has to be therefore whether the changes to the rear roof slope and the addition of the two-storey extension to the rear of the property would cause sufficient harm to the privacy and amenity of adjacent occupiers to justify a refusal of permission, as was the case in May 2013 for application reference 13/00279/HOUS.

In respect of the impact on the occupiers of no. 15 (to the north of the site), the juxtaposition of the facing bedroom window is a material consideration. Although it is noted that the section closest to no. 15 is single-storey in nature, given that the main bulk of the extension to the rear will be two-storey and will project the ridge line out from the existing by a considerable distance of 7.0 metres and the works will lie due south of the adjacent property, it is considered that the scheme would result in a loss of light and a degree of overshadowing which would be harmful and would be contrary to criterion c) of Policy H/11 of the UDP along with the guidance of the SPG.

In relation to the adjacent occupiers to the south at no. 11, whilst the bulk of the two-storey extension is closest to the side boundary of the rear garden with these occupiers they do already have a single-storey rear extension which will mitigate the impact to some degree.

However, the massing of the two-storey element with its considerable roof span of 7.0 metres from the main ridge will also have a detrimental impact on the rear facing bedroom windows on the adjacent property and as such it is considered again on balance that the scheme would have an overbearing impact on the adjacent occupiers at no.11 and as such it is contrary to criterion c) of Policy H/11 of the UDP and the guidance of the SPG.

Highways:

The conversion of the garage is not objected to by the Highways Officer and as such it is not considered that there is any reason to refuse the scheme on the basis of the loss of a single parking space.

Summary

The application proposes the exact same form of development which was duly considered and refused on 1 May 2013. No supporting evidence has been submitted to justify a decision contrary to that made previously and no changes to the proposed plans have been made to seek to address the previous reason for refusal. As such, the application remains unacceptable as it is contrary to adopted UDP policies and the guidance of the SPG.

Recommendations

REFUSE subject to the following reason:-

The bulk, scale and massing of the proposed two-storey rear extension with its elongated side wall and roof line out from the existing ridge line of the property would be overbearing to the adjacent properties and would unduly affect the amenity of adjacent residents through overshadowing, loss of outlook and loss of daylight. As such, the application is unacceptable and is contrary to criterion a) of Policy BE/2 and criterion c) of Policy H/11 of the Rochdale UDP along with the guidance of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’.

Reason:

1 The bulk, scale and massing of the proposed two-storey rear extension with its elongated side wall and roof line out from the existing ridge line of the property would be overbearing to the adjacent properties and would unduly affect the amenity of adjacent residents through overshadowing, loss of outlook and loss of daylight. As such, the application is unacceptable and is contrary to criterion a) of Policy BE/2 and criterion c) of Policy H/11 of the Rochdale UDP along with the guidance of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’.

Report Author Philip Garner

Application Number: 13/01088/FUL Ward: Balderstone And Kirkholt

Proposal: The erection of an 18m high wind turbine, having an overall maximum height to blade tip of 24.5m

Site Address: Former Hill Top Primary School Hill Top Drive Rochdale OL11 2EH

Applicant: Rochdale Council

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

Update

This application was taken before the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee on 17/12/13 for two reasons: it had been ‘called up’ to the planning committee by Councillor Richard Farnell, who has raised his objections to the scheme, (and which are referred to in the main body of the report) and also because the proposal represents a departure from the Council’s adopted development plan.

The Township Committee resolved not to make any recommendation upon the proposal but requested that more information be provided in the report for the Licensing & Regulatory Commitee upon the site selection process that has been used for the proposal.

The following report has therefore been altered:-

• to include the information about the site selection process,

• to include the additional objection raised to the proposal by Councillor Dale Mulgrew, (that had been received too late for inclusion in the previous version of this report),

• and also to address and clarify some other comments that were made in the debate over the proposal at the last committee meeting.

Site

The application relates to a small area of land within the former playing fields of the, (now demolished), Hill Top Drive Primary School, off Hill Top Drive. The site of the proposed turbine lies 170m to the south of Hill Top Drive and 90m to the north of the M62 motorway. The site is elevated above the motorway but is at a slightly lower ground level than that of Hill Top Drive.

The “Sand Hole” farmhouse Grade II Listed Building and its associated farm buildings stand some 210m away to the west.

The nearest homes on Hill Top Drive are 150m away to the north.

The land of the site is general level and is devoid of any trees or other landscaping, other than overgrown vegetation that has grown since the closure of the school and the maintenance of its playing fields having ceased. The overall former playing fields are occupied by some scattered mature trees but these mainly stand nearer Hill Top Drive.

There is a line of mature trees and shrubs along the boundary of the former school playing fields shared with the motorway.

The site lies within:-

• A defined Area of Protected Open Land, (subject to UDP policy D/10);

• a defined Area of Protected Existing Recreational Open Space, (Schools), (subject to UDP policy G/3); • a defined Greenspace Corridor, (subject to UDP policy G/8).

The site does not lie within the Green Belt, although for land use planning policy purposes, it should effectively be treated as if it were.

Description of Proposal

The proposal is to erect a wind turbine on the site having a hub height of 18m and an overall height to blade tip of 24.5m. The turbine is to be a Gaia 133 11 KW turbine which consists of two blades and the nacelle mounted on top of a vertical mast.

The proposal will involve the construction of a concrete foundation on which to mount the turbine mast and the laying of an underground cable between the turbine and the point of connection to the National Grid on Hill Top Drive.

A 2.3m high security fence is to surround the proposed turbine for health and safety and security purposes. The turbine hub and nacelle are to be pale grey in colour with a matt finish. The turbine mast is to be a dull grey with a galvanised metal finish.

It is calculated that that turbine would generate an estimated 30,000 kWh per annum, which would supply electricity to power the equivalent of 8 homes with green energy.

The proposed access route to the turbine site would be taken from Hill Top Drive, through the old school entrance. The installation period for a single, small turbine such as this would be short; normally 7 days, spread over a period of 4-5 weeks.

The Gaia 133 11kW turbine has an expected life of 20 years. After this time the turbine head needs replacing with a new or re-conditioned unit. The monopole mast and foundation have a much longer shelf life and are likely to last 60 years before needing to be replaced. The monopole mast needs to be re-galvanised, treated or painted at 20 year intervals. After 20 years, the turbine will either be replaced subject to a further planning permission or the land restored to its original condition.

In support of the proposal it is stated that the proposed turbine represents the initial stage of the Council’s initiative for a programme of wind energy generation development on other sites across the Borough.

The site selection process:

ASC Renewables, (ASC), undertook a detailed three stage feasibility assessment for the Council in early 2013, which surveyed the Council’s entire landholding for the potential to install a variety of wind energy projects; for a small 11 KW- 30m high turbine, a medium 500KW-75m high turbine and a large 2MW-120m high turbine.

Stage 1:

This was an initial screening assessment to quickly and efficiently exclude sites that are obviously unsuitable, using three critical factors:-

• Wind speed;

• Key environmental and landscape designations;

• Urban environment – the proximity of the site to residential properties.

An initial screening assessment identified 147 possible sites that could potentially be used for an 11KW, 30m high turbine. The 147 sites were ranked by wind speeds and the top 30 sites were selected for further assessment, considering any other development proposals for those sites or on adjacent land. This resulted in a short list of 9 sites, which were then progressed to Stage 2.

Stage 2:

This involved an appraisal of the sites using key planning criteria and commercial viability assessments, summarised in the following list:-

1. Proximity to any civil aerodromes/RAF airbases;

2. Proximity to any RAMSAR, (protected ecological wetland sites);

3. Proximity to any National Nature Reserves;

4. The topography of the site – steep slopes of more than 20 degrees are unsuitable for turbines;

5. Proximity to any Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

6. Proximity to any Listed Buildings;

7. Proximity to any Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

8. Proximity to any Seismic Monitoring Station;

9. Proximity to any lakes or other water bodies

Stage 3:

This is a more detailed assessment using the following techniques:-

A detailed site visit, with a through site walkover;

An assessment of the means of access to the site, both for installation of the turbine and for subsequent routine maintenance;

An assessment of appropriate connection points to the National Grid;

An assessment of any nearby telecommunication masts and their emitted micropath links;

A more detailed aviation assessment;

The assessment of any cumulative impacts;

A detailed secondary assessment of local landscape and environmental considerations.

In this case, a further critical factor for the proposal was the need for the completion of the project by 31 March 2014. This deadline arises because of the likely reduction in Government renewable energy subsidy levels on 1 April 2014. This is especially important because the Government subsidy is reduced slightly from year and the rate that is prevailing when a project is commissioned is the rate that the project gets ‘locked into’ for its lifetime.

After the end of Stage 3, three potential sites were identified for the proposed pilot turbine, including the current application site.

Planning Policy

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

Part 1 (in bold) and Part 2 Policies:-

G/D/2 Green belt

D/10 Protected open land

G/RE/1 Countryside and the rural economy

RE/2 Countryside around towns

RE/4 Diversification of the rural economy

RE/5 Access to the countryside

G/G/1 Greenspace

G/8 (A) Greenspace corridors

G/A/1 Accessibility

A/9 New development access for general traffic

G/BE/1 Design quality

BE/2 Design criteria for new development

G/BE/9 Conservation of the built heritage

BE/10 Development affecting archaeological sites and ancient monuments

G/EM/1 Environmental protection and pollution control

EM/3 Noise and new development

G/EM/12 Renewable energy and energy conservation

EM/14 Wind power developments

EM/16 Sustainable energy sources

G/NE/1 Nature conservation

NE/3 Biodiversity and development

NE/4 Protected species

NE/6 Landscape protection and enhancement

Supplementary Planning Documents

Energy and New Development (SPD)

Biodiversity and Development (SPD)

The “Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines” produced by Julie Martin Associates, is also relevant.

Relevant Planning History

October 2013 - application for a Screening Opinion upon whether an Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), is necessary for the current proposal, (reference: 00900). EIA not determined to be necessary for the proposal.

Planning permission was granted by the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee in 2012 for two wind turbines of a hub height of 18m on land at Thornham Fold Farm, off Thornham Lane, (reference: D54990 and D55187). That site is 1.3km away from the site, on the eastern side of the A627(M) motorway, but at a higher ground level than both that motorway and also the current application site. The turbines on that site are visible from the application site, as well as from Hill Top Drive. The original permission granted on that site was for two turbines of the lattice tower type construction. However, the applicants subsequently obtained planning permission for turbines of the monopole type and they have been installed and are now operational. Those turbines, (the Gaia 133-11 Kw), are of the same turbine type and height as that of the current proposal.

It should also be noted that there has been a recent relevant appeal decision for a wind turbine proposal at Wind Hill Farm, off Ashworth Road, near the Ashworth Moor reservoir. That proposal was for a much taller turbine, (with a hub height of 50m), standing on the top of an undeveloped, rounded hill in the Green Belt. That application, (reference: D55512), was refused by the Council on the grounds that it would introduce a dominant and incongruous feature to the surrounding landscape, which would be incompatible with its rural, countryside setting and which would also adversely affect the openness and the visual amenities of the green belt. In allowing the appeal however, the Inspector concluded that its impact on the landscape character would only be a moderate adverse and localised impact and that this would be outweighed by the environmental benefits of the turbine.

That appeal decision is considered to be a very relevant factor to take into account in the consideration of this proposal. Although, (unlike the current proposal), the Wind Hill Farm appeal site is much more distant from most of the nearest dwellings, the assessment of the visual impact of that proposal and its weighing in the balance against its environmental benefits should be considered very carefully. The Wind Hill Farm site is a much more exposed site and open to views and falls in a more rural location that is therefore considered to be much more sensitive to change than that of the current proposal. That appeal decision only demonstrates the very strong planning policy presumption that exist within the NPPF and other Government policy documents, to allow wind turbines and support renewable energy sources, unless there are other strong and convincing planning reasons to the contrary.

Consultation Responses

Highways & Engineering:-

No objections.

Environmental Health:-

No objections. Given the 150m distance between the turbine and the nearest house and also the high existing background noise level because of the motorway, it is not considered that the turbine would be likely to give rise to complaints over noise. If the application is to be approved, then a condition should be imposed, (as a precautionary measure), to require that noise levels from the operation of the turbine do not exceed 35dB(A) at wind speeds 8m/s or less, measured over a 15 minute LEQ, at the curtilage of the nearest homes.

Greater Manchester Ecological Unit:-

No objections

Greater Manchester Archaeological Services:-

Views not received.

Manchester Airport:-

No objections.

National Air Traffic Service, (NATS):-

No objections.

Defence Estates:-

Views not received.

Highways Agency:-

No objections.

Joint Radio Company:-

No comments received to date.

Representations

The application has been advertised by means of press notices and by site notices that the proposal represents a departure from the development plan and that it would also affect the setting of the nearby Grade II Listed Building of “Sand Hole Farmhouse”.

A total of 230 nearby residential properties closest to the site were notified of the application. To date, a total of four representations have been received from local residents, which make the following summarised objections or raise the following summarised concerns:-

1. What is the point in installing a turbine to power just 8 homes? The money invested in this project could be better spent on something else.

Officer response

This question and comment is really beyond the scope of the consideration of this planning application. This application is to determine whether the proposal should be granted planning permission and can be assessed only against land use planning considerations.

However, in response the applicant has provided the following comments:-

Developing wind turbines is a highly complex and time consuming technical undertaking. The Council currently does not have the experience or technical capability to develop these projects ‘in-house’. To ensure the projects are progressed with the lowest possible risk and on the shortest timescale, it was agreed that a small pilot wind project is undertaken to help build up understanding and knowledge internally of the wind energy technology and development process.

The pilot project is a relatively small capital programme consisting of an investment of £68,000. This pilot projects provides a positive financial return with an IRR of 8.4%.

The pilot wind turbine is part of the Council’s wider wind energy programme, which will contribute significantly to the efficiency programme across the authority, creating sizeable revenue streams that will reduce budget pressures on other areas of the authority’s work.

The pilot will also help the Council to realise its twin goals to become both energy self- sufficient and the country’s greenest borough.

2. The proposed turbine might prejudice any proposal for the residential re-development of the school site. Who would wish to purchase a new home so close to a wind turbine?

Officer response

There is no planning application submitted for residential development on the adjoining land. However, given the Council is both the relevant landowner and development sponsor in this case, and the Council is currently marketing the remainder of the Hilltop School site for residential development this is an appropriate consideration to be made in this case. Clearly, the decision as to whether to progress any residential development, and possible sale/disposal of the site to a third party developer will be a separate decision for the Council to make as landowner, separate to the outcome of the planning application.

However, the applicants have provided the following comments in response to these representations:-

The Council is in discussion with a residential developer about the possibility of re-developing the Hilltop School site. That developer is aware of the proposed wind turbine, and has revised the layout of their proposed housing development accordingly to incorporate an area of buffer open space between their housing layout and the proposed turbine. Rochdale Borough Council is committed to working in partnership to deliver the much-needed housing project on this land and negotiations on-going with this developer to reach an agreement for the sale of the land for housing. Clearly, the proposed development will reduce the developable area of the land for housing but it is considered that an acceptable layout can be progressed which delivers both a good quality housing scheme and the proposed turbine in this case. This is however without prejudice to the outcome of any subsequent planning application which may be submitted in the future for the residential development of the Hilltop School site.

3. Little consideration seems to have been given to the nearest residents to the site. There are many homes which would face this turbine and none of these homes are shown in the photographs accompanying the application.

Officer response

The photomontages submitted with the application may not show the nearest neighbouring houses in relation to the proposed turbine. However, it is still considered that the visual impact of the proposal upon its surroundings and wider local landscape can still be properly assessed and this whole matter is referred to later in this report.

Councillor Richard Farnell has raised his objections to the proposal as follows:-

• The visual impact this will have on residential homes in the vicinity

• The increased noise levels that the turbine will generate

• The proximity of the turbine to a very large number of homes

• The possible impact the turbine will have on TV and radio signals.

• The possible impact the turbine will have on local wildlife.

• The development is not suitable for a residential area

Councillor Dale Mulgrew has raised his objections to the proposal on the following summarised grounds:-

1) There are better locations within the Borough for a wind turbine, which would not be so close to a residential area;

2) The proposed turbine would be overlooked by various dwellings along Everest Street and Hill Top Drive and so there would be an impact upon their visual amenity;

3) The proposal will generate noise that might disturb the nearest residents and it is not clear whether there would be any measures available to mitigate such effects.

These objections raised by Councillor Farnell and Councillor Mulgrew will be dealt with later in the report.

Analysis

The principle of the development;

1. The Protected Open Land (UDP policy D/10), allocation;

This relevant part of this policy reads as follows:-

“Within the areas of Protected Open Land defined on the Proposals Map, development proposals will be permitted that fall within one or more of the following categories:

a) development which would be acceptable were it in the Green Belt;”

Although the land is not within the Green Belt, for the purposes of this application, it should be treated as if it were. This proposal is not for a building but the proposed wind turbine would nonetheless still affect the openness of the land in question.

The proposed wind turbine is a renewable energy project but that does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in the Green Belt, (as outlined in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF). Therefore the principle of the proposed development must be considered to be inappropriate. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that:

• When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources [emphasis added].

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF then identifies that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”

Paragraph 97 of the NPPF further states that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:

• have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources;

• design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;

• consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; and

• identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers.

Government policy in the NPPF, (and elsewhere), therefore attaches significant importance to the need to tackle climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in achieving that aim. Unless there are particularly strong or convincing reasons to the contrary, there is therefore a very strong policy presumption to allowing wind power developments, including where these fall within the boundaries of the Green Belt.

In summary then, the proposal would represent a sustainable form of renewable energy generation, which would help to contribute towards regional and national targets for renewable energy generation for 2020. However, in order to determine the presence of very special circumstances, these benefits must be weighed against the harm the development would cause to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the character of the surrounding landscape and these matters are addressed later in this report.

2. The protected recreational open space (schools) - (UDP policy G/3), allocation:

The former school buildings on this have since been demolished of course and there are no proposals to re-develop the site for any continued educational purposes in the future. In these circumstances then, it is considered that the requirements of this policy are no longer relevant. Indeed, this would equally apply to any other forms of development of the former school site.

3. The Greenspace Corridor, (UDP policy G/8 (A), allocation:

This policy reads as follows:-

Greenspace Corridors shown on the Proposals Map will be protected. Development and other measures which will enhance their recreational, ecological or landscape and amenity value will be permitted. In those parts of the corridors which are outside the Defined Urban Area, the provisions of Policy D/10 will also apply. Within all parts of Greenspace Corridors, the Council will not permit development proposals which would:

a) Lead to an unacceptable narrowing or a division of the corridor into sections, thereby,

i. restricting the movement of wildlife along it, or

ii. restricting the movement of people along established or proposed recreational routes or rights of way; b) Result in the loss or severance of links between areas of recreational open space;

c) Result in the loss of existing valued recreational facilities or prejudice proposed new facilities; or

d) Prevent public access into the corridor at strategic locations;

or which would result in unacceptable harm to:-

e) The better landscape qualities and character of the corridor;

f) The amenity value of the corridor where it provides welcome visual relief from urban development, including attractive views in and out of the corridor; g) Features of nature conservation interest, including designated and non-designated sites; or

h) Viable agricultural operations, including good quality grazing land and allotments.

Criteria a) & b) - The turbine would occupy only a very small area of land. It is considered that it would therefore not meaningfully harm the value of the greenspace corridor under criteria a) or b) of the Policy.

Criterion c) - The land currently has no recreational value and it is not open to any legitimate access by the general public. There are also no public rights of way or other footpaths running across the land here. The proposal would therefore not cause any harm to the policy under criterion c).

Criterion d) - The proposal would not prevent access to the greenspace corridor at any strategic location.

Criteria e)&f) - It is not considered that it would result in an unacceptable degree of harm to the better landscape qualities of the corridor or harm the amenity value of the corridor, where it provides visual relief to the nearby urban development, (although these matters will be discussed in more detail later in this report).

Criterion g) - The land is not known to have any particular ecological value and no objections have been raised by the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit.

Criterion h) - The land is not in agricultural use, (nor is it ever likely to be in the future).

In all of these circumstances, it is considered that this proposal would satisfy UDP policy G/8 (A)-Greenspace Corridors.

The effect on the openness and visual amenity of the area and the character of the surrounding landscape:

The application site forms part of larger parcel of land, (the former school playing fields), which is generally level from east to west, but which has a general and gradual fall in level down from Hill Top Drive to the motorway. There are some scattered mature trees but these mainly stand nearer Hill Top Drive. The area around the site of the proposed turbine is generally much more open and this would therefore allow clearer views of it from the north, west and east.

The turbine, because of its height, and also the rotation of its blades, would therefore inevitably be fairly prominent in the local landscape from most directions. The turbine would also be plainly visible, albeit over a distance, from most of the nearest houses along Hill Top Drive and from some of the homes on the adjoining roads to the north, as they rise up the hill.

There is a line of quite mature trees and hedgerow alongside the boundary of the former playing fields with the motorway. The combination of this planting and the change in ground level between the motorway carriageway and the application site should mean that the proposed turbine would be somewhat less prominent in view however, from the traffic passing along the M62.

It should be noted that there are already two existing telecommunications masts on the higher ground at the end of Ruskin Road, (near to where the pedestrian footbridge passes over the A627(M)), about 600m away to the north-west. There is also a further telecommunications mast, (of a lower height), standing even closer to the site, in a field to the west of Sand Hole Farm, and (approximately 350 m away).

In all of these circumstances then, although the application site currently forms part of a larger undeveloped, open area of land, (the former school playing fields), its local landscape can be regarded as having a semi-urban character. This character would be particularly strong when viewed from the south from across the M62 motorway, when it is seen against the background of the Kirkholt housing estate, which lies at a mostly higher ground level. The motorway itself, with its associated tall infrastructure, (its street lights, its overhead sign gantries and its bridges, (at junction 20)), also only serves to reinforce that ‘man-made’ character to this vicinity.

It is therefore not considered that this is a particularly sensitive landscape that would be harmed by the presence of the future presence of a wind turbine. The proposal is for a turbine of only a relatively modest height and size and its visual impact would therefore diminish more quickly over distance. It is not considered that it would have an unacceptable impact upon either the local landscape quality or the visual amenities of the local area. In coming to this conclusion, careful account has also been taken of the appeal decision for the proposed, (much taller) wind turbine at Wind Hill Farm, on Ashworth Road, in the Green Belt.

The impact on the nearest homes: i) Noise:

This type of turbine does not generate particularly high levels of noise.

Moreover, the turbine would be relatively distant from the nearest homes on Hill Top Drive and the existing high traffic background noise from the M62 would normally more than mask the noise that would be generated by the operation of the turbine.

Even when that motorway background noise diminishes late at night and in the early morning however, the relatively long intervening distance between the turbine and the nearest homes means that there is unlikely to be any more noticeable noise in this area.

Given all of these circumstances and having particular regard to the noise data submitted with the application, there have been no objections on noise grounds from the Council’s environmental health team. However, should the application be approved, then a condition should be imposed, (as a precautionary measure), to require that noise levels from the operation of the turbine do not exceed 35dB(A) at wind speeds 8m/s or less, measured over a 15 minute LA90, at the curtilage of the nearest homes.

ii) Visual impact:

The turbine would be plainly visible from most of the nearest houses along Hill Top Drive and from some of those homes on the roads to the north, (as they rise up the hill). Obviously, the visual impact of the turbine would diminish over distance however. It should also be noted that from the more distant homes further to the north, which are at the ground higher level, the turbine would stand below them and it would therefore not be viewed prominently against the skyline.

Whether or not wind turbines are ugly or not is, of course, a highly subjective matter. They are however, generally accepted to be a modern day requirement for the generation of renewable power using wind.

Given the relatively long, (150m), intervening distance from the nearest homes, it is not considered that this turbine, of the height proposed, would dominate the aspect enjoyed from any of those nearest properties.

iii) Shadow flicker:

‘Shadow flicker’ is an effect that can sometimes occur when the shadow of a moving wind turbine blade passes over a small opening, (such as a window), briefly reducing the intensity of light within the room, and causing a flickering to be perceived. The likelihood and the duration of this occurring depends upon certain combinations of relative sun, turbine and window locations, turbine orientation, the times of day, the days of the year and weather conditions. The flickering may have the potential to cause disturbance and annoyance to residents if it affects the occupied rooms of a house.

A recent detailed study was undertaken by Parsons Brinckerhoff Consultants on behalf of Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)25 in 2011 to update the government’s evidence of shadow flicker. That study concluded that there is unlikely to be a significant shadow flicker effect at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters.

In this proposal, as the rotor diameter of the turbine is only 13m, shadow flicker only has the potential to affect properties within 130m of the turbine. As the closest house lies 150m away, shadow flicker is not likely to be a problem.

iv) Possible impact upon TV reception:

Wind turbines, (and more commonly ‘wind farms’), can sometimes affect domestic television reception. This can be either through the turbine(s) physically blocking the transmitted signal from the TV transmitter mast or, more commonly, by introducing multi-path interference where some of the signal is reflected through different routes.

However, problems seldom occur with single turbines and especially those of the relatively modest height being proposed in this case.

Ofcom, (which is a regulatory body independent from Government), offers guidance with the BBC about the potential impact new developments such as wind farms could have on TV reception. They have stated that now that digital terrestrial television or Freeview have replaced analogue television, any such problems that can sometimes still occur are generally far less severe.

It is not considered that there are any sustainable grounds to refuse planning permission on the grounds of a possible risk to domestic TV reception in this case.

Because of the turbine’s spatial relationship with such a large number of homes however, a suitable precautionary planning condition should be imposed to deal with any such problems that might nonetheless arise in the future. This will allow control to be exercised in the unlikely event that problems occur in the future.

The ‘street scene’ along Hill Top Drive:

The turbine would be relatively distant from Hill Top Drive, and it would also stand at a slightly lower ground level. It is therefore not considered that it would have any significant or harmful effect on the ‘street scene’ along that road.

The turbine, by virtue of its height and also its rotating blades, would still be visible from Hill Top Drive of course, but over that distance, it is considered that its visual impact upon the road would be lessened. It is also considered that, (at least for the present time), the various existing trees in the foreground, (nearest the road), would tend to draw the eye away from the proposed turbine anyway. Access, Highways and Car Parking:

There are no objections to the application on these grounds raised by the Council’s highway engineers.

Impact upon the nearby listed building of “Sand Hole” farm:

This building and its associated farm buildings stand some 210m away to the west and at a somewhat higher ground level. As stated earlier in this report, there are already various telecommunications masts in the surroundings of the listed building, as well as the vertical infrastructure of the nearby motorway.

Given the current surroundings and this intervening distance, it is not considered that the proposed turbine would have an unacceptable impact upon the setting of this heritage asset.

Impact on ecology:

The site does not fall within, or adjacent to, a Site of Special Scientific Interest or Special Area of Conservation or any other ecologically designated site.

The turbine would be sited on a clear area of open, (now unmaintained), area of former school playing fields. The land would appear to be relatively well drained and not to contain any water bodies or other ‘wet areas’, which might have any particularly high ecological value.

The foundation of the wind turbine would occupy a modest ‘footprint’ that would encroach upon a small area of land. The GMEU has not raised any objection to the application on nature conservation grounds, so long as the construction works are timed to avoid the main bird breeding season.

The specific objections raised by Councillor Richard Farnell:

1. The visual impact this will have on residential homes in the vicinity;

For the reasons already stated earlier in this report, it is not considered that the turbine would have an unacceptable impact upon the outlook enjoyed from residents’ homes.

2. The increased noise levels that the turbine will generate;

As stated earlier in the report, there are no sustainable objections to the proposal on these grounds. A condition is recommended to ensure that control can be exercised when measured from the nearest housing. It is noted from the submitted information the proposed development would operate well within these guidelines.

3. The proximity of the turbine to a very large number of homes:

This fact, on its own, is not considered to be a valid ground of objection.

4. The possible impact the turbine will have on TV and radio signals.

As stated above, this is very unlikely to be a difficulty for this proposal, although any remaining concerns over this point can be satisfactorily dealt with by an appropriate planning condition.

5. The possible impact the turbine will have on local wildlife.

The site has no special ecological value and no objections have been raised by the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit.

6. The development is not suitable for a residential area.

In land use terms the application site comprises protected open land. However, the visual impact and relationship to the nearest housing has been assessed in this case and in Officers view is considered to be acceptable. Members will be able to assess the relationship of the proposed turbine to the nearest housing on the site.

The specific objections raised by Councillor Mulgrew:

• Whether or not there may be better locations for a wind turbine is not a matter that should be addressed as part of the determination of this application;

• Again, for the reasons already stated earlier in this report, it is not considered that the turbine would have an unacceptable impact upon the outlook enjoyed from residents’ homes.

• As stated earlier in the report, there are no sustainable objections to the proposal on these grounds. A condition is recommended to ensure that control can be exercised when measured from the nearest housing. It is noted from the submitted information the proposed development would operate well within these guidelines.

At the Township Committee, in the Councillor’s debate there seemed to be some confusion about a ‘150m stand-off distance’ between a wind turbine and residential buildings. There is no such minimum distance in any guidance for wind power development however. The 150m is just the intervening distance between the proposed turbine and the nearest homes on Hill Top Drive that would occur in this instance. There would be no necessity to achieve a minimum 150m distance between the proposed turbine on the site and any future new housing on the rest of the former Hill Top Drive School site. The minimum separation distance between a turbine and housing would be determined by two factors:-

the need to accommodate the ‘topple distance’ of the turbine, (its overall height plus 10%);

the need to avoid unacceptable noise impact upon the nearest dwelling.

In this case, given the type of turbine being proposed and its noise characteristics, together with high background noise level of the M62, the minimum separation distance between the turbine and any future dwelling developed on this land is likely to be far less than 150m.

Summary

The application relates to a site in an area of Protected Open Space, where Green Belt policies should normally apply. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which should only be allowed in very special circumstances.

However, the contribution that the turbine would make to the production of energy from renewable sources and the wider environmental benefits associated with this, (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development), are considered to constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm the development would cause to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. This has been evidenced elsewhere in the Borough by Planning Inspector’s through a number of planning appeal decisions

Notwithstanding acceptance of the above in terms of land use policy principle, whilst the turbine would be readily visible in the landscape, it is not considered that it would introduce an overly dominant or visually intrusive feature that would cause unacceptable harm to the openness, character or quality of the surrounding landscape.

The proposed turbine would not have an unacceptable effect on local residential amenities or have any adverse impact upon the surrounding land uses. It is noted that discussions are taking place by the Council as landowner for the sale/disposal of the remainder of the former Hilltop School site for housing development. It is also considered that an acceptable residential development of the adjoining land can be brought forward combining both uses of the land.

The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the surrounding greenspace corridor, as defined by UDP policy G/8(A) and it would not obstruct, prevent or deter the use of any nearby recreational rights of way.

The turbine would have no adverse impact on existing features, species or habitats of ecological importance and would not harm the fundamental nature conservation value of any designated or non-designated site nearby. Satisfactory arrangements for vehicle access to and from the site would also be made as part of the scheme.

It is also considered that the appeal decision for the much taller wind turbine on the Wind Hill Farm site at Ashworth Road is a very material consideration.

Government policy in the NPPF, (and elsewhere), attaches significant importance to the need to tackle climate change and the role that the exploitation of renewable energy technologies can make in achieving that aim. This proposal would represent the first and very important step in developing a programme of wind energy generation by the Council on suitable sites across the Borough. Unless there are particularly strong or convincing reasons to the contrary, there is therefore a very strong policy presumption to allowing wind power developments. There are not considered to be any such reasons in this case

The proposed turbine, on its own, would make a small, but still important, contribution towards renewable energy generation. The proposal however, would represent the first and very important step in developing a programme of wind energy generation by the Council on suitable sites across the Borough.

Therefore, the future environmental and economic benefits of the proposal are considered to weigh substantially in favour of the proposed development.

In all of these circumstances, and weighing the relevant planning considerations in the balance, it is considered that this proposal should be granted planning permission. and subject to the following conditions and reasons:-

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 This permission relates to the following plans:-

Site location plan, scale: 1:5000

Dwng. No.GAIA-WIND 18-IT

and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

3 Any claim by any person for domestic television picture loss or interference at their household within 6 months of the final commissioning of the wind turbine shall be investigated by a qualified television engineer and the results submitted to the local planning authority within 6 weeks of the original complaint. Should any impairment to the television reception be determined by the qualified engineer as attributable to the wind turbine, such impairment shall be mitigated within 12 weeks of the original complaint, or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To mitigate any possible interference to domestic television reception that might be experienced by the neraest neighbouring residents, in the interests of local residential amenity and policy EM/14 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

4 The wind turbine and all associated appurtenances hereby approved shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its previous state on or before the expiration of 25 years from the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. The restoration scheme shall be submitted not later than 12 months prior to the expiry of the 25 year period and the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and all associated appurtenances.

Reason: The proposed wind turbine has a limited life expectancy and will need to be decommissioned at the end of this period of use. Following the removal of the turbine, the land should be restored to a condition that shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority in the interests of the visual amenity,

openness and purposes of including land in the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D/4, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 If the turbine hereby approved fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, the turbine and any associated appurtenances shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period and the land restored to a condition that shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of removal of the turbine and any associated appurtenances.

Reason: The wind turbine’s function is to generate renewable energy. The benefits arising from this function are considered to constitute the very special circumstances which justify the turbine’s erection in this Area of Protected Open Space Belt. If the turbine ceases to fulfil this function it will no longer be fit for purpose and these very special circumstances will not exist. In such an instance, the land should be restored to its former state in the interests of preserving the openness and visual amenity of the area in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy

D/10 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 At the reasonable request of, and following a complaint to, the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at their own expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97" published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. The level of noise emissions from the turbine shall not exceed 35 dBA (measured as a 15 minute L90) at wind speeds of 8 metres per second or less at the curtilage of any noise sensitive premises.

7 No construction work shall be carried out and no materials shall be delivered to the site other than between the hours of 07.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday and between 08.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays, and no such operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the nearest surrounding properties and to minimise the potential for noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EM/3, EM/14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason:

1 The proposal complies with the development plan and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. It therefore comprises sustainable development and the Local Planning Authority worked proactively and positively to issue the decision without delay. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.

Briefing Paper

This briefing note has been supplied by ASC at the request of Rochdale Council to briefly address some of the comments raised at the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee on 17/12/13. It is intended to be a high level, brief response to the points raised by way of summary to the more detailed report to the Licensing & Regulatory Committee. The main points raised are addressed in-turn:

Question Raised Brief Response 150 metre distance required between turbines The 150 metre set back distance mentioned and residential dwellings. at the planning committee is not a statutory national, regional or local planning requirement.

The application must be an appropriate distance from residential dwellings so as not to have an unacceptable noise or visual impact, both of which have been thoroughly addressed within the report and identified as acceptable by both the Applicant and by RMBC Planning.

Planning conditions will be imposed to protect amenity value.

Wind turbines are not financially viable The project will deliver a positive return to the without subsidy Council with an IRR of 8.4% from a low capital outlay of £68,000. The Council will benefit from Central Government Subsidy by way of the Feed-in-Tariff. As set out in the NPPF, the commercial viability of wind energy is not a material planning consideration.

Recent subsidy changes to onshore wind do not affect 11kw turbines,

The visual impact this will have on residential The Landscape and Visual Impact homes in the vicinity Assessment submitted by the Applicant confirmed no significant effects. This view was confirmed by RMBC Planning.

The site has been selected partly because it is adjacent to the Motorway, and it is considered that the turbine would not create an unacceptable impact upon the outlook enjoyed from adjacent homes.

Any refusal on landscape grounds is unlikely to be successful at appeal. Whilst the site is located within an Area of Protected Open Land, an Area of Protected Existing Recreational Open Space and a defined Greenspace corridor (and hence should be treated as Green Belt), the recent appeal decision for Wind Hill Farm is relevant in that a local refusal on the basis of Green Belt was overturned at Inquiry.

The increased noise levels that the turbine There are no sustainable objections to the will generate proposal on these grounds. A condition is recommended to ensure that control can be exercised when measured from the nearest housing. It is noted from the submitted information the proposed development would operate well within statutory planning guidelines.

The proximity of the turbine to a very large This fact, on its own, is not considered to be a number of homes valid ground of objection. Potential noise and visual impacts are addressed elsewhere in this Summary.

The possible impact the turbine will have on Due to the transition to a digital service, this is TV and radio signals very unlikely to be a difficulty for this proposal. Aany remaining concerns over this point can be satisfactorily dealt with by an appropriate planning condition which has been recommended

The possible impact the turbine will have on The site has no special ecological value and local wildlife no objections have been raised by the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit

The development is not suitable for a In land use terms the application site residential area comprises protected open land. However, the visual impact and relationship to the nearest housing has been assessed in this case and in the Officers view is considered to be acceptable. Members will be able to assess the relationship of the proposed turbine to the nearest housing on the site

The project will only power the equivalent of 8 It is important to note that this application is homes for a pilot project being developed by Rochdale Council as part of a wider wind energy programme. The purpose of this site is for the Council to gain an understanding of developing a wind turbine for a low initial cost, with a view to developing the necessary skills to successfully deliver a larger scale programme at other locations with the potential to achieve significant financial and environmental benefits for the Council and the Local Community

The project will stop the site from being The site can be used for both residential suitable for future residential development development subject to future planning applications, and for the wind turbine. RMBC has confirmed that discussions are ongoing with a developer who remains interested in the site and drafted a layout for a scheme taking the proposed positioning of the turbine into account.

The wind turbine is a pilot project and the Council has the right to remove the turbine at any time in the future should it wish to use to the land for alternative uses

INTRODUCTION ASC Renewables (ASC) undertook a detailed three stage feasibility assessment for Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) in early 2013 which surveyed the council’s entire landholding for the potential to host small (11kW, 30m high), medium (500kW, 75m high) and large (2MW+, 120m high) wind projects.

RMBC then requested that a small (11kW) pilot wind scheme was taken forward as approved at the 1 st July 2013 Cabinet Meeting. The selection process which ASC then undertook to identify the most suitable site for use as a pilot project is outlined below. This process took several weeks and involved the preparation of a number of documents in relation to the selection process which have been collated here. As a result of the selection process the Hill Top Primary School site was selected as RMBC’s pilot project.

SITE SELECTION OVERVIEW

Stage 1

The purpose of the Stage 1 Initial Screening Assessment is to quickly and efficiently exclude areas which are definitely unsuitable. The ‘high level’ nature of this assessment focuses on the three most critical and influential factors used in the determination of potential suitability and these are set out below:

• Critical Factor 1 - Wind Resource • Critical Factor 2 - Key Environmental & Landscape Designations • Critical Factor 3 - Urban Environment (proximity of residential dwellings)

ASC undertook a Stage 1 assessment of RMBC’s current landholding (as well as the wider Borough) to identify whether any locations demonstrate the suitability to host wind energy projects of a variety of sizes.

ASC categorise wind energy project size/scale as follows:

• Commercial Scale Wind Energy: 2MW – 3MW turbines • Medium Scale Wind Energy: 0.25MW – 0.5MW turbines • Small Scale Wind Energy: 11kW – 50kW turbines

The Stage 1 assessment usually screens out between 80-90 per cent of areas for commercial and medium scale wind energy projects and ensures small wind energy projects are only located in commercially viable locations. ASC use this approach to ensure only the most viable locations are progressed to the more detailed and time-consuming second and third stages of assessment.

Following an initial screening assessment of RMBC’s current landholdings, ASC identified 147 locations which could potentially support a small scale wind energy project. As buildings located in close proximity to a site can have a material impact on the efficiency of small scale wind turbines, further assessment (in the form of site visits) was required to better understand each individual location’s potential for wind energy.

The 147 sites identified were then ranked by wind speed and the top 30 sites selected for further assessment through liaison with RMBC over future plans for the sites or their adjacent locations. This resulted in a short list of 9 sites which were progressed to Stage 2. Stage 2

The second stage of feasibility assessment involved an in-depth appraisal of any locations deemed suitable to progress through Stage 1. The purpose of the secondary assessment is to assess the specific characteristics of each location using key planning criteria and commercial viability assessments.

ASC Renewables uses bespoke GIS technology to map detailed overlays of aviation, environmental and landscape constraints for the entire UK.

A summary of the constraints assessed at this stage are set out in the table below:

Wind Development Analysis Constraint If the location is within 10km of a Civil Aviation Aer odrome or Civil Aviation Aerodromes / an RAF Air Base, radar issues are highlighted and are RAF Bases viewed as a constraint which can be mitigated. Further aviation assessments are conducted at Stage 3. Areas within a RAMSAR designated site are considered a RAMSAR Designated Site high risk for wind energy development. Locations within National Nature Reserves are not National Nature Reserve considered suitable for wind energy development as a (NNR) general basis. Differentiation is made for the following: 10˚ < Slope < 20˚, Land Topography Slope > 20˚ Sites with a slope > 20˚ are not considered as suitable. Area of Outstanding Natural Generally, sites within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Beauty (AONB) are not considered suitable however this is not concrete. Areas within 50m of Listed Buildings are considered a Listed Building moderate risk for development of commercial scale wind projects. Site of Special Scientific An area is not considered if within an SSSI or within 1km of Interest (SSSI) an SSSI as a general basis.

An area is not considered if within 50km of a Seismic Seismic Station Monitoring Station

A within (or within very close proximity to) Lochs or Lakes Loch or Lake are not considered suitable.

Only locations which are deemed not to have an unacceptable impact on all of the constraints to wind energy development assessed at Stage 2 are progressed to the final stage of feasibility assessment.

The shortlisted sites which were taken through the constraints assessment were then ranked according to potential site complexity (access, ecological issues etc.) and likely grid connection availability as the key objectives for the project were delivery by 31 March 2014 and on budget. Stage 3

The final stage of feasibility assessment involved an appraisal of the commercial and operational viability of constructing and maintaining a wind energy project at a specific location.

This detailed technical assessment provides decision quality information as to whether a site should be progressed to scoping with Statutory Consultees. A summary of the undertakings are outlined below:

• Detailed site visits including a thorough site walkover of the proposed development area and wider location • Assessment of the access to the site, both during construction (turbine transportation) and for the future on-going maintenance of the project • Grid feasibility analysis including an initial assessment of potential connection points • Assessment of nearby communication masts and their corresponding emitted micropath links (including potential mitigation proposals if required) • Detailed aviation assessment of the potential complications arising from both civil and military radar stations • Cumulative impact and area saturation considerations • Detailed secondary assessment of local landscape and environmental designations

By the conclusion of the third stage of feasibility assessment, a detailed understanding of a location’s suitability for development is published by ASC, including recommendations of whether to proceed with the project further.

The final stage of the selection process involved presenting the top three sites in priority order to RMBC for final selection, of which the Hill Top site was number 1 due to the following reasons;

1. The site is large and currently undeveloped with little visual impact as the neighbouring houses already look onto the motorway as well as two Gaia wind turbines on the opposite hill. 2. Distances from housing and current background noise levels make the project attractive from a noise impact point of view, reducing this risk in terms of gaining planning consent. 3. The site is very likely to have a three-phase electricity supply which may only require re-energising. Failing this the housing estate itself is also likely to have a three-phase supply reducing the risk of a grid connection cost greater than forecast. This will however require additional liaison with the Distribution Network Operator (DNO), Electricity Northwest, and connection into the old school supply could be more time consuming and cost more than a direct connection into the housing estate’s supply. 4. Ecologically benign site where previous surveys have indicated no protected species are present. 5. If the turbine was located as recommended by ASC along the western boundary (c.70m from the southern boundary of the site) it would be easily visible from the motorway (certainly more so than if located on the southern boundary due to the site’s topography at this specific point). It should be noted however that to a passerby on the motorway there would be no indication that this was a Council- owned turbine so therefore visibility of the turbine from the motorway should not be a primary consideration when selecting the site.

In addition to the techincal reasons for choosing Hill Top, an absolutely crucial factor in consideration of which site to choose was whether the project could be completed by 31 st March 2014. This is due to the likely reduction in subsidy levels on 1 st April 2014. The government reduces the subsidy slightly from year to year,, and the rate that is prevailing when you commission a project is the rate you get ‘locked in’ to for the lifetime of that project. Hill Top offered the best chance of completing the pilot project by 31 st March 2014 and thereby benefit from the current Feed in Tariff rate as the site was vacant.

The table below shows a comparison of the top three potential sites for the pilot turbine:

Criteria Site of former Hill Top Bowlee Community Land North of School Park School Ruskin Road

Wind speed 5.6m/s 5.8m/s 5.7m/s

Whilst there is good Good separation separation from from existing nearby housing a dwellings. However, number of houses residential proposals Proximity to Good separation from would look directly for the adjoining site housing existing dwellings out over the turbine are well advanced which could and we were asked potentially cause a not to progress this greater impact on site. visual amenity Distance from Distance from Distance from housing housing should housing and and proximity to M62 prevent noise being proximity to Noise motorway mean noise an issue but located A627(M) mean should not be an issue in a relatively quiet noise should not be area an issue Close proximity to Close proximity to Close proximity to motorway and major motorway. Access motorway however road network. would need to be access tracks and Access Access to turbine site gained through the fence removal would need to public open space needed to get maintained for and fence removal turbine to site maintenance also required Three phase connection likely to Three-phase be present nearby Three phase connection (albeit de- however potential connection with the Grid connection energised) from old requirement for ability to power the school building is likely easements over school directly to be present third party land to reach connection point Ecologically benign site Well developed trees Benign open with no protected and shrubs in landscape with no species. More than relatively close protected species Ecology sufficient separation proximity to the however land looks distances from vertical proposed site to be used to graze features such as trees increasing the site’s horses implying Criteria Site of former Hill Top Bowlee Community Land North of School Park School Ruskin Road bordering the attractiveness to lease issues to be motorway. bats, minimum understood and separation distances mitigated would need to be observed and possible requirement for additional studies Telecommunication link crossing most of Whilst 2 links cross the the site and site there is ample room therefore requiring Area clear from Telecommunication to locate the turbine in mitigation telecommunication Links a number of different discussions with the links optimum locations owner of the link before planning could be submitted Liaison required with No complicated land the school for ownership issues permission to (with the potential construct and access exception of grid site, timing of No complicated connection Cabinet decision ownership/governance easements) Completion by 31 (June 2013) makes issues. however analysis of March 2014 completion of these Site can be completed turbulence caused discussions unlikely my 31 March 2014 by buildings on the before October 2013 opposite side of the resulting in A627(M) could completion prior to delay the start of the March 2014 planning process. impossible

FIGURES

A full set of figures which were produced as a result of this process are appended to this document.

• Figure 1 – Site Location Plan of Hill Top Pilot Project

Report Author Richard Butler

Application Number: 13/00719/FUL Ward: Littleborough Lakeside

Proposal: Residential development of 27 dwellings to include the conversion of the weaving shed and boiler house, together with the retention of the chimney and the demolition of the brick weaving shed and the brick textile mill (resubmission of application 12/D55312)

Site Address: Rakewood Mill Rakewood Road Littleborough OL15 0AP

Applicant: Mr Bryan Weddell

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions

Update.

At the previous Pennines Township Planning Sub Committee Meeting, Members were minded to support the application.

Delegation Scheme:

The Committee has delegated powers to determine the application on reasonable planning grounds.

Site:

The application relates to Rakewood Lower Mill which occupies the north facing corner of the small settlement of Rakewood, which lies about 2.5km south of Littleborough, 1km south-east of Hollingworth Lake, and 5km east of Rochdale. Rakewood lies at the end of a 1km long public road which leads south from Littleborough and Hollingworth, running along Hollingworth Bank. The Mill lies within the Rakewood Conservation Area.

The site includes several hectares of surrounding land, including fields to the east and west and Rakewood Upper Mill to the south. The mill lies around 400m from the elevated M62 motorway and part of the site slopes upwards from the west towards Schofield Hall Road. To the east of the site are the fringes of high Pennine moorland; to the west is the valley floor, mainly occupied by sports pitches, lower rolling hills and Longden End Brook. The west facing gable elevation of the mill adjoins Rakewood Road and this section of road contains several cottages. To the south of the mill lies Schofield Hall Road which rises up from Rakewood Road. Schofield Hall Road contains several residential dwellings which include Rakewood House and Schofield Hall Barn. Schofield Hall Barn is set higher than the mill and extending from it is a right of way which connects Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road.

Rakewood Lower Mill contains a number of buildings and the earliest standing parts of it date from the mid-1850s. The phases of development have taken place at Rakewood reflect the economic development of Rochdale generally; initially the main activity was woollen manufacture through to cotton manufacture in the late 1960s. Today the mill is comprised of five main elements which are described below:

The Southern Weaving Shed.

The weaving shed is constructed of regularly coursed sandstone blocks with a rock-pitched face on the eastern side. Nine blocked windows line this façade and each have dressed sandstone cills and lintels with a similarly dressed doorway in the centre of the façade. This represents the earliest surviving wall of the mill. At the southern end is a straight joint, to the south of which are two further matching windows. This area was added to the mill in the mid- late 19th century, visible on the 1890’s OS mapping. The southern and western elevations of the building were rebuilt in the 20th century when a north light roof was added.

Brick Textile Mill.

The brick mill is built under three double pitched roofs of welsh slate. The roof survives for the most part but is in a poor condition. The building is of six bays and two bays wide, the windows each having dressed sandstone lintels and cills. The rear shows three stories, due to the sloping ground level. Access to the building is through a large loading doorway, protected by a corrugated asbestos sheet loading bay. The mill is early twentieth century constructed between 1910 and 1930. The building is in parlous condition.

Brick weaving shed.

The weaving shed is in a very dilapidated condition. The east and west walls survive and the roof has collapsed leaving the RSJ beams supported by cast iron stanchions, along with scant remains of the north lights. The shed is now heavily overgrown. The weaving shed is an early twentieth century construction dating from between 1910 and 1930’s.

The boiler house

This building was constructed in the mid – late 19th century, visible on the 1890s OS mapping. A large crack runs down the western side of the façade. The building is constructed of regularly coursed sandstone with the windows and doors having dressed sandstone cills and lintels, with a rock pitched face. These match those on the eastern face of the weaving shed discussed above.

Chimney

The chimney is constructed of shaped and coursed sandstone blocks, with iron rings giving extra support. The chimney dates from the mid 1800s and has been lowered at some point.

The site covers approximately 0.68 hectares, and part of the southern boundary is adjoined by a public footpath which links Rakewood Road to the land to the east. Vehicular access into the site is provided at two points, the first from Rakewood Road into the mill yard and the second into a loading bay near the junction of Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road. The mill has not been used for a considerable period of time and it is clear that by reason of its appearance it is having a negative impact upon the appearance of the Rakewood Conservation Area.

Proposal:

The proposed development involves the conversion of the southern weaving shed and boiler house to provide 14 residential units (12 units would be provided within the mill and 2 within the boiler house). To provide the 12 residential units, it is proposed to extend the mill which would sit partly across its roof. The extension would be two storeys high and it would provide 5 of the proposed 12 residential units. The chimney is proposed to be retained while the remaining buildings and structures on the site are proposed to be demolished.

It is proposed that the conversion and restoration of the southern weaving shed and boiler house would be enabled by the development of 13 new homes (this compares with 21 homes proposed within the previous application) which would be arranged around a courtyard following the clearance of derelict buildings to the rear of the mill. These new homes take the form of 2 and 3 storey structures and range from 2 to 6 bedroom units.

No new access points into the development are proposed. The ingress/egress to the courtyard which would serve 15 dwellings is sited in the same position as the existing ingress/egress to the mill yard. The existing vehicular access into the weaving shed located at the junction of Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road would be retained and it would serve an integral car park which would provide 23 car parking spaces. These car parking spaces would be used by the residents of the 12 residential units which would be contained within the converted weaving shed. This car parking area would also contain communal bin stores, communal staircases and a lift.

The proposed floor plans of the converted southern weaving shed are described below:

Lower Ground Level.

The lower ground level entrance would give access directly from Rakewood Road into a duplex residential unit. This entrance would also provide access to one of the upper ground level residential units.

Upper Ground Level (level 1)

Contains an integral car park and 2 residential units which can be accessed via the car park or Rakewood Road. The access into the car park would be from an existing vehicular opening which lies at the junction of Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Lane.

Level 2.

Contains 5 residential units which contain external entrance doors along the Schofield Hall Road elevation. Each residential unit contains a private garden which faces towards Hollingworth Lake.

Levels 3 and 4.

Contains 5 residential units which sit within a 2 storey structure built above the level of the existing mill roof. Each of the 5 dwellings contains an external garden terrace which offers views towards Hollingworth Lake.

To accommodate the proposed uses within the southern weaving shed the following works to it are proposed:

The external wall face would be repaired and the original features such as the cast iron tie brackets retained. A new internal block or plasterboard skin will be constructed. The rear wall will be partially retained but it will require significant rebuild following the demolition of the brick built mill. The lower level of the mill would be stabilised. At the south east corner a later stone structure between the south and east walls is required to be removed and be replaced with a steel framed glass enclosure providing a new entrance at ground level.

The proposed 13 new dwellings would be formed within a courtyard which lies to the rear of the converted weaving shed. The central court is designed to deal with car parking, arrival and refuse storage. Green spaces and gardens are positioned to the outer edges of the scheme to minimise impact upon landscape. All but one of the dwellings has or integral carparking spaces and in total 33 car parking spaces would be provided to serve the 13 new dwellings and the 2 converted dwellings; this equate to 2.2 car parking spaces per dwelling. The integral garages also include space for bike and general storage to take account of families. Access into the courtyard is gained from an existing access point which lies along Rakewood Road.

Policy Background

Adopted Unitary Development Plan:

G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in Green Belt - General D/9 Re-use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas

G/EC/1 Employment Land Supply EC/4 Change of Use of Employment Land Outside Designated Employment Areas

G/H/1 Housing H/3 Residential Developments Outside Allocated Areas H/5 Residential Density H/6 Provision of Recreational Open Space in New Housing Development H/7 Affordable Housing

G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy

G/A/1 Accessibility A/2 New Development - Accessibility Hierarchy A/3 New Development - Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People A/4 New Development – Access for Cyclists A/7 New Development – Access for Service Vehicles A/9 New Development - Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking A/11 New Development - Transport Assessments

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development BE/7 Street Furniture and the Public Realm BE/8 Landscaping in New Development

G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/15 New Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building BE/16 Demolition of Buildings in Conservation Areas BE/17 New Development Affecting Conservation Areas BE/18 Change of Use to Buildings in Conservation Areas

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development EM/4 Contaminated Land EM/7 Development and Flood Risk EM/8 Protection of Surface and Ground Water EM/10 Derelict Land and Buildings EM/11 Other Degraded Land and Buildings

G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/13 Energy Efficiency and New Development

G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/2 Designated Sites of Ecological and Geological / Geomorphological Importance NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species

G/NE/5 Landscape and Woodlands NE/8 Development Affecting Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.

Supplementary Planning Documents Biodiversity and Development (SPD) Energy and New Development (SPD) Affordable Housing (SPD) Provision of Recreational Open Space In New Housing Developments (SPD) Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development (SPG) Littleborough Town Design Statement

National policies and guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

Site History: 1988/D22553 Change of use to museum, craft workshops, stables, restaurant/café and shop with ancillary car park. Refused

2012/D55313 Conservation Area Consent for the conversion and extension of the southern weaving shed to provide a bike hire/repair shop, a community café, 5 residential units and a hostel. The chimney is proposed to be retained while the remaining buildings and structures on the site are proposed to be demolished. Refused.

2012/D55312 Refurbishment & Conversion Of Existing Mill To Include The Demolition Of Structures To The Rear To Provide A Bike Hire & Repair Shop, Community Cafe And Hostel. Increase In The Height Of The Mill To Provide 5 Residential Units And The Construction Of 21 Residential Units With Associated Car Parking And The Diversion Of Footpath 499. Refused.

Publicity Reponses: The neighbouring properties have been notified, site notices have been posted and the application has been advertised in the local press. The application has received 10 letters of objection and the grounds of objection are summarised below.

1. Rakewood Road is a long single track with passing places and no footpaths. Further development is not sustainable and would greatly add to the danger for pedestrians and cyclists. 2. Mandatory car parking regulations are totally abused along Rakewood Road. 3. There is a serious lack of parking places within Rakewood Village, any increased traffic would contribute to exasperating these problems. 4. Rakewood is a village, with historical roots back to the late 1700s as signified by the waevers cottages. These cottages are made using natural stone and any new building should match them and not detract from the character of the existing. The proposed extension to the mill proposes steel and glass. 5. Enabling development is generally associated with listed building and heritage assets. In this case the mill is not listed and in any case very little of the orginal mill buildings will remain other than a façade. 6. We are not aware of any robust financial assessment of the need for enabling works. 7. Although the development is architecturally inventive, it remains wholly inappropriate for our village. 8. The development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 9. Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland. 10. An application made in 1988 to change the use of the mill to craft workshops, stables, restaurant and shop was refused as it was considered to be detrimental to highway safety. 11. The proposed additions to the height of the mill would have an adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the overall nature of the village, in particular totally alien to the character of the adjacent Grade 2 listed buildings. 12. Construction traffic which is bound to involve larger vehicles is a considerable issue as Rakewood Road is very busy. 13. The development would harm the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. 14. The effect on local wildlife would be immense. 15. The style of the new dwellings are modern and are out of character with the nearby dwellings. 16. The proposed additions to the height of the mill buildings will have a serious adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit: No objections to the development as proposed and it is recommended that the following conditions are imposed:

A bat survey be conducted prior to any works taking place. Pre start checks of the site to be undertaken to establish if the site provides a suitable habitat for badgers and breeding birds. A barn owl survey to be conducted prior to any works taking place.

Environment Agency: Comment that the submitted information is satisfactory and it meets with their approval. It is recommended that the following conditions being imposed:

• The submission of a surface water drainage scheme. • A scheme for the protection of Longden End Brook and the wetland to the rear of the site. • A scheme for a landscape management plan.

Natural England: Comment that as the proposal is not necessary for European site management, the LPA should determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any protected sites. It is requested that the following issues are considered; - Water resources, surface and foul drainage, sustainable urban drainage, recreational pressure and cumulative and in-combination effects with other developments.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit: Although they have not commented on the current application, in considering the previous application they commented that the most interesting archaeological and historic element of the site is the boiler house and it was disappointing that it was proposed to be demolished. The current application seeks to retain the boiler house.

Highways Agency: No objections

Highways and Engineering: The following comments have been made:

Rakewood Road narrow and in many places it becomes difficult to pass. The applicant has however identified existing and potential passing places within their Transport Statement. The proposed 27 residential units would be provided with 66 parking bays. Many of these spaces are integral and could be used for other purposes such as storage. If this did occur as there is a Traffic Regulation Order along this section of Rakewood Road to prevent on street parking, the residents would park within the courtyard which would not compromise the capacity of Rakewood Road. Rakewood Road for much of its length does not have dedicated footways. Having considered the data from Accident Records this does not appear to have caused any pedestrian accidents. I expect the character of Rakewood Road has led to reduced traffic speeds and I do not expect the development would result in pedestrian/vehicle conflict. The development would add an additional 30 two way movements to the network in the peak hour. The majority of these vehicles will be leaving the site as is the norm with the majority of the dwellings within the area. Whilst their will on some occasions be vehicles travelling in different directions the applicant has proposed formalising an additional passing bay along Rakewood Road. The application does not raise concerns regarding network capacity. Due to the concerns the impact any contruction traffic would have on the retaining culvert structure, a condition is recommended which requires the applicant to make good any damage which is caused to it during the construction phase.

Conservation and Design: The principle of development on the site to safeguard the breadth of Rakewood’s textile history, better reveal the significance of the conservation area and listed buildings, and enhance their settings is supported. The comments of the Councils Conservation Officer are summarised below: -

Rakewood (Lower) Mill is a multi-phased mill complex which should be considered an undesignated heritage asset of local importance. The proposed development is within the setting of 63-69 Rakewood Road (Grade II) and Freshwater Cottage (Grade II). This well preserved vernacular architecture of cottage industry is complemented by the proximity of larger scale mill industry at Rakewood and Lower Rakewood Mills; each reinforcing the other’s evidential and historic significance as part of an unplanned group charting the hamlet’s industrial development. The ability to understand and interpret the evidential value of the site will be substantially diminished by the extent of loss of historic fabric. However this should be balanced with the present ability to interpret the site and whilst it can be read as a former mill complex, a more in-depth understanding is not afforded to the non-expert. The condition of the complex is too perilous to allow for full archaeological recording at present. Should the development be approved, it must contain appropriate conditions to ensure the proper recording of the site’s significance to provide a greater insight into the fabric and evolution of the mill in line with GMAAS’s recommendations. In addition, opportunities for on-site interpretation should be explored and conditioned, to share the history of the site and conservation area. The design has taken characteristics from the weavers’ cottages along Rakewood Road and created a modern design of build which compliments the character and appearance of the existing architectural quality of the weaver’s cottages in keeping with the scale and proportionate to the site. Although there are concerns regarding the impact of the glazed extension at the junction of Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road the scheme is supported as it would safeguard the breadth of Rakewood’s textile history, better reveal the significance of the conservation area and listed buildings, and enhance their settings. Suitable conditions should be added for archaeological recording, on-site interpretation, material samples, maintenance of the chimney and retaining wall (to be maintained using lime mortar), and method statements for works to the historic building.

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service - No objections

United Utilities - No objections

Greater Manchester Police Design for Security – No comment

English Heritage – Offer no comments and recommend the application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance.

Environmental Health: No objections

Arboricultural Officer – Comments that the majority of the trees appear to be self-seeded and in poor condition. .

ANALYSIS

The previous application was refused on the following grounds:

The proposed development, by reason of its height, scale and design, fails to maintain the openness of the Green Belt and would therefore represent inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances which would outweigh this harm to the Green Belt and as such the development should not proceed. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D/4– Control of Development in the Green Belt - General of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the advice as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposed development involves the conversion of the southern weaving shed to provide a bike hire/repair shop, a community café and a hostel. The southern weaving shed adjoins Rakewood Road and the bike hire/repair shop and the community café would not have any dedicated off street car parking. This section of Rakewood Road contains no pedestrian infrastructure and it is well used by leisure walkers. The lack of dedicated off street car parking would have an adverse impact on the safety of any user of this section of Rakewood Road and the comings and goings from vehicles would be detrimental to the amenities of the local residents. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the requirements of policies A/10 and S/10 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the advice as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Rakewood Mill lies within the Rakewood Conservation Area, which is characterised by a distinct industrial heritage. The special historic and architectural interest of the Rakewood Conservation Area is focussed on two surviving mills and several listed dwellings which are grouped in between the mills. The proposal involves the demolition of the brick textile mill, the brick weaving shed and the boiler house which would be replaced by 21 dwellings. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the harm to the significance of the heritage asset from the proposed demolition works would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy BE/16 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

The applicant has modified the scheme in an attempt to overcome the above reasons for refusal. The major differences between the current and the previous schemes are summarised below: -

The previous scheme proposed that a hostel, a café and a bike shop would be accommodated within the weaving shed. These uses are not included with in the current proposal.

The current scheme proposes 27 residential units, the previous scheme proposed 26.

The layout of the scheme has been reduced such that the two rows of dwellings which would have adjoined Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road have been deleted. The row of dwellings along Rakewood Road have been replaced with an area of landscaping.

The number of ‘new’ dwellings within the courtyard has been reduced from 21 to 13.

The current scheme does not include the diversion of the existing right of way which extends from Schofield Hall Road.

The planning merits of the current scheme are considered below:-

The principle of the development having regard to Green Belt policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purposes of Green Belt are:

to check unrestricted sprawl; prevent neighbouring towns merging; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; assist in urban regeneration.

The NPPF states that, except in very special circumstances, there will be a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The categories of development which are appropriate in the Green Belt are:

• 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 which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it; • limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings; limited infilling in existing villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs; i) limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted local plans.

The erection of dwellings does not come within any of the categories of appropriate development set out in the NPPF, the advice in which is carried through to in Policies G/D/2 and D/4 of the adopted UDP; albeit this refers to PPG2: Green Belts which preceded the NPPF, but the thrust of which is fundamentally the same. Accordingly the proposed new dwellings represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As the NPPF makes clear, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Additionally, it is clear that due to their position and scale the dwellings would involve some loss of openness of the Green Belt. The NPPF at Paragraph 88 makes it clear that very special circumstances to justify such development will not exist unless the harm by reason of its inappropriateness and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Visual Impact.

The area is categorised by a semi rural landscape which contains rolling hills and a scattering of woods. In the immediate vicinity of the site is an abundance of trees and the majority of them appear to be self-seeded. To the east of the site are the fringes of high Pennine moorland; to the west is the valley floor, mainly occupied by sports pitches and lower rolling hills. To the north west lies Hollingworth Lake reservoir which is connected to a number of rights of way.

It is considered the most sensitive views of the site would be from the lower vantage points along Rakewood Road and from the public rights of way which extend around the rear of the site. From many of the nearer vantage points along Rakewood Road, many of the dwellings would be masked to some degree, particularly in the summer months, by mature deciduous trees, which lie immediately to the east adjacent to Schofield Hall Road and to the south around Rakewood Upper Mill. Although from these vantage points the roofs of the proposed dwellings would be visible above and through the trees, it is considered that they would not be an overly prominent or alien feature within the landscape. From further away, the dwellings, including the extension to the mill, would be seen at a distance and as part of the settlement of Rakewood and they would be set against the local visual clutter of, amongst other things, mills and their associated chimneys and the M62 viaduct.

Although the proposed new houses and the extension to the mill would be contained within the settlement of Rakewood and they would be partially screened by nearby manmade and natural features, it is clear that by reason of their positions and scale they would be detrimental to the openness of the green belt. The fact that the visual impact of the dwellings would be reduced by tree screening and the characteristics of the existing landscape does not in itself comprise a very special circumstance to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Very Special Circumstances.

As the proposal would be considered inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the NPPF to be acceptable there must be very special circumstances that would outweigh this in-principle harm and the harm the proposed dwellings and the extension to the mill would have on the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposed new build dwellings (13 in total) would enable the restoration of the mill which lies within the Rakewood Conservation Area which as described elsewhere within the report is a small settlement adjoining Hollingworth Fold. It includes two mills and associated cottages, and the separate dwellings of Antioch, Gilead and the terrace Lower Abbots. Rakewood’s stone buildings, modest in style, display the variety of simple design to be found in small South Pennine settlements. Though apparently remote by contemporary standards, Rakewood demonstrates how manufacturing activity was to be found across the whole Littleborough area. The significance of the Rakewood Mill Conversation Area has diminished in recent times by the continued deterioration in the condition of both mill buildings, especially Lower Rakewood Mill. In relation to the historic environment, para 131 of the NPPF states: In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Lower Rakewood Mill is not in use and it does not accommodate any economic activity. Over the last ten years, the condition of the complex has continued to deteriorate further due to the lack of maintenance, fire and vandalism. It is clear that the buildings in their current condition have a negative impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area.

In order to fund the proposed restoration works to the weaving shed and boiler house and also to fund its continuing maintenance/management, 13 new dwellings and an extension to the mill to provide 5 residential units are proposed as enabling development. The 13 houses would lie behind the converted and extended weaving shed and they would be formed within a courtyard. The dwellings would provide family homes containing 3-6 bedrooms. The majority of the dwellings would be located on the site of the brick textile mill and the brick weaving shed which would all be demolished. The houses are 2 storeys high and they are set on 3 levels with a standard pitched roof. The applicant has commented that rectangular grouping of the houses with its form and orientation are inspired by the nearby Castleshaw Roman Fort and they are nestled in behind the mill to reduce impact on views, vistas and landscape. The dwellings would be constructed using local natural materials and the central court is designed to accommodate car parking and servicing.

Five dwellings are proposed to be accommodated within the extension to the weaving shed. The extension would be accommodated within the roof and the dwellings would be set on two levels, containing 4 bedrooms. The weaving mill is currently set on 2 levels and it was originally constructed as a 3 storey mill for flannel manufacture. The extension to the mill is an attempt to re-create the spirit of the original mill and its skin incorporates a flush glazed system to read as a clearly legible and distinct modern addition. The glazed façade would contain an etched tree design and this feature is also repeated within the gable elevations of the dwellings which define the entrance into the courtyard.

Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states that LPAs should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies, but which would secure the future conversion of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from these policies. The applicant proposes monies from the sale of the properties will simply go into restoring the weaving mill and to ensure that such works take place a suitable planning condition is included within the recommendation. . The Local Planning Authority has seen the financial appraisal carried out by the developer and although the figures within it are commercially sensitive and are therefore not part of the public file, nor can they be disclosed within this report, the submitted financial projections demonstrate that the enabling development will be capable of funding the restoration works whilst not generating a profit margin in excess of what would be expected. A reasonable profit margin is generally held to be somewhere between 15 and 20% and in this particular case the profit margin of 8% is predicted to be achieved. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the developer should not make a profit from the works; all development is carried out to realise a profit for the developer otherwise it would simply not take place. In that respect it is acknowledged that the scale of and return on, the proposed enabling development is the minimum necessary to enable the viable and sympathetic restoration of the weaving shed.

Nevertheless, in assessing the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, it is clearly important to assess whether the proposals will result in material harm to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting. The weaving shed is constructed of regularly coursed sandstone blocks with a rock pitched face to the eastern side which dates from the early 1800s. Few surviving examples of early 19 th century mills exist as there has been a trend for the wholescale demolition of former textile manufacturing sites in Lancashire. The weaving shed has been modified in the early 20 th century and these changes illustrate the evolution of the site over two centuries. The inclusion of dwellings where previously there had been none; the inclusion of vehicle parking and the inclusion of domestic garden space, boundaries and footpaths where previously there had been none are very well designed and suitable local materials would be used to ensure that they enhance the significance of the weaving shed and the Rakewood Conservation Area. It is a considered through the enabling development the long term future of the weaving shed would be secured without eroding its significance.

It is clear that the enabling development would fund the restoration and conversion of the mill into a residential use. Local Planning Authorities have a duty to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the key buildings within them and through a grant of planning permission for the new dwellings would allow the restoration of the mill to take place, which would otherwise be very unlikely to take place. The new dwellings would generate the necessary revenue to restore and bring back into use a heritage asset whilst preserving and enhancing the Rakewood Conservation Area. This alone is a persuasive argument for allowing this development to proceed, and in conjunction with the other benefits of the proposal is considered to represent the very special circumstances required to overcome the presumption against development within the Green Belt. As such, the proposal accords with policy G/D/2 and D/4 of the adopted UDP, as well as the advice as contained within the NPPF.

The significance of Lower Rakewood Mill

As described elsewhere within this report it is clearly apparent that the significance of the Rakewood Mill Conversation Area has diminished in recent times by the continued deterioration in the condition of both mill buildings. Whilst the new dwellings would have some impact on the setting of the Conservation Area by reason of their siting and design they would greatly enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area as well allowing the restoration and repair of the weaving shed. Through sensitive repair the significance of the weaving shed within the Conservation Area would be enhanced.

The previous application sought to demolish the boiler house and the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit (GMAU) commented that this was disappointing as it is the most interesting archaeological and historic element of the site. Although this building is in a very poor condition with extensive damage, the current proposal seeks to stabilise it and converted it into two dwellings which would be set on 3 levels. These two dwellings would form part of the setting of the courtyard and their retention would enrich the scheme and help to restore the significance of the Conservation Area. The harm to the significance of the heritage asset from the proposed demolition works would be outweighed by the benefits of bringing the weaving shed and boiler house back into use and that the new residential uses and the required restoration works would enhance the appearance of the Rakewood Conservation Area. The Council’s Conservation and Design team support the application. If Members are minded to approve the application suitable conditions would be imposed which require the details of the conversion and repair works to be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Within the Conservation Area are several listed buildings which include: -

• Schofield Hall Road - Number 2 (Brook Cottage) – Grade II Listed. • Rakewood Road – Number 63, 65, 67 & 69 (End View Cottage) – Grade II Listed.

The above named listed buildings are an important visual element within the Conservation Area and they help to frame the junction of Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road. These dwellings would be set adjacent to the retained weavers shed and the proposed extension to it. There are two main approaches that can be adopted when extending or building near a listed building: do something completely different or pay tribute to what is already there. Approaches will depend on individual taste and what is intended to be achieved. At paragraph 131 of the NPPF it is advised that when considering applications Local Planning Authorities should take account of the following:-

the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of all heritage assets (whether designated or not) and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

In this particular case the two storey extension to the mill would sit like a box on top of its eastern side and it has a rather simple design. Its visual impact would be somewhat diminished as it would sit behind the Rakewood Road elevation, however its end elevation is prominent as it would define the boundary of Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Farm. On the southern side of this junction lies the above mentioned listed building and although the proposed extension would clearly compete visually with them, I consider any harm to them would be clearly outweighed by the positive contribution the extension and the restored mill would make to the character of the area. With regard to materials to be used on the extension, its external envelope would be constructed using glazing which provides a sympathetic contrast with the retained stone mill and the surrounding stone properties. Window proportions follow a simple vertically framed rhythm, common to many historic mills and glazed balustrades would be used to frame external walkways and rooftop gardens.

The contemporary approach to extending the mill provides an appropriate balance of providing a suitable residential environment whilst maintaining its integrity and not unduly harming the significance of the nearby listed buildings. The development would make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, helping to reinforcement its distinctiveness.

Change of employment land

The application is subject to policy EC/4 (Change of Employment Land Outside Designated Employment Areas) which states that the change of use of land and premises currently or last in employment use will be permitted if a ‘new use is the only practical means of retaining a building or architectural or historic significance’. As described elsewhere within the report Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the key buildings within them and in permitting the residential development, this would release capital funds to allow the restoration of the lower weaving shed, the boiler house and chimney to take place. Considering the above, I am satisfied that the proposal complies with policy EC/4.

The Natural Environment

The NPPF advises that when determining planning applications Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity and mitigate or compensate against significant harm resulting from a development.

The application site is not within a Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)/Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). It therefore has no special ecological value.

Policy NE/2 of the UDP states that development that adversely affects sites and areas of ecological and geological/geomorphological importance will not be permitted. Where a site hosts a priority natural habitat and/or priority species development will not be permitted unless it is necessary for benefits of primary importance for the environment. Proposals that would affect a species protected by national or European law or its habitat will not be permitted unless there is no adverse impact on the species concerned, the loss of or damage to the supporting habitat is minimal and where required adequate alternatives are provided (Policy NE/4). Proposals with landscape and visual implications will be assessed having regard to the landscape elements that contribute to local distinctiveness, the historic elements that make a significant contribution to landscape character and quality, the visual condition of the landscape elements and tranquillity, amenity and the informal recreation value of the landscape.

The proposal would involve the loss of small pockets of trees which lie adjacent to the brick mill, the brick weaving shed and the boiler house. The application has submitted an aboricultural report which states that the majority of the trees are in a state of collapse and have limited growth potential. The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have raised no objections to the proposals on nature conservation grounds and have suggested that certain precautions should be taken to protect nature conservation interests. In the event of planning permission being granted the following conditions would be imposed:

A bat survey be conducted prior to any works taking place.

Pre start checks of the site to be undertaken to establish if the site provides a suitable habitats for badgers and breeding birds

A barn owl survey to be conducted prior to any works taking place.

In addition to the above to compensate for the loss of the trees, a planning condition is recommended which requires a landscape management plan to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan could potentially involve tree planting schemes to be undertaken within the vicinity of the application site.

Overall, having considered the advice received from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit, it is considered that there would be no material effect on local wildlife populations and no significant harm which would require mitigatory or compensatory schemes other than those secured by the suggested planning conditions. The proposal complies with policies NE/2 and NE/4 of the Rochdale UDP and the advice within the NPPF.

Parking and Access arrangements.

A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application which examines the existing transport network in the vicinity of the development site, it outlines the development proposals and it considers the resulting impact on the existing transport network.

An assessment of the possible vehicle trip generation associated with the site is included within the Transport Assessment and it demonstrates that the proposals are unlikely to give rise to a material impact on the highway network. Rakewood Road is relatively narrow south of the junction with Syke Road and the development site (a distance of around 800m) and there are approximately five locations where Rakewood Road is sufficiently wide for vehicles to pass. As part of the development proposals, an additional passing place is proposed on Rakewood Road approximately 100m northwest of the site access. The additional passing place would provide further passing opportunities ensuring the maximum distance between locations vehicles can pass is around 150m.The estimated vehicle trip generation is therefore considered unlikely to materially worsen the number of conflicts associated with vehicles passing on Rakewood Road.

There is currently no dedicated pedestrian infrastructure on Rakewood Road south of Syke Lane. The route is well-used by leisure walkers in particular. In order to provide dedicated pedestrian facilities adjacent Rakewood Road, significant infrastructure improvements are likely to be required. Such measures cannot be achieved within the scope of this development, given the relatively small scale and nature of the proposals and the financial restrictions.

It is worth noting that the application site has accommodated significant vehicular flows for many years, although in more recent years, traffic generation has ceased as a result of employment users having vacated the site. Assuming the buildings here were occupied, traffic flows to the site would include heavy goods vehicles, service traffic and car trips generated by the work force and visitors. Although a heavy industrial use is unlikely to return to this site it does offer a useful context for the historic traffic movements that once existed here. It is considered that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the safe operation of the existing highway network. It is worth nothing that the previously refused scheme contained commercial uses such as shop which unlike residential schemes, it is harder to predict the volume of traffic that would be generated by them. The current scheme only proposes residential development.

No vehicular access is proposed along Schofield Hall Road and No new access points into the mill complex are proposed. The ingress/egress to the courtyard which serves the 15 homes (the courtyard as proposed within the previous application contained 21 homes) is sited in the same position as the existing ingress/egress to the yard. The courtyard is designed to reduced vehicle speeds to a minimum and will operate as a shared pedestrian and vehicle surface. The layout will promote pedestrian and cyclist movements and accord with the provisions of the Department of Transport’s ‘Manual for Streets’ (March 2007) and with saved policies A/2, A/3 and A/4 of the UDP.

The mill conversion will be serviced from the existing loading bay entrance and it is considered this movement would not prejudice highway safety and will satisfy saved Policy A/7 of the UDP.

Appendix C of the UDP identifies the maximum standards for car parking provision in new developments and states that an average of 1.5 off-street car parking spaces should be provided per dwelling in new residential developments. Policy A/10 of the UDP states that the Council will permit car parking provision at less than the maximum standards where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development site is in an appropriate location and is readily accessible by more sustainable transport modes. The residential courtyard will contain 31 dedicated car parking spaces (ie -13 internal integrated garage spaces [within homes] and 18 ‘defined’ curtilage spaces). This equates to approximately 2 spaces per dwelling. There are also 10 ‘visitor’ spaces defined within courtyard. The mill incorporates an undercroft car park for 22 vehicles (the previous scheme contain 10 spaces) which is accessed from the existing loading bay opening.

It is considered that the number of car parking spaces proposed is sufficient to meet the demand which would be generated by the proposal. Furthermore the car parking spaces lie in convenient locations and therefore it is not expected that any vehicles visiting the development would park on any nearby roads or lanes.

Lying opposite the retained mill lies a retaining wall which separates Rakewood Road and Longden End Brook. The retaining wall is a combination of dry stone walling, reinforced concrete and mortared regular stone. In some areas the original dry stone has been buttressed by a length of reinforced concrete. The carriageway is constructed in tarmacadam and it is approximately 3.0m wide. The verge on either side of the road varies from less than 1.0m to several metres wide. A number of different vehicle types use this section of Rakewood Road and these include flat bed trucks, refuse collection vehicles and tractors. The weight of these vehicles is likely to vary from approximately 3 tonnes for a tractor to 16 tonnes for a flat bed truck and it appears that all vehicles use the road without any undue problems. However it is recognised that the vehicular coming and goings associated with the proposed development could potentially degrade the integrity of the wall and therefore a condition is recommended that the applicant carries out a full detailed survey of the wall which will include details of any necessary repairs and highway safety works. The agreed works will be undertaken by the applicant and it is likely that the works will include such measures as the implementation of a vehicular restraint barrier.

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that, ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. The Highways Service has considered the scheme and they consider that the impact of the development on the highway network would be minimal (30 two way movement on the network at peak times) and therefore there are no sustainable highway ground in which this application could be refused.

In summary it is considered that the proposed parking and access arrangements associated with the development are acceptable. Required off site highway works such as the provision of an additional passing place along Rakewood Road will be secured by the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement. Overall, it is concluded that the development proposals are acceptable from a transport perspective.

Effect on residents living conditions.

Although some properties in the vicinity would be able to view the proposed development, albeit only through certain windows, none would have their outlook so affected that living conditions for their occupants would be unacceptably degraded. The right to a view over private land cannot be protected through the planning system. Instead, it must be considered whether what will be within that view would be so harmful as to justify a refusal of planning permission. Some views would be changed but those changes do not necessarily equate to harm; none of the properties would be so close, or with such direct views towards the site, that the development could reasonably be seen as oppressive or overbearing. The proposal therefore complies with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s UDP.

Affordable Housing

The Council’s affordable housing requirements are contained in UDP policy H/7 and its associated Supplementary Planning Document. The normal requirement is for developments of 15 or more dwellings to provide 15% of the units at an affordable level.

In this particular case, in order to limit the amount of enabling development required to bring forward the restoration of the mill, it is considered more appropriate to seek an off-site contribution through a commuted sum, subject to a viability study. This commuted sum payment could be used more widely to deliver affordable housing units within the Pennines Township. This is considered to represent the appropriate balance between ensuring the site is focused on providing high value homes that serve to diversify the housing mix within the Borough and respond to a specific need which the site is considered appropriate for supporting the realisation of regeneration objectives elsewhere by contributing to the delivery of an affordable product.

The requirements of the Council’s adopted affordable housing policies would be secured through a S106 agreement and it is considered that the proposal is policy compliant.

Recreational open space policy.

The Council’s policies on open space relating to new housing development require all new residential developments to make provision for local open space and formal sports provision. Depending on the size of the development and existing provision in the area the local open space needs to be provided either on site or secured off-site through a commuted sum payment. The formal sports provision is normally dealt with by way of a commuted sum payment towards provision or improvement of formal facilities (e.g. pitches) in public ownership.

Due to the size constraints of the site in this particular case it is not considered appropriate that the development provides any on site public open space. Therefore an off-site contribution is required and requirements of the Council’s adopted public open space policies would be secured through a S106 agreement. In this particular case, there is no local open space within a reasonable distance of the development, the nearest being in the Smithy Bridge area which is in excess of the 1000m maximum distance set out in the SPD. As such, and in common with other developments in this area, including at Booth Hollins Mill, only a contribution to formal sports provision is required. This could be spent Boroughwide or within the Pennines Township as required by the SPD.

The decision in respect of the development of Upper Rakewood Mill as an renewable energy centre as a material consideration.

Planning application 11/D54253 (change of use to form a renewable energy centre to include roof mounted solar panels and the erection of one, 100Kw, 30m high wind turbine at Rakewood Higher Mill) was recently allowed on appeal. The decision was refused by the Council (contrary to officer recommendation) on the grounds that the development was inappropriate development within the Green Belt and the development would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

In allowing the appeal the Inspector commented that;

the very substantial weight I attach to the contribution the proposal would make to tackling the urgent challenge of climate change and the substantial weight I attach to the turbine as enabling development to conserve the significance of the Conservation Area clearly outweighs the substantial weight attached to harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the limited harm to openness and the appearance of the area. As such, I conclude that very special circumstances exist to justify allowing this appeal.

Previous Inspector’s decisions are material to the consideration of planning applications and it is considered that the conclusions of the Inspector in this case are relevant to the current application. It is clear that in allowing the appeal the Inspector considered the benefits of the enabling development which would otherwise conflict with planning policy was acceptable on the grounds that it secured the future conservation of a heritage asset. He gave this ‘substantial’ weight when coming to his conclusions, as advised by the NPPF. Although very different proposals, there are similarities with this appeal decision as the proposed residential dwellings subject of this application would enable the restoration of the weaving shed which would enhance the significance of the Conservation Area. It is therefore considered that the scheme subject of this application would also provide improvements to a heritage asset which should also be given ‘substantial’ weight, which in this case, would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by virtue of inappropriateness and the reduction of openness.

The previous decision (application D55312)

In this particular case it is concluded that the development does compromise inappropriate development within the Green Belt. In addition to the retention of the weaving shed and the chimney, the current proposal also seeks to retain the boiler house which has been identified as being the most interesting archaeological and historic element of the site. Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the key buildings within them and in permitting the residential development, this would release capital funds to allow the restoration of the lower weaving shed, boiler house and chimney to take place. The applicant has demonstrated that the amount of new development is justified to raise funds to undertake the restoration works as well as making a reasonable profit. This can be held to represent the very special circumstances required to overcome the presumption against development within the Green Belt. As such, the proposal accords with policy G/D/2 of the adopted UDP, as well as the advice as contained within NPPF which permits inappropriate development in the green belt providing that there are very special circumstances.

The current application does not contain any commercial uses and by their very nature it can be somewhat difficult to assess their impact on the highway and determine the amount of car parking that would be required. On the other hand vehicular movements associated with residential uses are easier to predict and in this particular case, it is considered that the vehicular movements associated with the development would not raise any concerns regarding network capacity and the proposed number of car parking spaces to be provided would meet the expected demand.

I am satisfied that the proposal has satisfactorily addressed the reasons the previously application was refused.

The Planning Balance and Overall Conclusions

There remains a balance to be struck between harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any adverse effects on the openness on the Green Belt (issue (i)); the impact on the Rakewood Conservation Area and other heritage assets (issue (ii)); the effect on living conditions (issue iii); the proposed parking and access arrangement (issue iv); and the benefits of the scheme in securing the restoration of Rakewood Mill (issue v).

Under issue (i) it is concluded that the development comprises inappropriate development within the Green Belt which, although the proposed houses and the extension to the mill would be contained within the settlement of Rakewood and they would be partially screened by nearby manmade and natural features, it is clear that by reason of their siting and scale, they would also harm the openness of the Green Belt.

Under issue (ii) it is concluded that the demolition of the brick weaving shed and the brick textile mill are justified on the grounds that the enabling development would secure the restoration of the weaving shed, the boiler house and the chimney. The restoration works and the associated extension to the weaving shed and the restoration of the boiler house would enhance the significance of the site and the development as whole would be of very high quality which would enhance the significance of the Conservation Area and not unduly harm the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

Under issue (iii) although some properties in the vicinity would be able to view the proposed development, none would have their outlook so affected that living conditions for their occupants would be unacceptably degraded. Some views would be changed but those changes do not necessarily equate to harm; none of the properties would be so close, or with such direct views towards the site, that the development could reasonably be seen as oppressive or overbearing.

Under issue (iv) the proposed residential developments will be provided with a variety of car parking solutions which includes private garages, defined curtilage spaces and semi-private courtyard parking. These solutions are satisfactory to ensure that suitable parking arrangements to serve future demand are met. There is currently no dedicated pedestrian infrastructure on Rakewood Road south of Syke Lane. In order to provide dedicated pedestrian facilities adjacent Rakewood Road, significant infrastructure improvements are likely to be required. Such measures cannot reasonably be achieved within the scope of this development, given the relatively small scale nature of the proposals. However in this particular case the application is subject to the applicant entering into a s106 agreement which require the developer to carryout highway works along Rakewood Road to ensure that as required by Policy A/8 of the UDP that it is in ‘no worse state’.

Under issue (vi) Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the key buildings within them and in permitting the residential development, this would release capital funds to allow the restoration of the lower weaving shed, the boiler house and chimney to take place. This can be held to represent the very special circumstances required to overcome the presumption against development within the Green Belt. As such, the proposal accords with policy G/D/2 of the adopted UDP, as well as the advice as contained within NPPH which permits inappropriate development in the green belt providing that there are very special circumstances.

In conclusion, the very substantial weight attached to the residential development as enabling development to enhance the significance of the Conservation Area is considered to outweigh the substantial weight attached to harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the harm to the openness of the area.

As such it is considered that the very special circumstances exist to justify the recommendation for approval.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Committee resolve:

That Members are minded to GRANT planning permission subject to:

1. The completion of a Section 106 planning obligation in order to secure:

a) The provision and maintenance of recreational open space in accordance with the Council’s open space policies.

b) The applicant funds the cost of off-site highway works on Rakewood Road.

c) The provision of affordable housing, in accordance with the Council's affordable housing policy

d) The conversion and restoration of the weaving shed, boiler house and chimney

2. That the Council enters into an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate legislation with regard to the matters set out above;

3. The Head of Planning be authorised to issue the decision notice on completion of the Section 106 Agreement; and subject to the following conditions and reasons:-

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 Plans condition- to be confirmed.

3 Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no development shall take place until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

4 No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, has been completed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced and shall have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development takes place. The report of the findings must include: i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: • human health, • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archaeological sites and ancient monuments; iii) where unacceptable risks are identified, an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s) The development shall thereafter be completed in full accordance with the approved recommendations.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policies EM/8 and BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

5 No above ground works shall take place until a detailed specification of all external doors and external windows within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include materials, profile, reveal, method of glazing and method of opening. The windows and doors shall be installed in full accordance with the approved details and specifications and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To preserve the significance of the Rakewood Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings in accordance with Policies H/3, BE/15 and BE/17 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan.

6 No above ground works shall take place until full details of all boundary treatments including details of height and design and details or samples of materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and to an agreed timescale and retained thereafter.

Reason: To preserve the significance of the Rakewood Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings in accordance with Policies H/3, BE/15 and BE/17 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended by The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008, or any equivalent Order following the revocation and re-enactment thereof), no development shall take place at any of the dwellings hereby approved under Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) unless a further planning permission in respect thereof has been granted on application to the Local Planning Authority .

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties, to prevent harm to the appearance of the Rakewood Conservation Area and to protect the openness of the Green Belt in accordance with Policies G/D/2, D/4, BE/2 and BE/17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

8 All the vehicle parking areas shown on the approved plans, including garages, shall not be used otherwise than for the parking of private motor vehicles belonging to the occupants of and visitors to the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that adequate parking provision is retained and to comply with policy A/10 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

9 No clearance of trees and shrubs in preparation for (or during the course of) development shall take place during the bird nesting season (March - July inclusive) unless an ecological survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to establish whether the site is utilised for bird nesting. Should the survey reveal the presence of any nesting species, then no development shall take place during the period specified above.

Reason: In order to prevent any habitat disturbance to nesting birds in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy NE/3.

10 The works of demolition hereby permitted shall not be begun until documentary evidence is produced to the Local Planning Authority to show that contracts have been entered into by the developer to ensure that building work on the site the subject of this consent will take place within a period of 6 months following demolition first taking place in accordance with a scheme for which planning permission has been granted.

Reason: To prevent premature demolition in the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to comply with policy BE/16 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

11 No works shall take place until a method statement for the works of repair and restoration to the weaving shed, chimney and boiler house has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall include the following: • A schedule of repair and restoration of the external elevations • A specification of pointing to be used. • Detailed specification for the installation of a new roof, windows, doors, new floors, ceilings and walls and treatments to the retained walls • A timetable outlining the restoration and conversion works. The work shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details and specifications.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of this building in an appropriate timescale and to comply with policy BE/17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the advice as contained within the NPPF.

12 No development shall take place until an archaeological survey to be undertaken in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WSI shall include the following: 1. An archaeological survey to include, - Building survey (English Heritage Level 2/3) - Intra-demolition/alteration watching brief -Walkover and topographic survey -Evaluation -(Depending on the evaluation) Open Space excavation 2. A programme of post-recording analysis to include: - Production of archive - Production of a final report 3. Provision for dissemination of the results. 4. Provision for archive deposition of the report and survey records. 5. Nomination of a competent person or persons/ organization to undertake the works

set out within the approved WSI. The WSI shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason. In order to record and understand the architectural and historic importance of the site in accordance with Policies BE/10 and BE/11 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

13 No development shall take place until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas (except privately owned domestic gardens), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved and any subsequent variations shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include the following elements: • detail extent and type of new planting, including planting schedule, • detail and extent of retained semi natural greenspace and woodland • details of maintenance regimes • details of retained wetland habitat and any new surface water drainage that may feed into this • details of treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies • details of management responsibilities

Reason. To ensure the protection of wildlife and to secure the opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site, in accordance with the requirements of policies NE/8 and NE/9 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development.

14 No development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the adjoining Longden End Brook and the retained wetland to the rear of the mill, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: • plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone between the stream and retained wetland. • details demonstrating how the buffer zone between the proposed new streamside development and watercourse will be protected during development • details demonstrating how the retained wetland will be managed/maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of detailed management plan. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason. In order to protect the adjacent watercourse and wetland, in accordance with the requirements of policies EM/8 and NE/2 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

15 No development shall take place until a condition survey of the section of the Longden End Brook retaining wall which lies in between the junctions of Rakewood Road and Lower Abbotts and Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include structural engineer's calculations, any necessary repairs and the design and the position of a vehicular restraint barrier. The agreed works contained within the condition survey shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed in accordance with a timetable which had first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenities and to preserve the setting of the bridge, in accordance with Policies BE/2, BE/11 and BE/17 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

16 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding v. wheel washing facilities vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

Reason. To protect the amenities of the residents of the adjacent dwellings, and to maintain as far as possible the appearance of the locality, pursuant to Unitary Development Plan Policies BE/2 and EM/14.

17 The hours of operation of the construction phase of the development and any traffic movements to or from the site associated with the development hereby permitted shall be limited to 0730 hours to 1900 hours Monday to Friday, and 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday and no construction work or vehicle movements associated with construction shall take place on Sundays or Bank / Public Holidays.

Reason. To protect the amenities of the residents of the adjacent dwellings, pursuant to Unitary Development Plan Policies BE/2 and EM/14.

18 No development shall take place until full details of any required retaining structures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include structural engineer's calculations, the amount of earth to be retained, the extent of excavation and infill required, the proposed finish for the surface of the land behind the structure, the guaranteed minimum service life of the construction relative to the local exposure level and details of any impact on or proposals for existing upper containments. The details shall also include a method statement for implementing the approved wall and associated works. The retaining structures shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and method statement before the first use of any of the dwellings hereby approved.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory and complete form of development providing adequate protection of land outside of the site, in accordance with policies BE/2 and BE/17 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

19 The development hereby permitted shall not take place until a scheme to regulate surface water runoff has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently agreed,in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system in order to comply with Unitary Development Plan EM/7 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

20 No development shall take place until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the publication and interpretation of the site’s heritage in the form of an information board. The submitted scheme shall include details of the proposed location of the interpretation board and it shall be erected before any of the residential units within the weaving shed are first brought into use.

Reason: To commemorate the history and archaeology of the site and disseminate the results of archaeological investigations, in accordance with Policy BE/10 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan

21 No development shall take place until details of finished site and floor levels relative to an off-site datum have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies H/3 and BE/2.

22 The development hereby permitted shall not take place until, a scheme for the post construction ‘hard’ landscaping treatment of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of the proposed surface treatment of the driveways, paths or other hard- surfaced areas. The agreed scheme of works shall be carried out in accordance within a timescale that shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with Policies BE/2 and BE/8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

23 The demolition of the buildings shall not take place unless a survey has been conducted, by a person the identity of whom has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to investigate whether the building is or has been utilised by bats and the survey results shall be passed to the Local Planning Authority. If such a use is established, a scheme for the protection of the wildlife habitat shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and the scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard any bat roosts which may be present within the site in accordance with Policy NE/4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

24 Prior to the commencement of any works, a survey for badger setts will be undertaken, and if any are present within 30 metres (including on adjoining land) of the development site, the works shall not commence until a method statement for the protection of badgers has been produced and any necessary Natural England licences have be obtained. The method statement shall be implemented in full.

Reason: To safeguard any badger setts which may be present within the site or within 30m of the site in accordance with Policy NE/4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan

25 Prior to the commencement of any works a method statement for the avoidance of impacts on barn owls has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved method statement shall be implemented in full. The method statement shall include details or measures that will be implemented during site clearance, site preparation and construction for the avoidance of impacts on barn owls.

Reason: To safeguard any barn owls which may be present within the site in accordance with Policy NE/4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan

26 No development shall take place until details of the means of foul water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details, as approved, shall be implemented in full in accordance with a timetable which has first been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure a satisfactory system of drainage and to prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policies EM/7 and EM/8 and the principles of Policy EM/7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan

27 Within 3 months of development first taking place, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of the type, species, siting, planting distances and the programme of planting of trees and shrubs. The scheme of planting, as approved, shall be carried out during the first planting season after the development is substantially completed and the areas which are landscaped shall be retained as landscaped areas thereafter. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within three years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory level of landscaping in the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies BE/2 and BE/8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

28 No development shall commence unless and until a phasing plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The phasing plan shall ensure that the conversion/renovation of the weaving shed, boiler house and chimney will be completed prior to the substantial completion and occupation of the 13 new-build dwellings herby approved. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved phasing plan.

Reason: To ensure that the new-build enabling development is not completed and occupied prior to the retained and converted Rakewood Mill heritage assets first being completed in accordance with policies G/BE/9, BE/11, and BE/17 of the adopted Rochdale MBC Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason:

Report Author Paul Ambrose

Application Number: 13/00720/CAC Ward: Littleborough Lakeside

Proposal: Demolition of the brick weaving shed and the brick textile mill (resubmission of application 12/D55313) in connection with planning application 13/00719 Site Address: Rakewood Mill Rakewood Road Littleborough OL15 0AP

Applicant: Mr Bryan Weddell

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions

Update.

At the previous Pennines Township Planning Sub Committee meeting, Members were minded to support the application.

Delegation Scheme:

The Committee has delegated powers to determine the application on reasonable planning grounds.

Site:

The Southern Weaving Shed.

Brick Textile Mill.

Brick weaving shed.

The boiler house

Chimney

The chimney is constructed of shaped and coursed sandstone blocks, with iron rings giving extra support. The chimney dates from the mid 1800s and has been lowered at some point.

Proposal:

The proposal is for conservation area consent to demolish the brick weaving shed, and the brick textile mill in association with the redevelopment of the site.

The proposed redevelopment of the site is subject to planning application 13/00719 and it involves the conversion of the southern weaving shed and boiler house to provide 14 residential units (12 units would be provided within the mill and 2 within the boiler house).

A report on the planning application for the redevelopment scheme is elsewhere on this agenda under ref. 13/00719.

Policy Background

Adopted Unitary Development Plan:

National policies and guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

Site History: 1988/D22553 Change of use to museum, craft workshops, stables, restaurant/café and shop with ancillary car park. Refused

17. Rakewood Road is a long single track with passing places and no footpaths. Further development is not sustainable and would greatly add to the danger for pedestrians and cyclists. 18. Mandatory car parking regulations are totally abused along Rakewood Road. 19. There is a serious lack of parking places within Rakewood Village, any increased traffic would contribute to exasperating these problems. 20. Rakewood is a village , with historical roots back to the late 1700s as signified by the waevers cottages. These cottages are made using natural stone and any new building should match them and not detract from the character of the existing. The proposed extension to the mill proposed steel and glass. 21. Enabling development is generally associated with listed building and heritage assets. In this case the mill is not listed and in any case very little of the orginal mill buildings will remain other than a faced. 22. We are not aware of any robust financial assessment of the need for enabling works. 23. Although the development is architecturally inventive, it remains wholly inappropriate for our village. 24. The development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 25. Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland. 26. An application made in 1988 to change the use of the mill to craft workshops, stables, restaurant and shop was refused as it was considered to be detrimental to highway safety. 27. The proposed additions to the height of the mill would have an adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the overall nature of the village, in particular totally alien to the character of the adjacent Grade 2 listed buildings. 28. Construction traffic which is bound to involve larger vehicles is a considerable issue as Rakewood Road is very busy. 29. The development would harm the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. 30. The effect on local wildlife would be immense. 31. The style of the new dwellings are modern and are out of character with the nearby dwellings. 32. The proposed additions to the height of the mill buildings will have a serious adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit: No comment.

English Heritage – Offer no comments and recommend the application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance .

Rakewood (Lower) Mill is a multi-phased mill complex which should be considered an undesignated heritage asset of local importance. The proposed development is within the setting of 63-69 Rakewood Road (Grade II) and Freshwater Cottage (Grade II). This well preserved vernacular architecture of cottage industry is complemented by the proximity of larger scale mill industry at Rakewood and Lower Rakewood Mills; each reinforcing the other’s evidential and historic significance as part of an unplanned group charting the hamlet’s industrial development. The ability to understand and interpret the evidential value of the site will be substantially diminished by the extent of loss of historic fabric. However this should be balanced with the present ability to interpret the site and whilst it can be read as a former mill complex, a more in-depth understanding is not afforded to the non-expert. The condition of the complex is too perilous to allow for full archaeological recording at present. Should the development be approved, it must contain appropriate conditions to ensure the proper recording of the site’s significance to provide a greater insight into the fabric and evolution of the mill in line with GMAAS’s recommendations. In addition, opportunities for on-site interpretation should be explored and conditioned, to share the history of the site and conservation area. The proposal for residential development will retain the wall of the southern weaving shed, the rebuilding of the building referred to as the ‘boiler house’ in the application and the chimney. Both the textile mill and brick weaving shed will be demolished as part of the development. The conversions will be cross-subsidised by new residential buildings. The design has taken characteristics from the weavers’ cottages along Rakewood Road and created a modern design of build which compliments the character and appearance of the existing architectural quality of the weaver’s cottages in keeping with the scale and proportionate to the site. Although there are concerns regarding the impact of the glazed extension at the junction of Rakewood Road and Schofield Hall Road the scheme is supported as it would safeguard the breadth of Rakewood’s textile history, better reveal the significance of the conservation area and listed buildings, and enhance their settings. Suitable conditions should be added for archaeological recording, on-site interpretation, material samples, maintenance of the chimney and retaining wall (to be maintained using lime mortar), and method statements for works to the historic building.

ANALYSIS

The only issue to consider when determining an application for conservation area consent is the impact on the conservation area from the loss of the buildings and whether that impact would be balanced by a redevelopment scheme, if one is proposed.

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that, ‘in considering whether to grant [conservation area] consent for any works the local planning authority… shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses’.

The NPPF states, ‘…when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be’.

Rakewood Mill lies within the Rakewood Conservation Area and the applicant has provided a heritage statement which sets out its role within the Conservation Area and demonstrates how the mill has evolved from when the original mill building was constructed some 200 years ago. At present the mill is not in use and it does not accommodate any economic activity. Over the last ten years, the condition of the complex has continued to deteriorate further due to the lack of maintenance, fire and vandalism. It is clear that the buildings in their current condition have a negative impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area.

In assessing proposed development, it is clearly important to assess whether they will result in material harm to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting. The weaving shed is proposed to be retained and being one of the oldest and most prominent features within the Conservation Area it is highly significant. The weaving shed is constructed of regularly coursed sandstone blocks with a rock pitched face to the eastern side which dates from the early 1800s. Few surviving examples of early 19th century mills exist as there has been a trend for the wholescale demolition of former textile manufacturing sites in Lancashire. The weaving shed has been modified in the early 20th century these changes illustrate the evolution of the site over two centuries. The inclusion of dwellings (subject to planning application 13-00719) where previously there had been none; the inclusion of vehicle parking and the inclusion of domestic garden space, boundaries and footpaths where previously there had been none are very well designed and suitable local materials would be used to ensure that they enhance the significant of the weaving shed and the Rakewood Conservation Area.

The Local Planning Authority has seen the financial appraisal carried out by the developer and although the figures within it are commercially sensitive and are therefore not part of the public file, nor can they be disclosed within this report, the submitted financial projections demonstrate that the enabling development will be capable of funding the restoration works whilst not generating a profit margin in excess of what would be expected. A reasonable profit margin is generally held to be somewhere between 15 and 20% and in this particular case the profit margin of 8% is predicted to be achieved. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the developer should not make a profit from the works; all development is carried out to realise a profit for the developer otherwise it would simply not take place. In that respect it is acknowledged that the scale of and return on, the proposed enabling development is the minimum necessary to enable the viable and sympathetic restoration of the weaving shed and boiler house.

The harm to the significance of the heritage asset from the proposed demolition works would be outweighed by the benefits of bringing the weaving shed and boiler house back into use and that the new uses and the required restoration works would enhance the appearance of the Rakewood Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The works of demolition hereby permitted shall not be begun until documentary evidence is produced to the Local Planning Authority to show that contracts have been entered into by the developer to ensure that building work on the site the subject of this consent will take place within a period of 6 months following demolition first taking place in accordance with a scheme for which planning permission has been granted.

Reason: To prevent premature demolition in the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to comply with policy BE/16 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

3 No development shall take place until an archaeological survey to be undertaken in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The WSI shall include the following: 1. An archaeological survey to include, - Building survey (English Heritage Level 2/3) - Intra-demolition/alteration watching brief -Walkover and topographic survey -Evaluation -(Depending on the evaluation) Open Space excavation 2. A programme of post-recording analysis to include: - Production of archive - Production of a final report 3. Provision for dissemination of the results. 4. Provision for archive deposition of the report and survey records. 5. Nomination of a competent person or persons/ organization to undertake the works

set out within the approved WSI.

The WSI shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to record and understand the architectural and historic importance of the site in accordance with Policies BE/10 and BE/11 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

Report Author Paul Ambrose