Public Pack)Agenda Document for Speakers Panel (Planning

Public Document Pack

SPEAKERS PANEL (PLANNING)

Day: Wednesday Date: 15 January 2020 Time: 10.00 am Place: Guardsman Tony Downes House, Manchester Road, Droylsden, M43 6SF

Item AGENDA Page No. No 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies from Members of the Panel. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Council. 3. MINUTES 1 - 8 The Minutes of the meeting of the Speakers Panel (Planning) held on 18 December 2019, having been circulated, to be signed by the Chair as a correct record. 4. OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH 9 - 16 (ANNAN STREET AND LIME GROVE, DENTON) (PROHIBITION AND RESTRICTION OF WAITING AND LOADING ONLY) ORDER 2019 & TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (LIME GROVE, DENTON) (ONE WAY TRAFFIC) ORDER 2019 Report of the Assistant Director of Operations and Neighbourhoods attached. 5. OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN 17 - 24 BOROUGH (FRANK STREET, JOHN SHEPLEY STREET AREA, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018 Report of the Director of Operations and Neighbourhoods attached. 6. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN 25 - 32 BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, HYDE) (SCHOOL ENTRANCE PROHIBITION OF STOPPING) ORDER 2018 AND THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, JAMES DRIVE, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018 Report of the Director of Operations and Neighbourhoods attached. 7. OBJECTIONS TO THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH 33 - 42 (BROADBOTTOM ROAD, MOTTRAM) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019

From: Democratic Services Unit – any further information may be obtained from the reporting officer or from Benjamin Hopkins, Senior Democratic Services Officer, to whom any apologies for absence should be notified.

Item AGENDA Page No. No

Report of the Director of Operations and Neighbourhoods attached. 8. OBJECTIONS TO THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (KNOWL 43 - 52 STREET, STALYBRIDGE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019 Report of the Assistant Director of Operations and Neighbourhoods attached. 9. PLANNING APPLICATIONS To consider the schedule of applications. a) 19/00067/FUL - HILL STREET WORKS, HILL STREET, HYDE 53 - 78 10. URGENT ITEMS To consider any other items, which the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.

Agenda Item 3

SPEAKERS PANEL (PLANNING)

18 December 2019

Present: Councillor McNally (Chair) Councillors: Choksi, Glover, Gosling, Lewis, Owen, Ricci, Ward and Wild Apologies: Councillors: Dickinson and Naylor

33. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest declared by Members.

34. AMENDMENT OF ORDER OF BUSINESS

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, the Chair advised Members of a change in the order of business to the published agenda.

35. MINUTES

The Minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 13 November 2019, having been circulated, were approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

36. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Panel gave consideration to the schedule of applications submitted and it was:-

RESOLVED That the applications for planning permission be determined as detailed below:-

Name and Application No: 19/00817/FUL Alex Jones Proposed Development: Installation of security, barbed wire on roof – retrospective Doctors Surgery, 156 Stockport Road, Ashton-under-Lyne

Speaker(s)/Late Councillor Bray addressed the Panel objecting to the Representations: application. Alex Jones, the applicant, addressed the Panel in relation to the application.

Decision: That planning permission be refused for reasons as detailed within the submitted report.

Page 1 Name and Application No 19/00264/FUL Scout Green Ltd

Proposed Development: Full planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 55 dwellings with associated car parking and access arrangements. Scout Green, Scout Green Depot, Mossley

Speaker(s)/Late Gareth Glennon, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Representations: Panel in relation to the application.

Decision: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report and the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

Name and Application No 19/00555/FUL Onward Homes

Proposed Development: Residential development comprising of 46 units (6No. 2 bedroom houses; 21No. 3 bedroom houses; 9No. 4 bedroom houses & 10No. 2 bedroom bungalows) including associated infrastructure. Cleared Land Bounded by Hattersley Road East, Melandra Crescent and Kenworthy Close, Mottram

Speaker(s)/Late The Development Manager advised and circulated Representations amendments to conditions 2, 4, 8, 22 within the submitted report to be replaced with the following conditions:  The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved unless required by any other conditions in this permission. Location Plan Site 2 dwg no. 102B Proposed Site 2 Plan: Roof Plan dwg no. 109 Rev D Proposed Site 2 Plan dwg no.111 Rev D Housetype A2 - 2B3P dwg no. 116 Housetype A4 - 2B4P dwg no. 117 D Housetype A4/B3 - 2B4P/3B5P dwg no. 118 B Housetype B3 - 3B5P dwg no. 119 A Housetype B3/B3/C3 - 3B5P/4B6P dwg no. 120 A Housetype B3/C3 - 3B5P/4B6P dwg no. 121 Housetype B4 - 3B5P dwg no. 122 Housetype C3/C6 - 4B6P 1 dwg no. 123 Housetype C3.2 - 4B6P dwg no. 124 Housetype C3/B3/C3 (Plot 11-13 and 22-24) - 3B5P/4B6P dwg no. 125A Boundary Treatment Details: Sheet 1 dwg no. 140 Boundary Treatment Details: Sheet 2 dwg no. 141 Central Square- Landscape General Arrangement HAT- TEP-Z0-ZZ-DR-L-74015 Rev P03 Site 2 - Landscape Masterplan HAT-TEP-Z0-ZZ-DR-L- 74045 Rev P05 Site 2 - Detailed Planting Plan Sheet 1 of 2 HAT-TEP- Page 2 XX-00-DR-L-74091 Rev P04 Site 2 - Detailed Planting Plan Sheet 2 of 2 HAT-TEP- XX-00-DR-L-74092 Rev P04  The car parking indicated on the approved plan ref Proposed Site 2 Plan dwg no.111 Rev D shall be provided to the full satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter kept unobstructed and available for its intended purpose. The areas shall be maintained and kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times.  Prior to occupation details of a residential Green Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Travel Plan along with any relevant monitoring techniques shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local Planning Authority prior to occupation of any part of the development.  No development shall commence until a statement detailing Reasonable Avoidance Measures to be implemented on site to prevent harm to mammals and amphibians during the construction phase of the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures to be implemented shall include the following:  All excavations on site should be covered at night or a suitable ramp should be provided to all mammals/amphibians to exit excavations. All excavations should be checked for mammals/amphibians each morning prior to the re- commencement of any works.  All exposed new pipework and drains should be capped at night so as to avoid trapping amphibians.  All excavated materials/waste should be stored in skips or similar and not on the ground where it could be used as a refuge/resting area by amphibians. Alternatively all waste should be removed from site daily.  All stored building materials that might be used as temporary resting places by amphibians should be stored off the ground on pallets or similar.  Scaffold footings will be placed on sand to prevent newts taking temporary refuge underneath the footings.

The avoidance measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details on the first commencement of development and shall remain in force as such for the full duration of the construction phase of the development.

Jason Dugdale, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Panel in relation the application.

Decision: That planning permission be approved subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report and the amended Page 3 conditions as detailed above.

Name and Application No 19/00618/FUL Onward Homes

Proposed Development: Construction of 15No. houses including associated infrastructure and area of public open space. Land Bounded by Underwood Road, Hattersley Road East and Melandra Cresent, Hattersley

Speaker(s)/Late The Development Manager advised and circulated Representations amendments to conditions 2, 4, 21 within the submitted report to be replaced with the following conditions:  The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved unless required by any other conditions in this permission. Site Location Plan dwg no.18-012/202 Site Location Master Plan 201A Proposed Site 1 Layout 207A Proposed Site 1 Layout: Roof Plan 206A Landscape Masterplan (purposes of Green Space Only) dwg no.D7404.004 draft Detailed Planting dwg no. D7404.008 Housetype A4 - 2B4P dwg no. 210 Housetype B3 - 3B5P dwg no. 211 Housetype C2 - 4B6P dwg no. 212 Street Elevations 1 dwg no. 215 Boundary Treatments dwg no. 226  The car parking indicated on the approved plan ref Proposed Site 2 Plan dwg no.111 Rev D shall be provided to the full satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter kept unobstructed and available for its intended purpose. The areas shall be maintained and kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times.  Prior to the re-information of land levels on the site, details (including scaled plans) of a landscaping scheme shall be provided to address the provision of the enhanced area of Public Open Space indicated on drawing no.s Proposed Site 1 Layout 207A and Landscape Masterplan (purposes of Green Space Only) dwg no.D7404.004 (draft). The scheme shall include details of the routing of footpaths, hard surfacing, soft landscaping (to include the location, number and species of specimens to be planted), street furniture and management responsibilities of the area. The landscaping scheme and overall site management shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, prior to the occupation of the first dwelling or in accordance with a timetable to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  No development shall commence until a statement

Page 4 detailing Reasonable Avoidance Measures to be implemented on site to prevent harm to mammals and amphibians during the construction phase of the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures to be implemented shall include the following:  All excavations on site should be covered at night or a suitable ramp should be provided to all mammals/amphibians to exit excavations. All excavations should be checked for mammals/amphibians each morning prior to the re- commencement of any works.  All exposed new pipework and drains should be capped at night so as to avoid trapping amphibians.  All excavated materials/waste should be stored in skips or similar and not on the ground where it could be used as a refuge/resting area by amphibians. Alternatively all waste should be removed from site daily.  All stored building materials that might be used as temporary resting places by amphibians should be stored off the ground on pallets or similar.  Scaffold footings will be placed on sand to prevent newts taking temporary refuge underneath the footings. The avoidance measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details on the first commencement of development and shall remain in force as such for the full duration of the construction phase of the development.

Jason Dugdale, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Panel in relation to the application.

Decision: That planning permission be approved subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report and the amended conditions as detailed above.

Name and Application No 19/00558/REM Taylor Wimpey Manchester

Proposed Development: Application for the approval of Reserved Matters of outline planning application 17/00719/OUT (as varied by 18/01117/FUL) seeking approval of details of appearance, landscaping, layout & scale for a residential development of 195 dwellings including associated infrastructure, open space & any other associated development. Former Hartshead High Secondary School, Greenhurst Road, Ashton

Speaker(s)/Late The Development Manager advised and circulated deletion of Representations conditions 6, 14, 15 and amendments to conditions 3, 9, 10, 13, 16 within the submitted report to be replaced with the Page 5 following conditions:  The car parking spaces to serve each dwelling/plot of the development hereby approved shall be laid out as shown on the approved Proposed site layout plan (Drawing no. TW/HHS/CSL/02), prior to the occupation of that dwelling and shall be retained free from obstruction for their intended use at all times thereafter.  No above ground construction shall commence until a timetable for the implementation of details of the approved Biodiversity enhancement measures, as set out in sections 2.5 & 3.0 of the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy May 2019 Project 11816 hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved enhancement measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved timetable and shall be retained as such thereafter.  With the exception of site clearance and preparatory works no development shall take place until a timetable and full details of all aspects of the installation and future maintenance of the play equipment detailed on drawing Q5925_C Issue C detailed 12/09/19 have been submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the submitted details, approved maintenance strategy and within the timetable agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Dust suppression equipment in the form of sprinklers or water bowsers shall be employed at the site at all times during construction. During periods of hot or dry weather water suppression shall be undertaken at regular intervals to prevent any migration of dust from the site. All surface water run off associated with the equipment shall be collected and disposed of within the site and shall not be allowed to discharge onto the adjacent highway at any time.  The development hereby approved shall be carried in accordance with the measures listed in the Security Strategy (Section 4 & 5) of the Crime Impact Statement ref 2017/0986/CIS/01 submitted with the planning application and shall be retained as such thereafter. Councillor Drennan and Eric Clegg addressed the Panel objecting to the application. Louisa Fielden, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Panel in relation to the application.

Decision: That the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Speakers Panel (Planning) to allow for further consideration of the size and scope of the proposed play area.

Name and Application No 19/00680/FUL Audenshaw School

Page 6 Proposed Development: Full planning permission for variation of conditions 2 (floodlight illumination hours), 3 (hours of use of the sports pitch) and 4 the removal of condition 4 (limiting the use of the pitch to the sole purpose of school sporting activities and events) of planning permission 08/01276/FUL. Audenshaw School, Hazel Street, Audenshaw

Speaker(s)/Late The Development Manager advised that condition 9 had been Representations updated to the following:  Notwithstanding the details/documents listed in condition 6 of this planning permission, prior to the first use of the sports pitch for the extended hours hereby approved, details of the measures to be adopted to minimise the glare produced by the floodlights (i.e. cowl/hood fittings) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures to minimise glare shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details on first use of the sports pitch for the extended hours and shall remain in force thereafter. Sam Higginbotham and David Turner addressed the Panel objecting to the application. Gary Priestley, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Panel in relation to the application.

Decision: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report.

Name and Application No 19/00723/REM BDW Trading Limited (Operating as Barratt Manchester)

Proposed Development: Reserved matters application with respect to the means of access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for the construction of 29 new dwellings, following the granting of outline planning permission ref. 16/00946/OUT. Land on the eastern side of Dawlish Close, Hattersley

Speaker(s)/Late June Riley addressed the Panel objecting to the application. Representations

Decision: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report.

Name and Application No 19/00836/FUL Education and Skills Funding Agency

Proposed Development: Variation of condition no.s 2 (approved plans), 5 (landscaping masterplan), 6 (boundary treatments), and 27 (cycle storage location) of planning permission 18/00188/FUL to amend the originally approved scheme in relation to changes to the final site levels and landscaping across the grass sports pitches to Page 7 the north of the school buildings and amendments to boundary treatment. Former Littlemoss High School for Boys site, Cryer Street, Droylsden

Speaker(s)/Late Peter Campbell, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Representations Panel in relation to the application.

Decision: That planned permission be granted subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report.

Name and Application No 19/00841/FUL Samuel Smith

Proposed Development: Proposed single storey rear extension and new 2 car parking spaces with existing front garden. 4 Burns Groves, Droylsden, M43 7YN

Decision: That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as detailed within the submitted report.

37. APPEAL DECISIONS

Application Description Appeal Decision reference/Address of Property.

APP/G4240/W/19/3233463 Construction of one Appeal dismissed detached dwelling house. Land at Heyrod Fold, John Street, Stalybridge, SK15 3BN

APP/G4240/W/19/3233133 Change of use of former Appeal dismissed public house beer garden 239 Two Trees Lane, and car park to outdoor Haughton Green, Denton, storage area associated. M34 7AJ

APP/G4240/W/19/3235933 Erection of a new 2-storey Appeal dismissed 13No bed HMO development Land on the junction of with parking, amenity and Astley Street and Smith ancillary spaces. Street, Dukinfield, SK16 4QN

CHAIR

Page 8 Agenda Item 4

Report to: SPEAKERS PANEL (PLANNING)

Date: 15 January 2020

Reporting Officer: Emma Varnam, Assistant Director Operations and Neighbourhoods

Subject: OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (ANNAN STREET AND LIME GROVE, DENTON) (PROHIBITION AND RESTRICTION OF WAITING AND LOADING ONLY) ORDER 2019 & TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (LIME GROVE, DENTON) (ONE WAY TRAFFIC) ORDER 2019

Report Summary: The report outlines correspondence received objecting to the proposals to formalise the parking on Annan Street, Denton following a 28 day statutory consultation in July 2019 and comments on the introduction of a one way section of Lime Grove. It is recommended the panel review the objections and that Recommendations: authority is given for the necessary action to be taken in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make the following order TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (ANNAN STREET AND LIME GROVE, DENTON) (PROHIBITION AND RESTRICTION OF WAITING AND LOADING ONLY) ORDER 2019 as detailed in Section 5.1 of this report and notes that the TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (LIME GROVE, DENTON) (ONE WAY TRAFFIC) ORDER 2019 has been made Corporate Plan: Improvements to the highway network support the Council in delivering all 8 priorities of the Corporate Plan

Policy Implications: None arising from the report.

Financial Implications: The costs associated with the scheme will be funded through the (Authorised by the Tameside Wellness Centre Project. statutory Section 151 Officer & Chief Finance Officer)

Legal Implications: Members should have regard to the Council’s statutory duty under (Authorised by the S122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which is set out in Borough Solicitor) Appendix A.

Risk Management: Objectors have a limited right to challenge the Orders in the High Court.

Access to Information: Appendix A - S.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Appendix B - Drawing No.001: Original Proposals

Background Information: The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting

Telephone: Lauren Redfern – 0161 342 3927

e-mail: [email protected]

Page 9 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Tameside Wellness Centre is an innovative project combining leisure, community and wellness facilities. The Centre is due to open in spring 2020 and once open is expected to attract visitors to the area.

1.2 The Centre is located on the former Oldham Batteries site, between Lance Corporal Andrew Breeze Way, Ashton Road and Annan Street, within the Town Centre of Denton a short distance from the M67 Motorway.

1.3 To the rear of the facility there are residential properties, the majority of the properties do not have access to off street parking. Concerns have been raised regarding visitors to the Centre and staff parking in the already congested uncontrolled streets. There have also been concerns regarding the amount of traffic wishing to use these streets to access the centre.

1.4 A scheme to formalise the parking on Annan Street and to introduce a one way section of Lime Grove was advertised in July 2019

1.5 10 objections to the parking amendments were received within the 28 day objection period, 1 objection also raised concern in relation to the proposed one way section of Lime Grove, however this was sent 31 days after the objection period ended. The concerns of all the objectors are detailed below.

2. OBJECTIONS

2.1 Eight of the objections raised concerns regarding the parking that would be available for residents when the centre opens. The streets are currently congested with residents own vehicles and objectors suggested a permit parking only system to enable residents to park near their properties.

2.2 Residents of Annan Street have concerns regarding the limited waiting restrictions. The residents will not be able to park outside their properties for more than 2 hours at a time, having a negative effect on the residents and the value of the properties. One resident is a shift worker with three young children who cares for their partner with limited mobility.

2.3 One objection was from the church, raising concern as to where the parishioners were to park. They have seen a drop in their congregation since the start of the project due to congestion on the street caused by the construction teams and the road closures which have been put in place to facilitate the build. Currently they are able to park on both sides of Annan Street, the proposals restrict parking to one side of the carriageway.

2.4 One objection was received from a resident of a neighbouring town who has concerns for the future of businesses in small towns and the lack of parking in Denton Town Centre.

2.5 The late objector had concerns regarding the access to the Annan St / Lime Grove area if it was to be made one way. There are fears residents will flout the legal order, potentially leading to a serious accident.

3. OFFICER RESPONSE

3.1 Following the consultation for the amendment to the waiting restrictions in the area, a further consultation was sent to the residents on 11 September 2019 with a 28 day response period, to ascertain the desire for a controlled parking scheme to be introduced on the streets in which they reside. The consultation included the proposed pricing

Page 10 schedule for the Tameside Wellness Centre car park. Of the 50 properties surveyed only 17 responses were returned in favour (34%). A minimum of 50% of residents need to be in favour of a controlled parking zone for it to be considered.

3.2 Annan Street is only wide enough to allow parking on one side. The proposed operational times will allow the residents to park upto 10am and from 4pm Monday to Saturday. There will not be any restrictions on a Sunday. Contract passes will be available to park on the car park and a ‘blue badge’ holder is able to park in this location without any restriction.

3.3 The proposed parking bay allows for 7 cars to park on Annan Street. At the usual times of church meetings, the limited waiting will not be effective and therefore the congregation will not be restricted outside of the proposed operational times. The Wellness Centre has a car park with approx. 109 spaces, the charge for this car park will be £1 from 6pm – midnight and all day Sunday. This is considered to be reasonable for parking within a Town Centre.

3.4 Many of the streets in Denton Town Centre have on street parking facilities to enable a turn over of customers to the businesses. As mentioned in 3.2 the Wellness Centre will have a car park available for use by people wishing to stay in the town longer than the limited waiting on street and the charges will be in line with other Town Centre car parks in the borough.

3.5 The regulatory One Way signs will be clearly visible from Hyde Road with associated roadmarkings. To contravene a No Entry is a criminal offence and penalty points can be issued

4. FUNDING

4.1 The introduction of the scheme will be funded by the Tameside Wellness Centre project.

5. CONCLUSION - PROPOSALS/SCHEDULE OF WORKS

5.1 It is recommended that the waiting restrictions as proposed and as set out in the table below are introduced.

Limited Waiting, Monday – Saturday 8am – 6pm, 2 hours, no return within 4 hours Annan Street

north side from a point 15 metres east of its junction with Ashton Road for a distance of 13 metres in an easterly direction

north side from a point 50 metres east of its junction with Ashton Road to a point 10 metres west of the westerly projected kerbline of Nelson Street.

Loading Only Annan Street

north side from a point 28 metres east of its junction with Ashton Road for a distance of 11 metres in an easterly direction.

No Waiting at Any Time Annan Street

Page 11 north side from a point 10 metres west of the projected westerly kerbline of Nelson Street to and including its easterly junction with Lime Grove

south side from a point 15 metres east of its junction with Ashton Road to its junction with Lime Grove

Lime Grove

both sides from and including its junction with Annan Street for a distance of 25 metres in a southerly direction from the southerly kerbline of Annan Street.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 As set out at the front of the report.

Page 12 APPENDIX A

Section 122 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under this Act, so to exercise the functions conferred on them by this Act as (so far as practicable having regard to the matters specified in sub-section (2) below) to secure the expeditious convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.

(2) The matters referred to in sub-section (1) above, as being specified in this sub- section are:

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

(b) The effect on the amenities of any locality affected and (without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph) the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles, so as to preserve or improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run;

(d) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and

(e) Any other matters appearing to …the local authority…. to be relevant.

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

Report to: SPEAKERS PANEL (PLANNING)

Date: 15 January 2020

Reporting Officer: Ian Saxon – Director, Operations and Neighbourhoods

Subject: OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (FRANK STREET, JOHN SHEPLEY STREET AREA, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018

Report Summary: The report outlines objections received to the proposed waiting restrictions.

Recommendations: It is recommended that the scheme is implemented as advertised and that authority is given for the necessary action to be taken in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make the following order: THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (FRANK STREET, JOHN SHEPLEY STREET AREA, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018 as detailed in Section 5.2 of this report.

Corporate Plan: Improvements to the highway network support the Council in delivering all 8 priorities of the Corporate Plan.

Policy Implications: None arising from the report.

Financial Implications: The costs associated with implementation of this scheme are (Authorised by the being funded through the Traffic Regulation Order Capital Budget statutory Section 151 2019/20. Officer & Chief Finance Officer)

Risk Management: Objectors have a limited right to challenge the Orders in the High Court. Appendix A – S.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Access to Information: Appendix A1 – Extract from The Highway Code Appendix B – Drawing No. 001: Proposed restrictions Background Information: The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting Ian Hall, Traffic Operations:

Telephone: 0161 342 3988

e-mail: [email protected]

Page 17 1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 The Council received complaints from a number of residents of a sheltered housing development situated off Frank Street Hyde regarding obstructive parking in and around Ogden Court, Hyde.

1.2 The complaints were in connection with double parking taking place along Frank Street and John Shepley Street which are narrow streets and cannot accommodate double parking without causing obstruction to either the carriageway for vehicular movements, or vehicles parking on the footway causing obstruction to pedestrian movements. Vehicles parking too close to junctions also cause difficulties for other vehicles negotiating the junction around Ogden Court.

1.3 A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) scheme was identified for Frank Street, Orchard Street and John Shepley Street, Hyde following a borough wide review of TRO requests received by the Council. Following consultation with local ward councillors, approval to advertise the scheme was gained through the Delegated Decision Report – Traffic Regulation Order Programme 2015/16 – 2017/18.

1.4 No objections to the proposed scheme were received from the statutory consultees.

1.5 No objections have been received for the restrictions on Frank Street or Orchard Street. It is therefore proposed to implement those restrictions as advertised.

1.6 However, there have been objections to the proposals on John Shepley Street from residents and a business in the area.

2.0 OBJECTIONS

2.1 There have been three objections received during the consultation period, two objections from local residents on John Shepley Street and one from a business that operates at the junction of John Shepley Street and Mottram Road.

2.2 The business on the corner of Mottram Road and John Shepley Street objects to the proposals because their tenants, living above the business, park on the dropped kerbs on John Shepley Street. The business also need an area where they can load and unload, a taxi pick up area and a place for parking when cash is being collected from the business premises.

2.3 The two residents object to the proposals as they currently have difficulties parking close to their properties, many residents have more than one vehicle and businesses also park their vehicles on street. The objectors requested consideration be given for a residents only parking scheme.

3.0 OFFICER’S RESPONSE

3.1 With the continuing growth in vehicle ownership the Council recognises that limited on street parking is an issue, especially in residential areas where parking on street becomes a premium.

3.2 John Shepley Street consists of residential properties on the east side and on the west side a sheltered housing development with access to a private car park.

3.3 A number of the residents of the sheltered housing development require walking aids to assist with their mobility. Page 18 3.4 John Shepley Street has a carriageway width of approximately 5.4 metres and the west side footway width is approximately 1.5 metres wide. Due to the width of the highway, vehicles parking on the west side regularly park partially on the footway to such an extent pedestrians find difficulties in negotiating these vehicles and have to walk in the carriageway to pass those vehicles.

3.5 The proposed restrictions consist of no waiting at any time on the west side of John Shepley Street. This will deter double parking, which, due to the width of this street, cannot be accommodated without impeding either pedestrian or vehicle movements.

3.6 The proposed restrictions will also improve access and egress to the sheltered housing development’s car park.

3.7 Although the business objects to the proposals, in essence the restrictions would assist in the ability for that business to load and unload and to drop off and pick up as there are exemptions within the order for such operations.

3.8 With regards to the business comments regarding parking for their tenant. To the rear of their property there appears to be a sufficient free area of land to be able to park a vehicle off the public highway between the back of footway and the double gated area to their rear yard. It is assumed that this area of land belongs to the business, although they may need to make alterations to the way the gates open to enable this to happen i.e. for the gates to open up into their yard rather than outward into the free area of land.

3.9 With regards to the residents’ objections, although the Council recognise the restrictions will displace some vehicle parking along John Shepley Street as indicated above the proposed restrictions have been promoted to maintain and encourage the safe and free flow of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

3.10 With regards to the local residents requesting consideration for a resident only parking scheme (which the Council refer to as Controlled Parking Schemes), this request falls outside the scope of this report and would not address the issues of obstructive parking taking place along John Shepley Street. The residents could apply for such a scheme even if the current TRO is approved, although it must be noted such schemes are not free of charge. Permits to park in such zones are currently set at £30 per year per permit, residents have to fund the council’s legal process of promoting such schemes and be able to demonstrate that such a scheme is supported by the majority of residents.

3.11 Having taken into account the objector’s comments, there appears to be no compromise that could be considered that would not have a detrimental effect on the overall aim of the scheme.

4.0 FUNDING

4.1 These proposals are being funded from the Traffic Operations capital budgets 2019/20

5.0 PROPOSALS / SCHEDULE OF WORKS

5.1 The proposed restrictions as advertised are set out in 5.2.

5.2 THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (FRANK STREET, JOHN SHEPLEY STREET AREA, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018 – as advertised

Page 19 No Waiting at Any Time on:-

Frank Street - from a point 10 metres south of its junction with Orchard Street in a northerly direction up to its cul-de-sac. (east side)

Frank Street - from its easterly kerb line for a distance of 2.5 metres in a westerly direction. (northerly cul-de-sac end)

Frank Street - from a point 20 metres north east of its junction with Ridling Lane for a distance of 5 metres in a north-east (north-westerly then direction then 5 metres in a north-westerly direction. south-westerly side)

Orchard Street - from its junction with Frank Street for a distance of 10 metres in an easterly direction. (both sides)

Orchard Street - from its junction with John Shepley Street for a distance of 10 metres in a westerly direction. (north side)

John Shepley Street - from its junction with Orchard Street to its junction with Mottram Road. (west side)

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 As set out at the front of the report.

Page 20 APPENDIX A

Section 122 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

(2) The matters referred to in sub-section (1) above, as being specified in this sub-section are:

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

(d) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and

(e) Any other matters appearing to …the local authority…. to be relevant.

Page 21 APPENDIX A1

The Highway Code

Introduction to the Highway Code

‘This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.’

Knowing and applying the rules

‘Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility.

Rule 243

DO NOT stop or park:

 near a school entrance  anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services  at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank  on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing  opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space  near the brow of a hill or hump bridge  opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle  where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane  where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles  in front of an entrance to a property  on a bend  where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities except when forced to do so by stationary traffic.

Page 22 APPENDIX B

Dec 2019

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

Report to: SPEAKERS PANEL (PLANNING)

Date: 15 January 2020

Reporting Officer: Ian Saxon – Director, Operations and Neighbourhoods,

Subject: OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, HYDE) (SCHOOL ENTRANCE PROHIBITION OF STOPPING) ORDER 2018 and THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, JAMES DRIVE, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018

Report Summary: The report outlines objections received to the proposed school entrance prohibition of stopping and waiting restrictions.

Recommendations: It is recommended that an amended scheme is implemented and that authority is given for the necessary action to be taken in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make the following orders: THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, HYDE) (SCHOOL ENTRANCE PROHIBITION OF STOPPING) ORDER 2018 and THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, JAMES DRIVE, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018 as detailed in Section 6 of this report.

Corporate Plan: Improvements to the highway network support the Council in delivering all 8 priorities of the Corporate Plan.

Policy Implications: None arising from the report.

Risk Management: Objectors have a limited right to challenge the Orders in the High Court. Appendix A – S.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Access to Information: Appendix A1 – Excerpt from the Highway Code Appendix B – Drawing No. 01 – Advertised restrictions. Appendix C – Drawing No. 02 – Recommended scheme. Background Information: The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting Ian Hall

Telephone: 0161 342 3988

e-mail: [email protected]

Page 25 1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Greenfield Primary School in Hyde has its pedestrian and vehicular access from Douglas Street and James Street. The Council has received complaints from local residents of Douglas Street, raising concerns regarding vehicles obstructing their driveways, vehicles parking on both sides of the road and congestion in and around the school entrance on Douglas Street.

1.2 The congestion caused by the vehicles has potentially dangerous consequences for pedestrians, especially children attending school. It is for this reason that waiting restrictions in the form of double yellow lines and school keep clear zig zags were advertised for public consultation.

1.3 No objections were received from the statutory consultees but there were two objections received from residents of the area.

2.0 OBJECTIONS

2.1 There have been two objections received from local residents during the consultation period.

2.2 Both objectors suggest that the school should only use the entrance on Queen Street/Mona Street, which is on the other side of the school field, and close the entrance on Douglas Street and James Drive.

2.3 The objectors to the proposals find difficulty in parking close to their properties due to many residents having more than one vehicle per house.

3.0 OFFICERS RESPONSE

3.1 With the continuing growth in vehicle ownership the Council recognises that limited on street parking is an issue, especially in residential areas where parking on street becomes a premium.

3.2 Douglas Street is within a residential estate which has a school vehicular and pedestrian access point.

3.3 The pedestrian gate onto Douglas Street is situated on a 90 degree bend and parking within the entrance area causes difficulties both to pedestrian and vehicular movements around this sharp bend.

3.4 The proposed restrictions consist of no waiting at any time markings and school Keep Clear Zig-Zags. These would prohibit parking around the junction of James Drive / Douglas Street and along the school entrance and frontage of Douglas Street at all times and prohibit vehicles stopping to drop off and pick up passengers along the school frontage of Douglas Street when the zig zag lines are enforceable.

3.5 Having reviewed the objections it is proposed to:-

1) Reduce the length of waiting restrictions on Douglas Street outside the property of number nine by two metres. This would enable the resident to park a vehicle outside his driveway, but would not obstruct the adjacent property’s driveway. 2) Reduce the length of waiting and no stopping restrictions outside the school frontage by ten metres.

Page 26 3) Reduce the waiting restrictions outside 22 and 24 Douglas Street by two metres therefore enabling a vehicle to park directly outside of property number 24 without obstructing their driveway.

3.6 The compromise does reduce the length of the proposed restriction to below the recommended 10 metres length from the junction, as indicated within the Highway Code. This area is within a 20mph zone, and as such vehicles should be approaching the junction at a reduced speed. It is considered that the recommended amendments to the restrictions would have little impact on the overall effectiveness of the scheme

4.0 FUNDING

4.1 These proposals are being funded from the Traffic Operations capital budgets 2019/20

5.0 PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED PROPOSALS/SCHEDULE OF WORKS

5.1 The proposed restrictions as advertised are set out in 5.2 and 5.3 (SEE Appendix B).

5.2 THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, HYDE) (SCHOOL ENTRANCE PROHIBITION OF STOPPING) ORDER 2018 – as advertised

No Stopping Mon – Fri, 8am to 5pm in School Entrance Area

Douglas Street - from a point 22 metres south-west of its junction with James (south-east then Drive to a point 122 metres south-east of its junction with

south-west side) Nelson Street.

5.3 THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, JAMES DRIVE, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018 – as advertised

No Waiting at Any Time - Douglas Street from a point 10 metres east of its junction with James Drive (south side) to a point 10 metres west of that junction.

- Douglas Street from a point 16 metres south-west of its junction with James (north side) Drive to a point 10 metres north-west of its junction with the school entrance.

- Douglas Street from a point 22 metres south-west of its junction with James (south-east then Drive to a point 122 metres south-east of its junction with south-west side) Nelson Street.

- James Drive from its junction with Douglas Street for a distance of 10 (both sides) metres in a southerly directions.

6.0 PROPOSED REVISED SCHEME

6.1 THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, HYDE) (SCHOOL ENTRANCE PROHIBITION OF STOPPING) ORDER 2018 – Recommended scheme (SEE APPENDIX C) Page 27

No Stopping Mon – Fri, 8am to 5pm in School Entrance Area - Douglas Street from a point 22 metres south-west of its junction with James

(south-east then Drive to a point 132 metres south-east of its junction with south-west side) Nelson Street.

6.2 THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (DOUGLAS STREET, JAMES DRIVE, HYDE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2018 – Recommended scheme (SEE APPENDIX C)

No Waiting at Any Time - Douglas Street from a point 10 metres east of its junction with James Drive (south side) to a point 8 metres west of that junction.

- Douglas Street from a point 16 metres south-west of its junction with James (north side) Drive to a point 8 metres north-west of its junction with the school entrance. - Douglas Street from a point 22 metres south-west of its junction with James (south-east then Drive to a point 132 metres south-east of its junction with south-west side) Nelson Street. - James Drive from its junction with Douglas Street for a distance of 10 (both sides) metres in a southerly direction.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 As set out at the front of the report

Page 28 APPENDIX A

Section 122 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

(2) The matters referred to in sub-section (1) above, as being specified in this sub-section are:

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

(d) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and

(e) Any other matters appearing to …the local authority…. to be relevant.

Page 29 APPENDIX A1

The Highway Code

Introduction to the Highway Code

‘This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.

Knowing and applying the rules

Rule 243

DO NOT stop or park:

Page 30 APPENDIX B

Page 31 Page

APPENDIX C

Page 32 Page

Agenda Item 7

Report to: SPEAKERS PANEL (PLANNING)

Date: 15 January 2020

Reporting Officer: Ian Saxon – Director, Operations and Neighbourhoods

Subject: OBJECTIONS TO THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (BROADBOTTOM ROAD, MOTTRAM) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019

Report Summary: The report outlines objections received to the proposed waiting and stopping restrictions.

Recommendations: It is recommended that an amended scheme is implemented and that authority is given for the necessary action to be taken in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make the following order THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (BROADBOTTOM ROAD, MOTTRAM) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019 as detailed in Section 5.3 of this report.

Corporate Plan: Improvements to the highway network support the Council in delivering all 8 priorities of the Corporate Plan.

Policy Implications: None arising from the report.

Financial Implications: The costs associated with implementation of this scheme are (Authorised by the being funded by the local residents of Church View. statutory Section 151 Officer & Chief Finance Officer)

Risk Management: Objectors have a limited right to challenge the Orders in the High Court.

Access to Information: Appendix A – S.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Appendix A1 – Highway Code Extract Appendix B – Drawing Proposed restrictions advertised Appendix C – Drawing Proposed Amendment Appendix D – Drawing Existing restrictions

Background Information: The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting Ian Hall

Telephone: 0161 342 3988

e-mail: [email protected]

Page 33 1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 The Council received a request from the residents of Church View (a private access which serves three properties), Broadbottom to extend the existing “No Waiting at Any Time” restrictions on Broadbottom Road, Mottram across their access road and beyond to improve access to and egress from their shared vehicular access.

1.2 The residents of Church View have reported that people are parking and blocking their access on occasions and, more regularly, parking very close to the access so as to obscure the view along Broadbottom Road making the egress difficult. The residents of Church View agreed to fund the legal process of promoting these restrictions.

1.3 The existing restrictions stop at the junction of Church View. A proposed scheme to improve sight line visibility for vehicular traffic exiting Church View was agreed by Delegated Decision by the Operations & Neighbourhoods Service Area. The proposed scheme was to extend the restriction across the vehicular access to Church View and continue the restriction a further 15 metres south of the junction (therefore extending the restriction by 20 metres in total)..

1.4 A scheme was advertised in February 2019 and two objections were received from local residents and their concerns raised are detailed below.

1.5 No objections to the proposed scheme were received from the statutory consultees.

2.0 OBJECTIONS

2.1 Objectors raised concerns that the proposed restrictions would only benefit the few and does not take into account the needs of the other residents within the community. This could create a precedent for further waiting restrictions along Broadbottom Road for residents with driveways and other junctions within the area.

2.2 Objectors indicated that the introduction of further waiting restrictions would only encourage excessive speed of traffic along Broadbottom Road. They cited that the junction of Ashworth Lane with Market Street / Market Place is particularly hazardous due to visibility restrictions on the bend at that location and greater speed of traffic would only exacerbate this problem.

2.3 The objectors made an alternative suggestion to introduce speed restrictions to improve safety similar to those further along this route in Broadbottom and requested an explanation as to why these measure have been introduced there and not in Mottram.

2.4 An objector states he was informed that the existing no waiting at any time restrictions were introduced to give clear vision to a school crossing patroller which operated adjacent to the former library for only one hour per school day. The effect of those restrictions being introduced only pushed parking further away toward Broadbottom and this proposal will only have a similar effect. The resident then raised concerns that similar waiting restrictions then might be promoted for the Cricket Club, Winslow Avenue and then Bucklow Close.

2.5 An objector commented that there is so little traffic emerging from Church View that a 24 hour restriction is hardly justified and noted that even the junctions with Ashworth Lane and Market Place do not have this.

Page 34

3.0 OFFICERS RESPONSE

3.1 With the continuing growth in vehicle ownership the Council recognises that limited on street parking is an issue. The aim is to strike a balance between the need to facilitate the safe movement of traffic and the availability of on street parking for frontagers and visitors to the area. Church View is a private vehicular access road that serves three properties with off street parking provision for 6+ vehicles to those properties. The proposed restriction offers improved sight line visibility at the junction of Broadbottom Road with Church View, to enable those residents to use their off street parking facility.

3.2 The existing waiting restrictions within the area of Church View were promoted to assist a school crossing patrol that operated within that area. However this was not the only reason why the restrictions were promoted. The restriction assisted access points to some properties including a car park to the Broadbottom Library. The restrictions also minimised the length of double parking within this area, where traffic can be restricted to single lane movements. Although the Library has now closed, this has been replaced by residential properties with off street parking for up to ten cars and therefore the current restrictions in place will continue to assist access to these premises.

3.3 The Council has been asked to consider relaxing some of the restrictions within this area. Having reviewed the topography of this site and the benefits of the restrictions, as explained above, the Council currently has no plans to relax any of the restrictions at this time.

3.4 Objectors have raised concerns that other restrictions may be promoted around other junctions along Broadbottom Road. It should be noted that restrictions are normally promoted only where parking becomes problematic such as vehicles parking too close to junctions. The Council will continue to monitor traffic in the area and if further restrictions are considered appropriate they would be subject to a public consultation process.

3.5 Concerns have been raised with regards to the possibility that the speed of traffic may increase due to the proposed waiting restrictions. However in the view of officers it is not anticipated the introduction of the waiting restrictions would have any bearing on the speed of vehicles within this vicinity.

3.6 One objector made reference to the existing waiting restrictions around the junction of Ashworth Lane with Market Place being only covered by a single yellow line restriction. The restriction of “No Waiting Mon-Sat, 8am-7pm” was introduced in 1968. The restrictions would have been considered appropriate for the problems being encountered within the area at that time and appear to continue to be effective. The current proposal to extend the existing 24 hour waiting restrictions within the area of Church View is considered appropriate to maintain sight line visibility at all times.

3.7 In order to bid for funds and promote an area for traffic calming features the Council would have to demonstrate a predicted reduction of injury incidents within the area, which the Council could not do in this instance.

3.8 The areas of Broadbottom where 20mph schemes are in operation also contain sections of double white lines and zebra crossings that further prohibit parking on street. If such a scheme was to be considered for this area of Mottram it would likely meet with greater objections from the local residents than the proposed scheme.

Page 35 3.9 Having taken into account the objectors’ comments it is recommended that the proposed restrictions be reduced by 5 metres, reducing the length of waiting restrictions from 15 metres to 10 metres past the Church View junction. This falls in line with the Highway Code requirement that vehicles should not park within 10 metres of a junction. This reduction in length is to facilitate additional parking whilst still maintaining sight lines improving access to / egress from Church View.

4.0 FUNDING

4.1 These proposals are being funded by the local residents of Church View.

5.0 PROPOSALS / SCHEDULE OF WORKS

5.1 The proposed restriction as advertised is set out in 5.2 (plan APPENDIX B)

5.2 THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (BROADBOTTOM ROAD, MOTTRAM) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019 – as advertised

No Waiting at Any Time restrictions on:- - Broadbottom Road from its northerly junction with Church View to a point 15 (west side) metres south of that junction.

5.3 The proposed amended restriction is set out in 5.4 (Plan Appendix C)

5.4 THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (BROADBOTTOM ROAD, MOTTRAM) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019 – recommended scheme

No Waiting at Any Time restrictions on:- - Broadbottom Road from its northerly junction with Church View to a point 10 (west side) metres south of that junction.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 As set out at the front of the report.

Page 36 APPENDIX A

Section 122 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

(2) The matters referred to in sub-section (1) above, as being specified in this sub-section are:

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

(d) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and

(e) Any other matters appearing to …the local authority…. to be relevant.

Page 37 APPENDIX A1

The Highway Code

Introduction to the Highway Code

‘This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.

Knowing and applying the rules

Rule 243

DO NOT stop or park:

Page 38 APPENDIX B

Page 39 APPENDIX C

Page 40 APPENDIX D

Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

Report to: SPEAKERS PANEL (PLANNING)

Date: 15 January 2020

Reporting Officer: Emma Varnam Assistant Director Operations and Neighbourhoods

Subject: OBJECTIONS TO THE TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (KNOWL STREET, STALYBRIDGE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019

Report Summary: The report outlines correspondence received objecting to the proposed extension of waiting restrictions on Knowl Street, Stalybridge following a 28 day statutory consultation in September 2019.

Recommendations: It is recommended the panel review the objections and that authority is given for the necessary action to be taken in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make the following order TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (KNOWL STREET, STALYBRIDGE) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2019 as detailed in Section 5.1 of this report.

Corporate Plan: Improvements to the highway network support the Council in delivering all 8 priorities of the Corporate Plan.

Policy Implications: None arising from the report.

Financial Implications: The funding for the scheme will be taken from the Traffic (Authorised by the Operations, Traffic Regulation Order budget 2019/2020. statutory Section 151 Officer & Chief Finance Officer)

Risk Management: Objectors have a limited right to challenge the Orders in the High Court.

Background Information: Appendix A - S.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Appendix A1 – Highway Code Extract Appendix B - Drawing No.001: Proposed restrictions

Access to Information: All documentation can be viewed by contacting Lauren Redfern. Traffic Operations by: Telephone:0161 342 3927 e-mail: [email protected]

Page 43 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Knowl Street is lined with residential properties and business of varying sizes and needs. It leads to North End Road which is of a similar nature.

1.2 Many of the businesses in the area generate a high capacity of Heavy Goods Vehicles and the high resident occupancy has, over the years, lead to parking congestion along the length of the road.

1.3 Tameside MBC have been approached by a number of businesses in the past asking for waiting restrictions to be installed as they are regularly being obstructed from accessing/ egressing their businesses, this is affecting their livelihoods.

1.4 A scheme was advertised in September 2019 and 2 objections from local businesses were received, the concerns raised are detailed below.

2. OBJECTIONS

2.1 One of the objectors from a business at 45 Knowl Street raised concerns as to where the team of staff would park if these restrictions were to be implemented. The team need to be park close to the office to collect supplies and attend training sessions.

2.2 The other objection was from a business located approx. 150 metres from the proposed restriction. The objector is concerned for the amount of parking restrictions along Knowl Street and feels further reductions in parking are unfair. It has been suggested un-occupied grassed land on Knowl Street which is owned by the Council could be turned into a parking area for the shops located on Mottram Road.

3. OFFICER RESPONSE

3.1 The proposed waiting restrictions would affect 10 metres of the section of road fronting the business at 45 Knowl Street, equating to two vehicles. During the working day officers have observed that there are spaces available along the unrestricted length of Knowl Street where staff could park. There is an exemption in the legal order which will allow loading and unloading of large goods during the waiting restrictions.

3.2 In the view of officers, the introduction of the waiting restrictions is unlikely to have an impact on the business located 150 metres away on Mottram Road. Numerous site visits have been undertaken throughout the period of the consultation, officers observed that there was always parking available on the road closer to the business than where the restrictions have been proposed. With regards to the suggestion to create a parking area close to the shops on Mottram Road, it would not be practical for vehicles to access and egress the land referred to due to its location and therefore it would be unsuitable for parking.

4. FUNDING

4.1 The introduction of the scheme will be funded by the Traffic Operations, Traffic Regulation Order budget 2019/2020.

5. CONCLUSION – PROPOSALS/SCHEDULE OF WORKS

Page 44 5.1 It is recommended to introduce the waiting restriction as advertised, as set out in the Schedule below and shown in Drawing 001 Appendix B

SCHEDULE No Waiting at any Time Knowl Street

North west side from a point 67 metres north east of its junction with Higher Tame Street for a distance of 32 metres in a north easterly direction.

South east side from a point 12 metres north east of its junction with Lockside View for a distance of 26 metres in north westerly direction.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 As set out at the front of the report.

Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX A

Section 122 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

(2) The matters referred to in sub-section (1) above, as being specified in this sub- section are:

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

(d) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and

(e) Any other matters appearing to …the local authority…. to be relevant.

Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX A1

The Highway Code

Introduction to the Highway Code

‘This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.

Knowing and applying the rules

Rule 243

DO NOT stop or park:

Page 49 This page is intentionally left blank

Canal View

9 4

B A Garage C K K N O  W L

S 1 T R e E rr E m e T a T T e r s o e r

v 68 i im 5 r

R P 7 60 5

51 52

Byrom Mill

w ALKIE ie

d 1 6

o o

lw 2 il 6 M MS

)

h 2 t a

P (

5 T 4 The E l E Lodge a R 1 n T a C S 43 Staly w o r T L Industrial r E a E W Estate N R O T N d l 1 S K 8 e

to A f D 21 M s L r 7 e 1 A d to L d 1 O C u s 1 K H y 3 V S Stokes Mill e IE I l W D p d E

e r h a 24 S Y

h t 1 to 9 a P Ladson House w o T

1 4

9 e 1 to us Ho EET ey 6 TAME STR ckl 5 1 to 3

HIGHER Bu

3 BRA 11 D 6 LE 7 Y FOLD 1

M o s s 1 Basin

le t o y B u 8 H lls H ea o (P d u H s Tame Court ESS ) e Shelter Lock

3 2

1 2 1 LB 3 KEY 27 21

1 e 8 33 id k S Proposed No Waiting At oc 1 L FB PLACE Any Time restrictions

PORTLAND MO TT 7 6 RA

M 2 R 2

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping24 with the O

1 AD permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office 2

civil proceedings. TMBC LA 076384 2019. 2

1 6 9 7 3 2 3 0 0 9 3 4 1 0 Knowl Street, Stalybridge

Tame Street Depot Drawn By : LRE Date : 20/12/2019 Tame Street Stalybridge SK15 1ST Scale : NTS Proposed no waiting at any time restrictions Page 51 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9a

Application Number 19/00067/FUL

Proposal Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 8 houses

Site Hill Street Works, Hill Street, Hyde.

Applicant D Woodman Developments Ltd

Recommendation Approve

Reason for report A Speakers Panel decision is required because, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, the applicant requested the opportunity to address the Panel.

UPDATE REPORT

Preamble

This application was first presented to the Panel at the meeting on 4 September 2019 when the officer’s recommendation was for refusal for the following reason:

“The application fails to demonstrate in a sufficiently robust manner that the benefits that would arise from the development would significantly outweigh the harm that the release of the land for alternative, non-employment generating uses would have to the provision of employment land to support the local economy. For this reason, it not being demonstrated that the benefits would outweigh the harm, including the impact on the neighbouring house on Orchard Rise, the proposal is contrary to policies H10, 1.9 and E3 of the Tameside Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Employment Land Supplementary Planning Document and fails to comprise sustainable development as is required by the National Planning Policy Framework.”

The applicant was aware of the recommendation and two days ahead of the meeting submitted a Development Appraisal and Report (DAR) in an attempt to address the reason given for recommending that the application be refused and asked that the content of that report be reported to the Panel. The time allowed was insufficient for a proper assessment to be made of the conclusions of that Report and so the Panel deferred a decision so that such an assessment could be made.

The application was then re-presented to the Panel at the meeting on 13 November 2019.

The DAR includes four options for the application site, which were described in the report to the November meeting of the Panel, and concludes that the property is unsuitable for the existing use due to its current state of repair, energy performance and the capital expenditure required to bring the property in to repair.

The assessment of the DAR identified an absence of a full breakdown of costs in the options considered for the site. Because it was not being possible to conclude that each of the options are unviable the recommendation remained that the application should be refused.

At the meeting on 13 November 2019 the applicant requested that more time be given to address the concerns that remained and in order to do this a decision was again deferred.

Page 53 Analysis

As was reported previously, the conclusion of the DAR is that the property is unsuitable for the existing use due to its current state of repair, energy performance and the capital expenditure required to bring the property in to repair. If the current use was to cease and the property made available for rent in its current state, it is estimated that the value would be £155,400.

The four options for the application site that were considered are:

 A Demolition and speculative redevelopment of existing buildings/site to provide modern commercial premises (GIA: 6,458 sq ft);

 B Demolition and redevelopment of existing builds/site for existing occupier including speculative additional commercial floor space (GIA: 6,400 sq ft);

 C Demolition and rebuild of a mixed-use scheme including speculative commercial and residential accommodation (Commercial GIA: 4,000 sq ft; Residential GIA: 2,200 sq ft);

 D Refurbishment of existing buildings/site for current occupier.

Each of these options was considered unviable due to a negative land value.

In the initial assessment of the DAR it was considered that a relatively high value was attributed to various development costs without adequate substantiation and so the profitability of each of the options considered was reduced, whereas lower costs would increase profitability. Since the application was last presented to the Panel the applicant has provided a justification, and expanded upon the reasons, for the cost inputs to the DAR.

 Throughout the DAR estimates of costs of professional fees are 14% (or 7.5% for option D) of total build costs and the costs for contingencies are 10% (for options B – D). It is accepted that professional fees are entirely dependent on the nature and circumstances of a given project. The larger a new-build project the lower percentage fees it will likely attract in relation to a smaller project. What contingencies might be encountered are by their very nature unknown at the outset of a project. It is contended that the 10% contingency figure is justified in the estimate of development cost because the situation with regards to contamination at the site is as yet unknown and that the land is sloping site and may require further structural input relating to retaining walls, particularly as the existing retaining walls at the property are generally in a poor state of repair or are very dated and are likely to need rebuilding. It is therefore considered that to err on the side of caution and make adequate provision for contingencies does not therefore appear unreasonable.

 The DAR assumes a developer profit margin of 20% on gross development value whereas a lower profit margin would increase the profitability of each of the options. In fact, a profit margin of between 16% and 20% on gross development costs might reasonably be expected. Whilst at the upper end of the scale, the assumed developer profit margin is not considered unreasonable.

 Yields have a major impact on the value of the project. A small shift in the yield can increase the value of a unit considerably. The profitability of the various options included in the DAR is based partly upon assumptions of rents and yields. These assumptions are based upon comparisons with available properties providing similar

Page 54 utility to the application property. In the initial assessment there was concern that the comparable evidence (apart from ones that are currently available) was over a year old (2016 to 2018) and no date was provided for currently available properties as to when they were first listed. It is accepted that the comparable evidence was obtained from a reasonable radius of the application property and subject to appropriate criteria. Comparisons with 13 alternative properties are included in the DAR.

No dates were provided for the currently available properties as to when they were first listed because it was not suggest that the properties had been on the market for any period of time. The comparison was of asking rents of properties on the market at the date of valuation. The dates when the comparison properties were added to the market vary, and all remain on the market.

A concern in the initial assessment of the DAR was that only one of the comparison properties is new build, this is Unit B, Denton Hall Farm Road, Denton. The search criteria, which are accepted as being reasonable, did not reveal any other comparable new build properties. The Unit at Denton Hall Farm Road has a rental value of £7.99 psf and so in the assessment of the DAR it was expected that all the new build options would achieve a rent of £8 psf. In the DAR, in options A – C the rent of the new build options is assumed to be between £7.01psf and £7.50 psf. The Unit at Denton Hall Farm Road is a modern trade/warehouse unit of a high specification, including 9.5m eaves height and parking spaces on a secure gated estate. The specification of the Unit is superior to the subject property and represents a more appealing and valuable unit than would a new build unit at the application site. Similarly, the existing comparable units at purpose-built industrial sites that were identified would not be subject to the same site specific restrictions as would premises at the application site. The comparison units can therefore be expected to achieve a greater yield and so the assumptions of rent in the new build options can be considered reasonable.

With specific regard to option C the initial assessment of the DAR noted that because the DAR considers that the property is unsuitable for its existing use, the value attributed to the site should then be an employment land value, minus the cost of demolition and servicing the site, rather than residential land value, and so inflated costs. The option does however involve the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a mixed use scheme, including both residential and commercial uses. The appraisal of the option allows for disposal of both residential and commercial elements in order to determine the land value and ultimately the viability of the site and this approach is accepted as being reasonable.

In conclusion, it is accepted that considerations of comparable specifications of site specific constraints adequately justify the shifts in yields included in the DAR.

In all previous assessments of the proposals it was noted that the premises have not been actively marketed as available for rent or purchase for employment generating purposes and so it was not possible to substantiate a robust conclusion that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable business use and that whether there is any market demand for the site for these purposes has not been tested.

The absence of any marketing is now justified by the contention that the premises are is not currently capable of being let due to the Energy Performance Rating of F. A new tenancy cannot be granted for a property with an Energy Performance Rating of F or G and therefore a marketing programme would be unrealistic and would open the applicants or site owner to legal issues if they were to agree any form of lease. The property would also be adversely

Page 55 affected by the Energy Performance Certificate rating of the site if disposed on a freehold basis as investors could not let the property and it would only be suitable for owner occupied use or at a reduced price.

The option of the site being redeveloped or refurbished by a prospective new end user is remains unexplored.

As was noted in the original report (paragraph 8.1) on the application, the applicant’s stated reason for making the application is that the premises are unsuitable to sustain the continued operation: the premises are too large for the current needs of the applicant and, being multi-levelled, the movement of goods is difficult, and maintenance and heating of the poorly insulated building are costly. The sale of the site for residential purposes would then facilitate the relocation of the applicant’s operations to new premises.

A key theme of the UDP is that attracting new, quality jobs into the Borough and securing the future of major existing employers must continue to be the priority, to offset expected further losses in mature industries and to diversify opportunities for local people. Flexibility to accommodate local employment initiatives, will contribute to this priority. To this end, according to UDP policy 1.1:

To counteract a continuing decline in the Borough's established employment base and to increase the earnings potential of work in the area, measures will be taken to create and maintain a healthy and diverse local economy and to attract quality jobs. This will include facilitating the retention of indigenous and expanding businesses.

In this light the proposed release of the employment site to residential use can be seen as facilitating the retention, and secure a viable future, of an indigenous business to other, more appropriate, premises within the Borough and create the conditions in which the business can invest and adapt in compliance with the key theme of the UDP and Section 6 of the NPPF.

Conclusion

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in a recently adopted plan or in any annual position statement, as is required by paragraph 74 of the NPPF. For decision-taking this means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

It is noted in the original report (paragraphs 10.6 and 10.7) that the spacing between the proposed and existing houses would be sub-standard, although the impact on the neighbouring houses in Stockport Road and Baron Road would be significantly less than that of the existing factory. Whilst recognising that the options for future employment use at the site are not exhaustively explored, it is considered that on balance the benefits that would accrue from the redevelopment of the site, including securing a viable future of an indigenous business and the general improvement in the residential environment locally, outweigh the loss of the employment site and the marginal sub-standard spacing in relation to a neighbouring house in Orchard Rise.

Eight new homes would contribute to the stock of homes in the area and contribute to meeting the Borough’s housing supply. There would also be limited benefits that would contribute to the economic, social and environmental objectives through the provision of jobs and spending during the construction phrase. Afterwards, there would be further benefits through spending in the local economy by future occupants. In seeking to bring forward

Page 56 housing development and making efficient use of the site, the proposal accords with the general thrust of the NPPF and would support the development of a previously-developed site where land supply is constrained and the available site could be used more effectively.

Constituting the redevelopment of a brownfield, or previously-developed site, the proposal is, in this respect, considered a sustainable development and compliant with the core principles and Section 2 of the NPPF and policy 1.5 of the UDP. Without impinging unduly on any existing amenities, it is considered that the proposed development would provide new dwellings that are well integrated with neighbours that conforms to the relevant requirements of the Residential Design SPD, the UDP and the NPPF. The recommendation is therefore for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant planning permission, subject the following conditions:

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

2. Other than demolition, no development shall not commence until the following information has been submitted in writing and written permission at each stage has been granted by the Local Planning Authority. i) A preliminary risk assessment to determine the potential for the site to be contaminated shall be undertaken and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any physical site investigation, a methodology shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include an assessment to determine the nature and extent of any contamination affecting the site and the potential for off-site migration. ii) Where necessary a scheme of remediation to remove any unacceptable risk to human health, buildings and the environment shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation. iii) Any additional or unforeseen contamination encountered during development shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority as soon as practicably possible and a remedial scheme to deal with this approved by the Local Planning Authority. iv) Upon completion of any approved remediation schemes, and prior to occupation, a completion report demonstrating that the scheme has been appropriately implemented and the site is suitable for its intended end use shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The discharge of this planning condition will be given in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of the development and once all information specified within this condition and other requested information have been provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and occupation/use of the development shall not commence until this time, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

3. The development shall not commence until details of the wheel cleaning facilities, temporary access, vehicle parking and turning facilities to be provided during the construction period, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be implemented as the construction period commences and be maintained until completion

4. Other than demolition, no development shall commence until full details of the proposed planting indicated on the approved plans has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved scheme of planting shall then be implemented before the development is brought in to use or in

Page 57 accordance with a programme agreed previously with the local planning authority. Any newly planted trees or plants forming part of the approved scheme which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the planting, are removed, damaged, destroyed or die shall be replaced in the next appropriate planting season with others of similar size and species by the developer unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

5. Other than demolition, no development shall commence until full details of a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly.

6 Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

7. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application, no above ground construction works shall take place until samples or a full specification of materials to be used externally on the buildings, and in all external hard-surfaced areas, 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. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8. During demolition/construction no work (including vehicle and plant movements, deliveries, loading and unloading) shall take place outside the hours of 07:30 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays. No work shall take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

9. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved the car parking indicated on the approved plan 01 REVF, including the garages, shall be provided and thereafter kept unobstructed and available for its intended purpose at all times.

10 A clear view shall be provided on each of the driveways where these meet the footway on Hill St. Its area shall measure 2.4 metres along the edge of the site access and 2.4 metres along the footway. It must be kept clear of anything higher than 600mm above the access.

Page 58 UPDATE REPORT TO NOVEMBER MEETING

Preamble

This application was presented to the Panel at the meeting on 4 September 2019 when the officer’s recommendation was for refusal for the following reason:-

The application fails to demonstrate in a sufficiently robust manner that the benefits that would arise from the development would significantly outweigh the harm that the release of the land for alternative, non-employment generating uses would have to the provision of employment land to support the local economy. For this reason, it not being demonstrated that the benefits would outweigh the harm, including the impact on the neighbouring house on Orchard Rise, the proposal is contrary to policies H10, 1.9 and E3 of the Tameside Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Employment Land Supplementary Planning Document and fails to comprise sustainable development as is required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

The applicant was aware of the recommendation and two days ahead of the meeting submitted a Development Appraisal and Report (DAR) in an attempt to address the reason given for recommending that the application be refused and asked that the content of that report be reported orally to the Panel. The time allowed was insufficient for a proper assessment to be made of the conclusions of that Report and so the Panel deferred a decision so that such an assessment could be made.

Analysis

When the application was presented previously to the Panel the analysis of whether the principle of the development, involving the loss of the existing employment site, was acceptable was based on Viability Assessments that had been submitted with the application prior to the agenda for that meeting having been published and which explored various options for the application site. Each of these options was described in the report (see Original Report, paragraphs 8.8 – 8.15, below) presented to the Panel and each was considered unsound. Because Council was not satisfied that either the refurbishment of the buildings for employment uses or the redevelopment of the site for further employment use were not viable the recommendation was for refusal.

The following analysis of whether the principle of the development is acceptable is based on the DAR that was submitted ahead of the September meeting of the Panel and should be read as replacement for paragraphs 8.8 – 8.15 in the original report below. The conclusion of the DAR is that the property is unsuitable for the existing use due to its current state of repair, energy performance and the capital expenditure required to bring the property in to repair. If the current use were to cease and the property made available for rent in its current state, it is estimated that the value would be £155,400. The DAR then includes four options for the application site, these being:

 A Demolition and speculative redevelopment of existing buildings/site to provide modern commercial premises (GIA: 6,458 sq ft);  B Demolition and redevelopment of existing builds/site for existing occupier including speculative additional commercial floor space (GIA: 6,400 sq ft);  C Demolition and rebuild of a mixed-use scheme including speculative commercial and residential accommodation (Commercial GIA: 4,000 sq ft; Residential GIA: 2,200 sq ft);  D Refurbishment of existing buildings/site for current occupier.

Page 59 The DAR concludes that each of the options considered are unviable due to a negative land value.

The DAR does not however include a full appraisal breakdown of costs, such as finance, lettings fees, disposal fees, professional fees and contingency, for each of these options nor any evidence or justification for the cost inputs. Throughout the DAR the costs of professional fees [14% (or 7.5% for option D)] and the costs for contingencies (10% for options B – D) are considered excessive and so reduce the profitability of the options. A developer profit margin of 20% on gross development value is assumed and at this rate again reduces the profitability of the options.

Supporting evidence is included to support the assumptions of rents and yields. However, all of the comparable evidence (apart from ones that are currently available) are over a year old (2016 to 2018). No date has been provided for currently available properties as to when they were first listed. In terms of new build commercial development, only one property included is new build and so considered comparable. This is Unit B, Denton Hall Farm Road, Denton which has a rental value of £7.99 psf. It should therefore be expected that all the new build options to have rent of £8 psf. In options A – C the rent of the new build options is assumed to be between £7.01psf and £7.50 psf. The only refurburbishment scheme comparable is Unit 1, Tameside Court, Dukinfield which has a rental value of £6.50 psf. In option D the rent of the refurbishment option is £5.00 psf. The assumed rentable values in each of the options again reduce its estimated profitability.

With regard to option C specifically, because the DAR considers that the property is unsuitable for its existing use, the value attributed to the site should then be an employment land value, minus the cost of demolition and servicing the site, rather than residential land value, which is included and again inflates costs.

In the absence of a full appraisal breakdown of costs in the DAR it is not possible to conclude that each of the options considered are unviable. By changing inputs to the DAR there may be the potential for an employment scheme on the site to produce a viable outcome.

As before, in each case the options assessed are for redevelopment or refurbishment and then the leasing of the premises. The option of the site being redeveloped or refurbished by a prospective new end user is nowhere explored.

The premises have not been actively marketed as available for rent or purchase for employment generating purposes and so it remains not possible to substantiate a robust conclusion that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable business use; whether there is any market demand for the site for these purposes has not been tested. Instead, it is considered that the application falls short of a persuasive case to demonstrate that the premises or site are no longer required, nor that there is a reasonable prospect of these being used for employment generating purposes in the future.

Page 60 ORIGINAL REPORT

1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

1.1 The application seeks full planning permission to demolish and remove all of the existing buildings and to redevelop the site to provide a terrace of eight houses. The houses at either end of the terrace would be two-storey and those in-between would rise to three storeys. Although the road rises from north-west to south east, so that the ridge heights of the houses would be staggered, the terrace would have a symmetrical appearance: the two end houses would have the same design; the next two, on either side, would be the same as each other; and, the two houses in the middle, rising to a forward facing gable, would correspond with each other. The houses would be brick-built with tiled roofs.

1.2 The two end houses would both have an integral garage and driveway in front with a garden at the side. The houses in-between would each have a driveway, with space enough to park two cars, and gardens in front. Each house would have a rear garden. Discreet bin stores would be provided or else provision would be made to store bins at the rear and to transport these to the front for collection.

2.0 SITE & SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site comprises approximately 0.18ha of land that is occupied currently by a number of disparate but connected buildings that together form the factory premises owned and operated by Newton Sports Ltd, manufacturers of sports kits. The factory is set within an established, primarily-residential area approximately 200m to the north-west of Gee Cross village centre.

2.2 The site is situated behind and, as the land rises, at a higher level than terraced houses in Stockport Road to the north-west. To the south-west the site abuts a pair of semi-detached houses, at the junction with Stockport Road, in Baron Road and then a public car park, before a terrace of two-storey flats. There are terraced houses on the opposite side of Baron Road that face towards the site. To the south- east there are more recently developed detached and semi-detached houses that are at a higher level as the land rises. There is a scout hut in an elated position on the north-eastern side of Hill Street.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Tameside Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Allocation Unallocated

3.2 Part 1 Policies

1.3: Creating a Cleaner and Greener Environment; 1.4: Providing More Choice and Quality Homes; 1.5: Following the Principles of Sustainable Development; 1.6: Securing Urban Regeneration; 1.9: Maintaining Local Access to Employment and Services; and, 1.12: Ensuring an Accessible, Safe and Healthy Environment.

Page 61 3.3 Part 2 Policies H2: Unallocated Sites; E3: Established Employment Areas; H4: Type, Size and Affordability of Dwellings; H7: Mixed Use and Density; H10: Detailed Design of Housing Developments; T1: Highway Improvement and Traffic Management; T10: Parking; and, MW11: Contaminated Land.

3.4 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Section 2. Achieving sustainable development; Section 5 Delivering a sufficient supply of homes; Section 9. Promoting sustainable transport; Section 11. Making effective use of land; and, Section 12. Achieving well-designed places.

3.5 Other Polices

Employment Land Supplementary Planning Document.

Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document.

It is not considered there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application.

3.6 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

3.7 This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the PPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

4.0 PUBLICITY CARRIED OUT

4.1 As part of the planning application process 30 notification letters were sent out to neighbouring properties and a notice was posted at the site on 1st February 2019. A notice was published in a local newspaper on 7th February 2019.

5.0 RESPONSES FROM CONSULTEES

5.1 The Head of Environmental Services (Environmental Protection) has raised no objection and has suggested that a condition restricting the hours of work during the demolition and construction be attached to any permission.

5.2 The Head of Environmental Services (Highways) has raised no objection and has suggested that conditions regarding car parking and cycle storage provision, a highways survey, street lighting and temporary vehicle facilities, and informative notes: regarding postal addresses; the construction, alteration or removal of a pavement crossing; and, working near to a highway, be attached to any permission.

Page 62 5.3 United Utilities has no objection and suggested a number of conditions to ensure a sustainable system of drainage be attached to any permission.

5.4 The GM Archaeological Unit has no record of any features of archaeological interest on the site.

5.5 The GM Ecology Unit has no objection and suggests that informative notes regarding disturbance to bat roosts and nesting birds be attached to any permission.

6.0 SUMMARY OF THIRD PARTY RESPONSES RECEIVED

6.1 Representations have been received from six neighbours. In two instances the principle of the proposed redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is welcomed but concerns are expressed about the impact on views over the valley, that on-street parking that is available currently in Hill Street would be lost, and disturbance during demolition and construction. Concerns about loss of views, the on-street parking that is available currently, and disturbance during demolition and construction are reiterated in the other representations received.

7.0 ANAYLSIS

7.1 The key issues to be assessed in the determination of this planning application are:

1) The principle of development and the loss of the existing employment site; 2) Design and appearance; 3) Impact on existing residential amenities; 4) Residential environment created; 5) Impact on highway safety and the road network; and, 6) Other Matters.

8.0 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

8.1 The applicant’s stated reason for making the application is that the premises are unsuitable to sustain the continued operation: the premises are too large for the current needs of the applicant and, being multi-levelled, the movement of goods is difficult, and maintenance and heating of the poorly insulated building are costly. The sale of the site for residential purposes would then facilitate the relocation of the applicant’s operations to new premises.

8.2 Although not allocated specifically as an established employment area the premises remain in use for employment generating purposes and so the proposal is subject to consideration with regard to UDP policy E3 which aims to retain employment generating sites in such use unless a number of factors indicate otherwise. These factors include: the benefits arising from new residential development; the quantity, type, evidence and demand of employment sites and premises in the area; the suitability of the site in its present form for further employment; and, the opportunity which may be presented for new forms of employment. Such an approach is consistent with the NPPF (paragraph 121) which states that:

Local planning authorities should…take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses of land which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose in plans, where this would help to meet identified development needs. In

Page 63 particular, they should support proposals to use retail and employment land for homes in areas of high housing demand, provided this would not undermine key economic sectors or sites.

8.3 Additionally, in order to reduce the need to travel longer distances from outlying areas and to help create vitality and diversity in predominantly residential areas, according to UDP policy 1.9, opportunities will be taken wherever possible to retain and increase the availability of local employment.

8.4 The Council’s estimated supply of land available for employment use across the borough has reduced considerably over several years which means that the further release of land for non-employment uses should be considered carefully to ensure that the opportunity for retained or replacement employment opportunities has been fully considered. Many manufacturing and commercial sites have been lost to residential and retailing uses and the much higher land values associated with these uses are putting pressure on remaining sites. The Council wants to encourage employment development in sustainable locations to enable more enterprise and job opportunities.

8.5 When considering proposals for the release of employment land to alternative uses the starting point is to determine the need to retain sites in employment use and the supply of employment land. Given the reduction in land available for employment development within the borough, this consideration weighs heavily against the release of sites to alternative uses.

8.6 The policy is supported by the Employment Land Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that provides more detail on the Council’s approach towards proposals that involve the loss of employment land and premises. The application site is less than 2ha which may not be considered significant in terms of overall scale for employment purposes but nevertheless it is important to fully judge the implications and the individual merits of the proposal. Cumulatively, the increasing loss of employment sites across the borough would cause significant harm to the Council’s strategy to provide a sufficient supply of employment land. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate why a site is no longer suitable for continued employment use and a properly-argued justification is required which details the reasons why the site could be released.

8.7 The Employment Land SPD acknowledges that in certain cases an applicant may be able to demonstrate that buildings are unsuitable for continued employment use due to their current state of repair. Consideration must then be given to other options that would enable the site to remain in employment use. Before considering release the Council will need to be satisfied that either refurbishment of the buildings for employment uses or redevelopment of the site for further employment use are not viable. A statement appraising the extent and nature of options for the site must be submitted with the planning application including a development appraisal or residual valuation for each option.

Option A: Redevelopment to Provide Modern Commercial Premises:

8.8 An indicative scheme has been considered so as to provide an option of redevelopment of the application site for further employment uses. The option includes a building that is smaller than the existing and includes car parking provision that exceeds the maximum standards that are applied normally with reference to UDP policy T1 and the Employment Land SPD. The applicant’s assessment of this option envisages the new premises being made available for rent. The build cost

Page 64 included in the assessment [£85/sqft (or £909/sqm)] is considered excessive. What is considered a more realistic estimate of build cost (£770/sqm) would reduce the overall cost by approximately £130,000. It is therefore considered that the build cost is over-estimated.

Option B: Redevelopment to Provide Modern Commercial Premises and Applicant to Remain on Site:

8.9 The option envisages redevelopment to provide a single building sub-divided so as to accommodate two units, one of which would be occupied by the applicant. As in the case of Option A, the building envisaged is smaller than the existing and includes car parking provision that exceeds the maximum standards that are applied normally with reference to UDP policy T1 and the Employment Land SPD. The applicant’s assessment of the cost of this option includes a bank loan to finance the redevelopment and the price of the new build. One or the other should be included; if a bank loan was obtained to finance the redevelopment it would cover the price of the new build. The inclusion of both constitutes double counting. It is therefore considered that the overall cost of the redevelopment is over-estimated

Option C: Redevelopment to Provide a Mixed Use Development, including new build commercial premises and 2 semi-detached houses:

8.10 The estimated purchase price of the land included in this option is increased by £25,000 above the value included in Option A. The applicant’s justification for this increased valuation is the residential aspect of this option. As is the case in Option A, the applicant’s assessment of this option envisages the new premises being made available for rent and the build cost included in the assessment [£85/sqft (or £909/sqm)] is considered excessive. It is therefore considered that the build cost is over-estimated.

Option D: Refurbishment of the Existing Building:

8.11 The option considers the purchase of the site and the refurbishment and sub-division in to two units that would be available for rent. Whilst the cost of refurbishment is considered too great, the option of the premises being refurbished by the applicant for their continued use is not explored. The option of refurbishment is therefore considered incomplete.

8.12 In each case the options assessed are for redevelopment or refurbishment and then the leasing of the premises. The option of the site being redeveloped or refurbished by a prospective new end user is nowhere explored.

8.13 The premises have not been actively marketed as available for rent or purchase for employment generating purposes and so it is not possible therefore to substantiate a robust conclusion that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable business use; whether there is any market demand for the site for these purposes has not been tested. Instead, it is considered that the application falls short of a persuasive case to demonstrate that the premises or site are no longer required, nor that there is a reasonable prospect of these being used for employment generating purposes in the future.

8.14 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and this is a material planning consideration in respect of the application of Policy E3 referred to in paragraph 8.2. This is also relevant for the purposes of applying the requirements of paragraph 11 of the Framework which requires that applications should only be

Page 65 approved in such circumstances where any adverse impacts of doing so would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

8.15 It is acknowledged that the proposal would make a contribution, albeit limited to eight dwellings, to the borough’s housing supply. There would also be limited economic, social and environmental benefits that would accrue from the provision of jobs and spending during the construction phrase. However, due to the site’s relative inaccessibility and restricted access to services, there would be more limited benefits through spending in the local economy by future occupants. There would be improvements to the residential environment and amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents in Baron Road and, particularly, Stockport Road, but these might be achieved by an alternative scheme that retains employment opportunities on the site. The improvements would not be wholly dependent upon the site being redeveloped for residential purposes.

8.16 Given the above it is considered that the limited contribution the proposal would make to meeting the borough’s housing requirements would not outweigh the potential of the site in its present form for further employment use that would contribute to the economic growth objectives of the borough. It therefore conflicts with the economic aims of Policy E3 of the UDP and the Framework and, therefore, the principle of the proposed development is unacceptable.

9.0 DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

9.1 There is no distinct vernacular beyond the nearby buildings being predominantly 2- storey. The majority of nearby houses are terraced; mostly brick-built but some are stone. The newer houses to the south-east, being brick-built, are a mixture of detached and semi-detached and the two houses immediately adjacent to the application site rise to 3 storeys.

9.2 The proposed houses would be of a traditional design and appearance, and would be brick-built with tiled roofs, which, despite rising to 3-storeys, would not appear out-of- keeping the setting within the established residential area. Windows in the fronts of the houses would be constructed with heads and sills. Not appear out-of-keeping in their setting and so not causing undue harm to the local area, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the design and compliant with: Section 12 of the NPPF; policies 1.3, H10(a) and C1 of the UDP; and, policy RD2 of the SPD.

10.0 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES

10.1 In order to prevent undue over-shadowing and over-looking of neighbouring properties the Residential Design SPD requires that minimum distances, measured from habitable room windows, be maintained. In relation to 2-storey buildings, the normal standard is that 21m be maintained between directly facing habitable room windows and that 14m be maintained between a habitable room window and a blank wall. The distances should be increased by 1m for every 1m difference in levels.

10.2 The distance between the blank, 2-storey gable in the proposed development and windows in the rear of houses in Stockport Road to the north-west would increase slightly from the 8.4m that exists currently between the existing houses and the 2- storey factory wall. The garage on the side of the new house would encroach to a distance of approximately 5.8m from the rear of the existing houses.

Page 66

10.3 There is currently a distance of approximately 12m between the rear wall of the existing factory building and windows in the rear of houses that front on to Baron Road and back on to the north–eastern corner of the site. Albeit that these are glazed with frosted glass, there are windows in the wall of the factory wall facing towards the houses in Baron Road. There would then be a distance of approximately 18m between windows in the rear of the proposed houses and windows in the rear of the existing houses.

10.4 There would be a distance of approximately 13m between the blank, facing gable in the proposed terrace and habitable room windows in the existing neighbouring house in Orchard Rise to the south-east. The garage on the side of the new house would encroach to a distance of little more than 10m from the rear of the existing houses.

10.5 The Planning Statement submitted with the application contends that the siting of the proposed houses conforms in the main to the Residential Design SPD in terms of the relationship with existing houses. This contention is based on the assumption that variations, or relaxation, of the spacing distances required normally can be considered appropriate where there are differences in levels and where existing buildings are closer to existing houses than would be proposed houses.

10.6 Whilst the distances involved are sub-standard, the spacing between the proposed houses and the existing houses in Stockport Road and Baron Road is considered acceptable because the impact on the existing houses would be significantly less than that of the existing factory. This is particularly the case in respect of the impact on the houses in Stockport Road where windows in the factory wall over-look the rear of the houses and the existing building forms a continuous wall along the boundary.

10.6 In relation to the existing houses in Orchard Rise, the contention in the Planning Statement that the siting of the proposed houses conforms in to the spacing required by the Residential Design SPD assumes that because the development site is approximately 1m lower than the existing houses a 1m reduction in the normal standard (14m) can be applied. In fact, the SPD does not allow for such instances and the proposed spacing is sub-standard.

11.0 RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT CREATED

11.1 Reflecting the requirement of Section 12 of the NPPF, that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, UDP policy H10(a) requires that the design of proposed housing developments, which are acceptable in relation to other relevant policies in the plan, meets the needs of the potential occupiers. To this end policy RD18 of the Residential Design SPD recommends minimum floor areas that residential developments should achieve. The proposal would provide a minimum single-bedroom size of 8sqm and a minimum double-bedroom size of 13sqm. Providing total useable internal areas of 109sqm in the 2-storey houses and 127sqm in the 3-storey houses achieves the requirements of nationally prescribed Technical Housing Standards. Each house would be provided with commensurate private amenity space. In terms of the amount of living accommodation that would be provided the proposal is therefore considered of an adequate size to comply with policy H10(a) of the UDP and Section 12 of the NPPF.

Page 67 12.0 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY AND THE ROAD NETWORK

12.1 Although there are bus routes along Stockport Road close to the site services cease in the early evening. Local services in Gee Cross centre are limited. Each house would then be provided with 2 off-street parking spaces and cycle stores. Despite the location not being considered particularly accessible by modes of transportation other than motor car it is accepted that the impact of the proposed development on highway safety and the road network would not be severely detrimental over and above that of the existing industrial use and the traffic this generates and so it is accepted that the proposal is compliant with policies H10(b), T1 and T10 of the UDP and Section 9 of NPPF.

13.0 OTHER ISSUES

13.1 Views from existing houses and opportunities to park on-street are not safeguarded. The impact on views over the valley, and that on-street parking that is available currently in Hill Street would be lost, are not a material considerations in determining the application. Whilst there is bound to be some disturbance during the period of demolition and construction this is controlled by other legislative requirements and, again, not a material consideration.

14.0 CONCLUSION

14.1 Constituting the redevelopment of a brownfield, or previously-developed site, the proposal is, in this respect, considered a sustainable development and compliant with the core principles and Section 2 of the NPPF and policy 1.5 of the UDP. There is, however, a clear need to retain productive employment sites and there is a quantitative need to resist proposals for alternative uses on these sites unless a case for redevelopment can be demonstrated.

14.2 That fact the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in a recently adopted plan or in any annual position statement, as is required by paragraph 74 of the NPPF, is not disputed. For decision-taking this means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. It is not considered that the application proposals achieve such benefits for the reasons identified above.

14.4 The principle of the release of the land for alternative, non-employment generating uses is considered to not to have satisfied the requirements of UDP policy E3 and so cannot be accepted. Instead, in the absence of a sufficiently robust appraisal of the extent and nature of options for retaining the site in employment-generating use, the harm to the provision of employment land to support the local economy would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise, and the does not comprises sustainable development defined by the NPPF.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION

Refuse planning permission for the following reason.

The application fails to demonstrate in a sufficiently robust manner that the benefits that would arise from the development would significantly outweigh the harm that the

Page 68 release of the land for alternative, non-employment generating uses would have to the provision of employment land to support the local economy. For this reason, it not being demonstrated that the benefits would outweigh the harm, including the impact on the neighbouring house on Orchard Rise, the proposal is contrary to policies H10, 1.9 and E3 of the Tameside Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Employment Land Supplementary Planning Document and fails to comprise sustainable development as is required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank Page 71 Page

Google Earth Satellite Image of the site. This page is intentionally left blank 29/05/2019 10:35:57 29/05/2019 J REV 02 17/04/19 29/05/19 2 DATE 12/12/18 PROJECT NUMBER 2610 Hyde, Cheshire, Hill Street, Hill SK145RL 1800mm lap waney fence (See detail) CHECKED BY CHECKED AS Planting Paving Permeable Priora' 'Tegula Marshall's Grass Permeable Tarmac Store Cycle Low level boxwood hedge denoting boundaries OrchardMews Hill Street Works, Street Hill Gate forwardBoundary of the gate to be 1000mm lap waney fence from site plan for clarity for plan site from treatments Site & Location& Site Plans

D. Woodman D. Developments Parking Parking Rev Description Date HIrevisions Various Jremoved overhangs Roof 28/03/19 boundary to Revisions Hedge Hedge to be removed Project Address PROJECT TITLE CLIENT DRAWN BY MJH (@ A1) SCALE DRAWINGNUMBER 01 Asindicated Cycle / Cycle Bin Store 2.5 m 2 Plot 8

393573.25 393550 393500 393450 393400 393398.25

395710.44 395710.44

Bin Store Bin 1.5 Store

Cycle Cycle

Parking Parking

395700 395700 1 2 1

Plot 7 Parking Parking 1 1 1 7 0

1 0.5 FFL= 21.27 FFL= 50

9 Parking Parking

SCALE 1: 7

0.5

Plot 6 Parking Parking

Store

395650 395650

Bin Store Bin Cycle Cycle t e 2 e 0 tr

S 5 n o 1800mm fence waneylap is rr

H 5 Parking Parking Parking Parking 4 E 7

S 4 6 I R D R A H

C 2

Plot 5 1

T R

E O E

Store T

Boundries defined by paving/planting S

3143

Cycle / Bin Bin / Cycle

E N 3 3 3 5 02 3

1 3 4

the prior permission of Ordnance Survey. Ordnance of permission prior the 02 Store

30 40 50

395600 395600 FFL=21.75 Cycle / Bin Bin / Cycle metres

Hill Street Hill

© Crown copyright and database rights 2018 OS 10005 OS 2018 rights database and copyright Crown © Parking Parking Plot 4 Parking Hut Scout Reproduction in whole or part is prohibited without isprohibited part or in whole Reproduction 0 10 20

E Store E

Cycle Cycle S Parking Parking Parking Parking L D IL A H O R N O R A

395550 395550

Plot 3

Bin Store Bin

6 3

4 2

o t

2 4

4 2

Parking Parking Plot 2 Parking

FFL=22.20

1800mm fence waneylap Store 10000 (Min.) 10000

Boundaries behind the houses to be 1800mm Waney lap fence (see detail) Cycle

395500 395500

4 2

t 395483.38

Plot 1 395483.38 r Location Plan 1 : 1250

393550 393500 393450 393400

o 393573.25 393398.25 N

2 Parking Parking Cycle / Cycle Bin Store

E 5 2 0 5 4 Gate 13000 02 1 :1 200 Site Proposed 3

1800 1800 Waney lap fence (see detail)

T T

h h

r r

h r

1 1

4 8 1

8 8

. . 1

5 0 .

. .

0 8 .

0 2

. 1

4 4

6 8 7

RL 26.03 RL 26.14 RL 26.27 RL 26.51

RL 28.02

O /H O T Ov ve ele erh rhe co ea ad m d c c abl ab Ca e le bl R e E L 31

L EL 25.

6 0

O 5 verh ead O ca v ble e EL 24.29 rh EL 24.70 e a e d bl a c c a d b a le he O er v v e O r h e a d

c a b

. 8

5 8

0 1 0 8 7 1 . A 1 9 4 .

18.8 8 0

9 2 . S .75 18.89 9 0 0

18 7 t

ll e 2 0 Wa p

18.58 2 0 0 s

0 7 .0 1 18.36 . 20.04 9 18.95 1 4

19. 0 . 19.01 19.84 99 1 1 18.84 19.31 9. 19.75 18.80 18.82 19.30 83 P 5 19.30 ip e 20.12 D 20.96 20.05 P Wall 20.10 T 20.92 20.74 P

2 2

0 0

. .

2 2

7 6

o R 8

i 2 p 2

e 0

4 .

G 3

5 6

1 9

2 .

5 0

6 C/ .

B i 5

19.49 7

19.61 1

6 1

9 D N .

P o 6

r v

Thr 20.81 e

T y a 1 r 9.6 m d

9 u a

c e

r 9

L R

4 2

L 1

3 9

. .

9 2 7 7

8 0

1 1

. . .

9 9

8 3

1 2

. 8

9 7

D 0

9 7

P .

. 8 9

9 1 2

5 9

T . P 6 19.65

L 2 1 2

0 4 2 9

0 9

1 2 L . 9

. . 9 . 0

O . P

7 6 2 0 . 1 9

v 9 5 2

9 2 .

e 5

9 6

r .

7 h 19.92

e b

1 4 r

a e H 9

d K

e 8

d 20.89

a D 0 g 2

b Over 2

h P . e

l ead G

0 9

e cab

le 1

0 9

2 D 0 1 P 9 0 . 9 . 8 9 O 2 1 5 ve 9.7 rh 0 6 ea 2 U d . ca 1 0 n b

m 19 le

9 . .6

O 8 2 0

a 1

v 19

2 d 1 9 e

2 .96 e .

r 1 . O

h 0 8 W

a 1

v l

e . l

0 2

a 4

r C d

W o

c n

/ a a c

r D b

d M e

r l

t e 0 2

e a

c T

0 0 a 2

0 n a

. b 0 H r

8 m

l . 2

e 2 0 / 8

2 a

2 0 3 R Ov c 0 erh 0 Thr 20.90 ead c . able

. 1 .

3 0 6 1 1 9 1 . 7 G 9 2 1 .0 0

2 1

20.16 9 C

. . o 1 8

2 2 n T

6 0 O 7 c 0 r P .2 ( v e l e . 20.04 0 1 t im rg 19.88 e i r 4 te o d w n 1

a 9

c . 8 c 2

e 2 2 s 0 1 s . . ) 1 1

9 8

h r

2 1

2 0 21.14 9 .

0 9

8 8

8 X

4 2

1 2 0 1

1 0 . 1

RL . 25.23 3

20.08 1 .3 6 5

20.94 3 2 7 O Bin Store Detail

19.89 2

19.94 v 0

0 e

2 r .

. 1 0

. h 2

0 4

. EL 24.9 2

4 e

2 2

1 1

19.91 Pipe G a

5 . K

20.50 d 5

. e

5 r 4

EL b c 25.32 2

2 2 a

2 19.99 1 2 b 0

. l 0 5 1 e . St 1 . 2 3 eps . 5

2 0 1

7 2 0 2 .

0 5 0 2 2 .0

N . 3 0 6 0 0

. o 0

4 .

2 0

6 19.98

1 3

. 6 c

c 1

0 e

. s 5

2 o

t 2

0 2 1

. 0 s 3 .

r u . 7 1 C 7 e

6 5

a 2 o

0 n

c .

o 0

2 r T

9 e f a d

0 t . r u b 0 RL 26 e m 5 .98 RL 27.01 e u RL 26.96 a RL 27.01 c i

t l

o 2

n . 0

6 g Th p

. r 21.89 0 6

s 5

2 0 2

0 1 .

5 . .

0 8

0 6 c

2 0 1800

2 2

2 .

0 0

. 6 .

8 .

8 IL 0

2 8 5 0 2 .7 2 0

7 0 .0 2 . G 3 6 1

5 P .

P i p 6 C I ip 2 L e o e 1

O n 1 . ( v c 9 9

e r . 2 li e 8 D m rg T 3 te 5 P P it ro P

e 06 d w ip n 19 EL e a .96 25.07 c

c EL 24.84 1

e E

s 9

s L W .

)

9 M 2 1 S

2 T .

9 EL 25.14 2 20.43 H

D Thr 20.00 R i

2 r

L l

1 a

T l . 2 i

0 0 n 2

1 .24 2 B 4

0 M S .

.0 7 3

0 t

1 r

R m 9

e . 20.59 9 2 2

2 6 e R 2 RL 0 26.33 3 2 1 0.57 0 L . . . . 6

0 t 1 0 Thr 22.08 2 RL 26.38 5 2 1 6

D 0

. E 9

. 2

2 7 L a 1

0 RL 26.41 1

0 5 i

9 2

. 1

0 2 9

3 2

. 8 0 9

. 2 5 6 0 9 .2 2 2 1. 2 W 17 0 T / .3 h

M 3 r R

E L h

L Gravel Board

2 r

1 1

. 2 3 .

9 2

1 2 4

4 2

1 .

2 7 . .

9 9

. 1 0

. 7

3 5

6 2 2

2 1 1

T EL 24.63 2

1 a

a 21.83 . . 22.09

9 2

8 .

2 l

r 8 l

m . 3

1 1 2 .3 a 2 EL 24.59

EL 24 3 5 2 c .71 1 G

. 4

P 2 E

0 2 D . P 6 0 4 2 . 21.76

2 4 2 9 21.78 .

0 2

. 2

e 6

R L

2 2

2 L E

2 0

. L

8 L 2 4 4 2

. 2

2 1 . 7

7 2

1 6 2 5

7 . 2

5 2 3 .

7 1

2 1 .

9 . .

1 0 0 6 K

0 2 7 1 O 0 0 2 .8 1 6 D .7 P 6

2 2 C

0 20.37 1 o

Pipe L

. 20.53 . n 5

20 . .41 . 8 c

r 5 8 6 e 2

8 20.60 9 te 4

. 2 1 1.1 2 2 1 0 21.04 1.56

2 0 Wall 2

1 0 2 2 2

2 1

. 3 . 1 6

0 0 2 .

5 3

3 . 3 2 9 3

L 2 8 1

2 P 2

C .

. . 1 o 5

C 9 2 n 7 c o

r n e T 2

c a t 2

e re r . 2

t m 5

2 1 e

a 2 7

. 2 96 0 c 4 . 2

21 2 .5 3 . 2

2 .

5 2 5

. 4

2 0 3 .5 5 22 G 2 22.51 1 22.29 .8 21 .0 2 5 2 7 2

1 2 2 . . . 1

0 5

2 9

2 3 1 .4 3 2 21.45 1 .2 21.76 2 9 2 1 1 .1 .7 4 6 2 2 1 2 .5 . 3 2 2 4 1 .9 21 0 1 2

.1 D 8 2 0 2 0 .4 r

1 a . 4 2 8 i 3 n 2 2 . 3 2 21.63 1 2 0

. 0

2 N 8 2 0 2 3 1 . 5 . 2 0 2 2 5 7 2 .6 1 22.04 9 . 4

2 O 5 1.4 2 I 2 2 1 22 . 1 .12 3 .9 7 7 22.49 22.7 3 T

2 2.3 22 6 .8 ations 2 21.66 Old found 2 22 2

.16 /M 2 W 2

. 2 2

21.92 22.46 8 2

4 2 2 2

. 5 9 1. A

2 . . . 8 9 8

3 2 9

9 7

t 21.6 21.39 1 21.89 21.94 2 2 2

2 .9 V r .9 7 9

2 2 building and applicable) (where n 1 0 3 . 0 .

2 E 5 3 0 2 5 1 8 o . A 1 6 .6 8 2

2 3

85 . 2 1. L 2 22.22 1 3 5

2 2 1.69 2 2

2 2 . C .1 2 .

0 9 3

W o

N 5 n

2 a

out before receipt of the permissions is permissions of the receipt before out c

2 l l .4 r

C e 7

o t 2

2 n e c 3 3

r .

S e . 1 t 2 l 8 e e 7 e p 2 e S 1 r T . s t 2 a

5 e 2 r 2

9 p m

23 . 3

4 a

c . 5 2 .

0 2 0 4 2 23 . A K

2 4 e 2 2 . 4 2 9 2 r

2 2 b 3 .

. plan. Site the on shown boundry of the e accuracy

0 . 5 1 2 2

3 9

. 2 2 2

1 2 . 3 3

8 2.02 2

2 .

. 5 5

2 5 8 6

22.3 5

2 1 99 22.22 2 . 21. Wall

3 9 21.95 C/P 22.19 .53 22.52 RTW 3 22 . 1 22.55 . 4 C/P 34 5 2 . 1 1.96 22 8 23.49 E 2 3

5 . 2 22.18 4

0 22.68 0 5 22.68 W/M

5 .

7 "entirely at clients' own risk" own at clients' "entirely

9 63x25 capping concrete100x100 posts 6mm thick edged waney boards in larch with lath framing. Treated with protim water based solution.

N All Dimensions to be checked on site checked All on Dimensionsto be

E 1 1 : 20 Waney lap fence detail Waney

EL 29.65 EL 30.07 1 :1 200 Site Existing 4 1 Work must not be commenced until planning permissio planning Work commenced until be must not regulations approval is received. Any works carried Any is received. approval regulations It is the responsibility of the client to verify th to verify client of the responsibility It is the

Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank Wall Plate (A) 29772

Level 2 (A) 27450

Level 1 (A) 24825

Level 0 (A) 22200

Elevation - Front Elevation Side 2 1 2 1 : 100 1 : 100

Wall Plate (C) 28582

Level 2 (C)

Page 75 Page 26520

Level 1 (C) 23895

Level 0 (C) 21270

Elevation Rear 3 1 : 100

Rev Description Date A Design Revisions 11/01/19 B Position change 11/01/19 C Planning revisions 14/02/19 D Plot 2 & 3 position 06/03/19 change Wall Plate (A) 29772

Level 2 (A) 27450 Project Address Hill Street Works, Hill Street, Hyde, Level 1 (A) 24825 Cheshire, SK14 5RL

Level 0 (A) PROJECT 22200 Orchard Mews

TITLE Elevation Side 1 4 Elevations 1 : 100 CLIENT D. Woodman Developments

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE Author Checker 12/12/18 All Dimensions to be checked on site SCALE (@ A1) PROJECT NUMBER Work must not be commenced until planning permission (where applicable) and building 1 : 100 2610 regulations approval is received. Any works carried out before receipt of the permissions is "entirely at clients' own risk" DRAWING NUMBER REV 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 It is the responsibility of the client to verify the accuracy of the boundry shown on the Site plan. 02 D SCALE 1: 50 m 06/03/2019 15:36:12 06/03/2019 This page is intentionally left blank Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank