Application DC/063957 Reference Location: 47 Grasmere Road Gatley Cheadle SK8 4RS

PROPOSAL: Erection of two new semi-detached dwelling houses

Type Of Full Application Application: Registration 18.11.2016 Date: Expiry Date: 20170113 Case Officer: Mr Daniel Hewitt Applicant: Mr David Clark Agent: Suite 117, 19 Lever Street, , M1 1AN,

DELEGATION/COMMITTEE STATUS

Cheadle Area Committee decision as more than 4 objections to the development have been received and approval is recommended.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks full planning permission for the “erection of two new semi- detached dwelling houses” in the garden of 47 Grasmere Road, Gatley.

Both houses would have:

 three bedrooms set over three storeys with a single bedroom and en-suite at second floor level;  driveways large enough to accommodate one car;  front and rear gardens; and  sufficient space for cycle and bin storage in access paths to the side of the dwellings set well back from the front building line.

Although the proposed houses are semi-detached they have been designed to resemble a single detached house and reflect the design of the adjacent detached dwellinghouse at 49 Grasmere Road with a projecting front facing gable and front doors occupying a central position.

The houses would:  have buff brick as the predominant facing material with artstone surrounds and string course features;  incorporate elements of cedar cladding to the ground floor projecting rear elements and ground floor entrance;  be approximately 8.7 metres high (ground level to ridge height) reflecting the site’s topography and ridgelines of adjacent properties on Grasmere Road;  have a total depth of approximately 13 metres when the ground floor single storey elements are included that have a rearward projection of 3 metres;  have a single, front-facing second floor window set into the projecting gable.

The demolition of the extensions and the detached garage of 47 Grasmere Road are necessary to accommodate the development (see planning permission ref: DC/062122 below). What remains of 47 Grasmere Road would be retained as a self-contained, detached dwellinghouse within a much smaller plot occupying approximately one third of its former curtilage. A site visit undertaken on 17 January confirmed that the extensions have already been demolished and 47 Grasmere Road has been renovated and is currently for sale.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application site constitutes the garden of what is currently 47 Grasmere Road. The curtilage of 47 Grasmere Road is relatively large measuring approximately 600m2.

The site cannot be considered brownfield land as it is a private residential garden that is specifically excluded from the definition of previously developed land in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The site is unallocated in the UDP but is identified as a ‘predominantly residential area’.

The site has an accessibility score of approximately 36/100.

The site is affected by noise from air traffic using during both the day and night.

The site is located in Flood Zone 1.

POLICY BACKGROUND

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications/appeals to be determined in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Statutory Development Plan includes:-  Policies set out in the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (SUDP) adopted 31st May 2006 which have been saved by direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; &

 Policies set out in the Stockport Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS) adopted 17th March 2011.

N.B. Due weight should be given to relevant SUDP and CS policies according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) issued on 27th March 2012 (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given); and how the policies are expected to be applied is outlined within the Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) launched on 6th March 2014.

Saved policies of the SUDP Review

EP1.7 Development and Flood Risk EP1.10 Aircraft Noise MW1.5 Control of Waste from Development

LDF Core Strategy/Development Management policies

CS8 Safeguarding and improving the environment SD6 Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change CS2 Housing Provision CS3 Mix of Housing CS4 Distribution of Housing H1 Design of Residential Development H2 Housing Phasing SIE1 Quality Places SIE3 Protecting Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment CS9 Transport and Development CS10 An effective and sustainable transport network T1 Transport and Development T-2 Parking in Developments T-3 Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network

National Planning Policy Framework Conformity

The Planning Advisory Services’ National Planning Policy Framework Compatibility Self-Assessment Checklist has been undertaken on Stockport’s adopted Core Strategy. This document assesses the conformity of Stockport’s adopted Core Strategy with the more recently published NPPF and takes account of saved policies from the Unitary Development Plan where applicable. No significant differences were identified.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance (Saved SPG’s & SPD’s) does not form part of the Statutory Development Plan; nevertheless it does provide non-statutory Council approved guidance that is a material consideration when determining planning applications.

Relevant guidance is as follows:

Design of Residential Development SPD Sustainable Design and Construction SPD Sustainable Transport SPD Transport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD

National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 6 states: “The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.

Paragraph 7 states: “There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental”.

Paragraph 11 states: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

Paragraph 13 states: “The National Planning Policy Framework constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications”

Paragraph 14 states: “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking”.

For decision-taking this means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise):

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

Paragraph 17 states: “Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 principles are that planning should:  be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans should be kept up-to-date, and be based on joint working and co-operation to address larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency;

 not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives;

 proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities;

 always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

 take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;

 support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

 contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework;

 encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;

 promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production);  conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations;

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

 take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs”.

Paragraph 49 states “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

Paragraph 56 states “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

Paragraph 60 states “Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.”

Paragraph 64 states “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

Paragraph 187 states “Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area”.

Paragraph 196 states “The planning system is plan-led. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions”.

Paragraph 197 states “In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development”. Paragraph 215 states “………..due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Planning Application No: DC/061665 Address: 47 GRASMERE ROAD, GATLEY, CHEADLE, SK8 4RS App Type: Full planning permission Proposal: Erection of two new semi-detached dwelling houses Planning permission refused 08 September 2016 (delegated decision) for the following reasons: 1. The proposed building by virtue of its height, siting and depth would result in overlooking and lead to an undue loss privacy for the residents of The Tarns to the rear of the application site and create an undue sense of enclosure for the residents of 47A Grasmere Road contrary to policies H1 and SIE1 of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, the Design of Residential Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The scale, form and appearance of the development would fail to respect the context set by the existing suburban townscape and in turn harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to policies H1 and SIE1 of the Stockport Core Strategy, the Design of Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Application No: DC/062122 Address: 47 GRASMERE ROAD, GATLEY, CHEADLE, SK8 4RS App Type: Householder Proposal: Single storey front Extension, Demolition of existing side extensions, creation of new vehicular access Planning permission granted 18 August 2016 (Cheadle Area Committee)

Planning Application No: J/67327 Address: 47 GRASMERE ROAD GATLEY CHEADLE App Type: Work to trees covered by a TPO Proposal: Remove Oak tree. (TPO DS 19/10/W) Final Decision: Grant Decision Date: 07/07/1997

Planning Application No: J/66167 Address: 47 GRASMERE ROAD GATLEY CHEADLE App Type: Work to trees covered by a TPO Proposal: Remove mature Oak tree (Marked 'A' on submitted sketch) (TPO DS 19/10/W) Final Decision: Grant Decision Date: 10/01/1997

NEIGHBOUR'S VIEWS

17 neighbouring properties have been notified by letter. Written objections have been received from residents of eight neighbouring properties:

A resident of 1 Kentmere Close objects to the development on the following grounds:

“The proposal is not in keeping with the area, ALL the surrounding properties are detached and they are proposing a semi which will reduce the value of the surrounding area and open this out to other people in the area that they can start developing semi's. I have worked hard to buy my property as it is in a tasteful part. The properties are too high, don't look like anything in the area either. There is no parking, thus leaving cars on the road and will cause accidents on the blind corner - I have had a care written off as someone came round the corner too fast. I agree a detached can be built, however NOT semi's. The information on the planning application is not true. The properties proposed are too high, the house next door is on high ground. Please don't ruin the area, a lot of elderly live round there and the property is there pensions they have invested in and I would hate the values to drop and them loose out financially.”

The residents of 2 Kentmere Close object to the development on the following grounds:

 The plans are almost identical to the previous proposals that were refused  3 storeys is too high and would restrict light to The Tarns at the rear  Semi-detached houses would not be in-keeping with other detached houses in the area  Lack of garages to facilitate off-street parking  The driveways appear too short for an average car  It is not clear if adequate side entrances are provided especially if refuse bins are to be stored there  The overall development is too crowded A resident of 12 Kentmere Close objects to the development on the following grounds:

 The plans are almost identical to the previous proposals that were refused  “The proposed dwelling is still 3 storeys in height (as in the original application) and will prove to be overbearing and still significantly higher than the dwellings located at Nos. 45 & 47 Grasmere Road. In short, the proposed semi-detached properties are too high”  “The application has been made for 2 semi-detached properties on the site - there is not enough square footage to accommodate 2 semi-detached dwellings on the size of plot available. There is also simply not enough spare space/capacity to support such a design for 2 semi-detached dwellings.”  “The site is only suitable for 1 dwelling of 1 or 2 storeys in height.”  “There will be the inevitable impact upon the immediate highway. Increased traffic and parking is inescapable if 2 dwellings are built. The proposed design makes no allowance whatsoever for the inevitable 2/3 car families that will wish to move into the area. Parking and, hence, the impact on road safety will be problematic. It also appears that the proposed driveway is not only shorter in length than No.47 Grasmere but is only big enough to accommodate a very small vehicle. Inevitably, cars will end up parking on the verge/kerb causing potentially dangerous traffic conditions. As a resident living directly opposite the site, I have observed the many near misses of vehicles travelling too fast as the proposed site is located on a gradual bend. The proposed dwellings and cars parked on the road could lead to an accident.”  “The proposed application will impact the amount of natural light (and sunlight) to our property.”  “There are no, nor have there been, any precedent for semi-detached properties on Grasmere Road. Allowing this application will lower house values.”  “The proposed application does not fit in with the style of dwellings located on Grasmere Road. There are no semi-detached properties on the road as stated in point 8 nor of 3 storey in height.”  “The only recent precedence for building work on Grasmere is property situated at No.65. The size of plot was of similar dimensions as No.47 but there was only enough capacity to build a double storey single dwelling.”

A resident of 13 Kentmere Close objects to the development on the following grounds:

 “The plot is not big enough to accommodate 2 properties. It only suitable for 1 building of 1 or 2 stories.”  “Style of proposed buildings is totally out of character with the surrounding properties. there are no town houses or semi detached properties in the area. These proposed properties will look entirely out of context with other properties in the surrounding area.”  “Not enough provision for off road parking and as a result cars will be parked one the main road or the pavement which will increase the likelihood of a traffic accident on the bend where the houses are to be built. One property has such a small poking plot that only a small city car would fit on the drive. Surely family sized properties will allow for at least 2 vehicles if not 3. As a parent I am well aware of the risks to children in the area as the road is already used a a 'rat run'. On a number of occasions there has been instancies of cars narrowly avoiding each other on the bend. The instances will undoubtedly increase with cars being parked on the main road.”  “Given that the gardens are so small, there is every possibility that the refuse dustbins will have to be stored at the front of the properties by the road side.”  “All the surrounding properties both to the front and rear of the proposed build will be effected by loss of natural light due to the height of the properties.”

A resident of 39 Grasmere Road objects to the application for the following reasons:

“The initial planning application in the summer was in two parts that Stockport Planning failed to link together - a disreputable omission. The Design and Access Statement submitted for this revised submission states that extensive consultations and meetings have taken place with David Hewitt, Planning Officer since the rejection of the first application. His advice has resulted in making the house front elevation appear to be a detached house, having a partial flat roof to reduce the overall height slightly, reducing the total number of bedrooms on the whole original plot from 11 to 9 with 3 off road parking places. The original site had one 3 bedroom house, two garages with drives so a total of 4 cars could park off road!

Serious issues about this application submitted in the summer have been ignored (see later comments). It is not a surprise when a greedy developer proposes two large semi- detached houses rather then one detached house on this plot. It is however reprehensible that pensioners living next to/opposite the development are being subjected to a further application after cosmetic changes with the inference that the Planning Officer approves.

As regards the 'Design and Access Statement' there are no semi - detached houses but only detached with two stories only and all have garages with additional off road parking. Bin storage is shown to be at the front of house 2 but the elevation plan does not show a fence. It is noted that Covenants on the estate ban front garden fences/walls - see surrounding properties. The overall height of the proposed houses ~ 8.5m is over 2m higher than the houses number 45 and 47a. The plan showing front elevations of properties fails to make clear the effect of the fall of the land. The appearance of this development in scale and height crammed into the site is alien to the estate. Grasmere Road is a 20 mph rat run to the Gatley - Cheadle road. There is no traffic calming measures, however ineffective, as on St Annes Road North. It also has a 110º corner adjacent to the development with a road opposite. I and my neighbors have complained many times to the Council (and Police) about the "boy' racers - they think they are on a racetrack with the corners and weaving in/out parked cars. Amazingly this is exacerbated by large SUVs driving their children to the School opposite Grasmere Road. Vehicles are travelling well in excess of 20mph. and hardly any cars follow the speed limit. Grasmere Road is used by children going/returning to two Primary Schools and one Secondary School. Residents often see and hear cars nearly colliding, going onto the pavement as they meet each other head on. No doubt the Council will come up with some excuse for not doing anything over many years when a child/children are injured or killed.

How does all this effect the planning application? The application, not forgetting the first approved application, has a total of 9 bedrooms. Remembering that 'children', because of the cost of houses, are often now at home until their mid 30s. This means, with the parents having two cars, there could be as many as 12 cars or more associated with the development with only 3 off road places, right on the edge of the pavement. Up to 9 cars could be parked on a blind corner over an extensive length taking into account of dropped kerbs. Workmans cars/vans parked during the last few months redevelopment have already shown the danger with near misses on this blind bend.”

A resident of 43 Grasmere Road objects to the application for the following reasons:

“First the design context is wrong, yet again. 1. There are no 3 storey semi-detached town houses within 1 mile of this site and certainly non on this estate. These will have a negative impact on the outlook of the surrounding properties. 2. There is an ongoing problem with the surface water drains since the construction of the Kentmere Close houses. The original school grounds on which they are built used to drain into the ditch at the side of Gatley golf course. Now the roofs drain into the surface water drain. At times of heave rainfall Grasmere road in front of my property, 43, floods to some 250 mm for about 25 metres making the road dangerous and the pavements impassable for two to three hours after the storm. Building these houses will add the drainage of 135 square metres roof area to an already overloaded drain. Photo 13/09/16 17.34 did not copy to comments. The houses are significantly taller, wider and deeper than surrounding houses, thus destroying the open plan nature of the estate overshadowing surrounding houses on the Tarns and Grasmere road. Particularly no 47 which has been degraded from a house with drive and garage and average garden area, to a house with small garden and small parking space, and a three storey blank wall on it's southern aspect 1 metre away! There is little provision for car parking and no doubt roadside parking will be necessary for the new residents. But despite there being a 20 MPH speed limit, this is NOT policed and a considerable number of rat run drivers pass at more than twice this speed, even when the road had flooded, causing bow waves in excess of 2 metres at times washing OVER my neighbour's fence, s . The houses are close to a blind bend and opposite a road junction where parking should be banned.

This proposal is merely a cosmetic adjustment to the previous application, DC/062122, which was rejected. I submit this also be rejected.”

A resident of 45 Grasmere Road objects to the application (28/06/16) on the following grounds:  The plans are almost identical to the previous proposals that were refused.  “Buildings are too high and will restrict light to surrounding properties”  “Page 2, paragraph 3 - your context mentions two/three storey semi detached houses in the surrounding area. This is incorrect - there are none in the vicinity”  “I will have three houses situated to my left crammed into what used to be one plot. My privacy will be affected. There will be extra cars on the road (which is on a bend) as there will be no garages and only room for one car for off road parking. The driveway does not appear adequate to provide enough parking which will mean more cars on the road.”  “There will be a bin store at the front of the property which is not in keeping with the area.”  “I bought my house in 1978 because of the detached houses on the estate and for the privacy, which I have enjoyed since. One extra detached house would be acceptable, but not three into one existing plot. I would now effectively be part of a block of four houses which would ultimately devalue my property and affect my privacy.” A resident of 11 The Tarns objects to the development (23/06/16) on the following grounds:

 “they are still three storey high well above all surrounding properties and will stop natural light onto other properties within the vicinity”  “parking spaces are limited to one small car only per property a lot less than any neighbours drives”  “all surrounding houses are detached and no semi-detached properties as proposed and would be out of character for the area”  “the developer if decided to go ahead with construction would be a detached property and not a three storey building for consideration”  “car parking is still a concern as this would end up on road parking on the bend in the road a possible hazard Trusting the above to be to requirements”

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

SMBC Environmental Health (Pollution Prevention) – No response to date but comments on the previous application (Ref: DC/061665) remain relevant:

No objection but recommends that an informative be added to any consent as follows:

 Construction hours are:

07.30-18.00 Mondays-Fridays 08.00-12.30 Saturdays

 No noisy working audible beyond the boundary Sundays and Bank Holidays  No burning to take place on site.

SMBC Environmental Health (Contamination) – No objection subject to conditions requiring investigation and remediation if necessary.

United Utilities – No response to date but comments on the previous application (Ref: DC/061665) remain relevant:

In accordance with the NPPF the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way.

SMBC Arboriculture – No response to date but comments on the previous application (Ref: DC/061665) remain relevant: No objection but conditions recommended.

SMBC Highways Engineer – A driveway is shown for each property. The driveway widths shown are each 2.6 metres, and would be separated by a fence. The driveway widths are less than the 3.3 metre recommended by Stockport Council; however, there appears to be scope to widen the driveways to the required width. The driveway length for House 2 is a minimum of 5m which is less than the 5.5m recommended by Stockport Council, however we are willing to accept a compromise in this instance. The driveway length for House 1 is 5.5m.

The SHLAA database confirms that the application site has an accessibility score of 36, which is greater than the minimum value required for housing. Census data suggests that car ownership in the area is between 1.38 and 1.62 per household.

The front doors to the properties would be adjacent to the driveways. Doors would also be provided to the side elevations to the properties. For House 2, the side path width does not appear to be sufficient to facilitate disabled access to the side door. This is likely to be commented upon by building control.

Refuse bins and bicycles would be stored along the side path to each house. The storage of bicycles and refuse bins along the side path for House 2 is likely to lead to operational difficulties due to the restricted available width. Stockport Council’s requirement to provide bicycle storage within covered and secure facilities should remove this issue.

The location of the application site in relation to the curvature of Grasmere Road, as well as the presence of boundary treatment to adjacent properties, has the potential to constrain achievable visibility from the driveways. However, visibility splays of 2m x 33m are achievable in to the left (to the centre-line of carriageway) and to the right, which are appropriate for this environment. Recommendation: No highways objection, in principle, subject to the following conditions:

No development shall take place until a detailed drawing of the site’s access arrangements, which shall include details of pedestrian and vehicular visibility splays to be provided at each driveway, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the accesses have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and are available for use. No structure, object, plant or tree exceeding 600mm in height shall subsequently be erected or allowed to grow to a height in excess of 600mm within the pedestrian visibility splays. No structure, object, plant or tree exceeding 1000mm in height shall subsequently be erected or allowed to grow to a height in excess of 1000mm within the vehicular visibility splays. Reason: In order that the site will benefit from safe and practical access arrangements in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

No development shall take place until details of proposals to provide a long-stay cycle parking facilities for the approved dwellings (which shall be in the form of a covered and secure cycle store that will accommodate a minimum of one cycle for each dwelling) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the cycle parking facilities has been provided in accordance with the approved details. The cycle parking facilities shall then be retained and shall remain available for use at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure that safe and practical cycle parking facilities are provided so as to ensure that the site is fully accessible by all modes of transport in accordance with Policies CS9 ‘Transport and Development’, T-1 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD and the cycle parking facilities are appropriately designed and located in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by paragraph 5.6, ‘Cycle Parking’, of the SMBC Transport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD.

No development shall take place until details of the drainage and surfacing of the approved driveway / amended driveway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied / the driveway shall not be brought into use until the driveway has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. The driveway shall then be retained and remain available for use for parking at all times thereafter, Reason: To ensure that adequate and useable parking facilities are provided in accordance with Polices SD-6 ‘Adapting to the impacts of climate change’, SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, T-1 Transport and Development’, and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

ANALYSIS

The principal matters relevant to this application are considered to be whether the principle of new housing development is acceptable in this location; whether the design is of a sufficiently high quality; whether access arrangements are adequate and safe; whether adequate standards of amenity would be maintained and whether other environmental impacts are acceptable; and when assessed a whole, whether the development constitutes sustainable development.

The principle of the development

As Stockport does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply (last assessed as equating to a 4.2 year supply in April 2015), paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF apply.

Policy H2 seeks to phase the supply of housing across the Borough over the plan period by prioritising and focusing development in the most sustainable locations and those in greatest need of regeneration, including sites with an accessibility score of 50+. Importantly, paragraph 3.117 of the policy states that in the absence of a five year housing supply, housing development in less accessible and sustainable locations such as this will be supported – the minimum accessibility score for new houses now supported in the context of the current undersupply is 34/100 and the application site scores 36/100. Policy H2 also requires 80% of new housing development to be located on previously developed land. Currently, this target is being comfortably exceeded (90%+) and the proposed development would not materially alter this position so no conflict with the development plan arises. The principle of new housing development on the site is therefore considered to be in accordance with development plan policies CS4 and H2 and due weight should be given to the small but valuable contribution the development would make to address the need for additional housing in Stockport.

Design

Development plan policies H1, SIE1 and the Design of Residential Development SPD all require the design of new residential development to be of an appropriately high quality and respond positively to townscape character and local distinctiveness. This local policy requirement is supported and reinforced by the NPPF.

As detailed above, multiple objections to the application have been received from local residents on design grounds with most objectors arguing that the form and height of the proposed houses fail to respect the context set by the site’s surroundings. The proposed building would be the only pair of semi-detached houses and the only three storey building in this suburban residential area - all other dwellings are detached and limited in height to a typical two-storey domestic scale. In response to this and the previous reasons for refusal, the applicant has revised the proposed design to reduce the overall height of the building and ensure its form and appearance better reflects and complements the design of the adjacent single, detached dwellinghouses. This ensures that the proposed design respects the site’s townscape context, character and topography in accordance with Policies H1 and SIE1 and the NPPF, despite being the only semi-detached building in the area. The proposed palette of materials, subject to the approval of further details, are considered to be of a suitably high quality that complement the materials used on other houses in the street-scene.

The inclusion of front and rear gardens of a suitable and useable size is supported and considered to be in general accordance with the Council’s standards set out in the Design of Residential Development SPD. The minimum amount of useable private outdoor amenity space required by the SPD for 3 bedroom dwellings is 75m2 and although the proposed rear gardens would be slightly below this standard at 73m2 and 74m2 the standard was imposed to ensure sufficient space is provided for future extensions as well as useable outdoor space. Given the restricted amount of private amenity space proposed and separation distances between the proposed houses and properties to the rear (houses on The Tarns – see below for further commentary) it is considered necessary to impose a condition on any planning permission removing permitted development rights to prevent any extensions being built without the express consent of the local planning authority. Subject to such a condition it is considered that no conflict with policy would arise.

In terms of landscaping, the proposals incorporate front gardens with tree and shrub planting in the front and rear gardens to further soften the appearance of the proposed new dwelling. The site plan also suggests that a fence would be erected to separate the driveways of the proposed dwellings. Given the general absence of front boundary and plot fences and semi-detached houses on the estate, such an addition would fail to respect the open-plan character of the area, and therefore it is recommended that conditions be attached to any consent requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed landscaping plan including details of all hard surfaces, plot and boundary treatments and the removal of permitted development rights relating to the erection of walls, fencing and means of enclosure to retain the area’s open character.

Finally, it is noted that sufficient space is provided at the side and rear of the houses to store bins in an ‘out of sight’ position ensuring will no harm to the quality of the street- scene.

Given the above, it is considered that the applicant has successfully overcome the previous reasons for refusal such that the revised development is considered to be in accordance with policies H1, SIE1, the NPPF and the Design of Residential Development SPD.

Access Pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed houses would be from Grasmere Road with both houses benefitting from driveways providing one off-street parking space per dwelling. Following a series of revisions to the submitted plans, the proposed driveways are now large enough to accommodate both a single parked car and pedestrian access routes to front doors. The provision of only one off-street car parking space per dwelling is likely to generate some on-street parking given the levels of car ownership in the area and the distance to regular public transport services, however, despite the concerns raised by local residents, it is considered that there is scope to park safely on-street without causing severe highway issues. This conclusion is supported by the Council’s Senior Highway Engineer (see above) who recommends that a series of conditions be added to any planning permission to ensure adequate pedestrian visibility splays are provided, driveways are adequately drained and available for car parking at all times, and covered and secure cycle parking facilities are provided.

It should be noted that the proposed plans include pedestrian access paths at the side of the dwellings large enough to accommodate bins and cycles.

Subject to the imposition of conditions the application is considered to be in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies in accessibility terms despite the concerns of local residents.

Amenity

The applicant has positively responded to the amenity reasons for refusal on the previous application. The location of habitable room windows has been amended to ensure that the Council’s adopted space and separation standards, as set out in the Design of Residential Development SPD, are achieved. These standards require that for three storey dwellings, a minimum separation distance of 28 metres between rear facing habitable room windows is achieved. The specified distance is 3 metres greater than the standard for two storey dwellings to take account of the greater scope for overlooking and the intensification of the impact that additional height generates. In response, the applicant has removed all second floor, rear-facing habitable room windows from the building whilst a policy compliant minimum distance of 25m between first floor, rear- facing, habitable room windows is achieved.

A single front-facing habitable room window lighting a bedroom is located in the front elevation of ‘House 2’ (adjacent to 47A Grasmere Road). The minimum separation distance between front facing second floor habitable room windows is 24 metres which would not be achieved. Nonetheless, it is considered that no undue loss of privacy would arise as:

 A distance of 21m would be achieved that largely mirrors the distances between windows in adjacent dwellings that are at similar heights  the window does not directly overlook habitable room windows - it faces the Kentmere Close highway The Design of Residential Development SPD specifies these separation standards and acknowledges that some flexibility is required in their application to respond appropriately to local character. No conflict with policy is therefore considered to arise.

There are also second floor, habitable room windows in the side elevation of ‘House 1’ adjacent to 47 Grasmere Road. This would face the roof and side elevation of 47 Grasmere Road but as no habitable room windows are located at the side of this house (as confirmed on site and by floor plans on an estate agent website) no undue loss of privacy would arise. There are also windows in the side elevations of the proposed houses at first floor level serving non-habitable shower rooms. If planning permission were granted it would be necessary to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents by imposing a condition requiring those first-floor windows to be obscure glazed. Ground floor habitable room windows are also proposed on the front, side and rear elevations all of which either comply with the Council’s separation standards, or where they don’t, no undue loss of privacy would arise due to the presence of boundary fences and treatments that would remove any clear lines of sight.

It is considered necessary to impose a condition preventing balconies or terraces from being created at first floor level on the proposed flat roof outriggers to protect residential amenity.

Residents’ representations have also argued that the height of the proposed building will unduly restrict daylight and sunlight reaching their homes and gardens. Whilst impacts would clearly be perceptible, it is not considered that the proposed building would generate significant adverse impacts due to the position and orientation of the buildings concerned.

Development plan policies H1 and SIE1 and the Design of Residential Development SPD require new residential developments to provide good standards of amenity and privacy for existing and future residents whilst Paragraph 17 of the NPPF makes clear that a core land use planning principle is to “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. For the reasons outlined above and subject to conditions, it is considered that this revised proposal satisfies these policy requirements such that no conflict with policy arises.

Other matters

This part of Stockport is affected by noise from air traffic using Manchester Airport and therefore adequate mitigation needs to be included to ensure satisfactory living conditions are achieved. This should be secured through the imposition of planning condition(s) attached to any approval.

A number of objections have been received on the grounds that there is a covenant that prevents the erection of front boundary structures. Land ownership issues relating to compliance with covenants are private, civil matters and not enforced by the statutory planning system. Nonetheless, the imposition of conditions will provide adequate control and prevent such structures being erected.

A number of objections have been received from residents raising concerns about the capacity of the local drainage network and its ability to serve further housing. As can be seen from the response of United Utilities, there is no objection to the creation of foul water connections to the public sewer whilst condition(s) should be imposed to any grant of planning permission to adequately ensure suitable and sustainable surface water drainage solutions are delivered.

In respect of the potential for construction related nuisances to be created during construction, given the very limited scale of the development, it is not considered necessary or proportionate to require a construction management plan and should any problems occur environmental health powers such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974 would provide adequate redress. Nonetheless, it is recommended that an informative be added to any approval setting out the Council’s standard hours of construction:

Any works which can be heard outside the site boundary must only be carried out between:

 Monday to Friday - 07.30am – 6.00pm  Saturday - 08.00am – 12.30 hrs  Sundays, Public & Bank Holidays - No noisy working audible from the site boundary

Finally, it is important to note that the impact of development on property values is not a material planning consideration.

Summary - ‘Sustainable Development’

The development will make a small but nonetheless valuable contribution to addressing the shortage of new housing in Stockport whilst delivering a high quality design solution that ensures the amenity of neighbouring residents is protected. It is not considered that highway safety would be compromised.

Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the development plan and NPPF for the reasons set out in the report and therefore Paragraph 14 of NPPF requires the development to be approved without delay.

Conclusion/Reasons

In considering the planning merits against the NPPF as a whole, the proposal represents sustainable development and therefore Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the application be granted subject to conditional control. RECOMMENDATION

Grant

Cheadle Area Committee Comments (31/1/17) The planning officer presented the report to committee.

One person spoke against the proposal stating that his, and other objector’s views, had not changed to those presented under the previous application at the site reference DC/061665 which had been refused permission in 2016. He stated that the design had not changed significantly, the dwelling was still 3 storeys and this resulted in an overbearing development. The proposal was too high, had not enough space around it, was unacceptable in respect of parking provision and would have an unsafe impact on highway safety in the area. The proposal was also considered inappropriate because it wasn’t a detached property and there was not a precedent for such semi-detached developments based on the prevailing detached property character of the area.

Cllrs debated the application and discussed that there was a need for a site visit so that a full appreciation of the site and the proposed development could be given particularly to assess the impact of the proposal in the streetscene. Committee resolved that a site visit should therefore be undertaken by the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee visiting team.