Application Reference: DC/063049 Location: Land Within and North of Woodbank Memorial Park, Turncroft Lane, Stockport, SK1 4JR

Application Reference: DC/063049 Location: Land Within And North Of Woodbank Memorial Park, Turncroft Lane, Stockport, SK1 4JR.

Proposal: The laying out and construction of a proposed new bridleway/cycleway between Stockport Road West and Dark Lane, a new footbridge across the River Goyt and a new cycleway/ footway within Woodbank Park, including landscaping. Type of Full Planning Permission Application: Registration Date: 25/08/2016 Expiry Date: 24/11/2016 Case Officer: Karyn Clarke

Applicant: Transport Policy, SMBC Agent : AECOM

COMMITTEE STATUS Planning and Highways Regulation Committee. The application site straddles the boundaries of Central Stockport Area Committee and Werneth Area Committee and is placed on both area committee agendas.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application proposes: the construction of a foot/cycle bridge across the River Goyt providing a link into Woodbank Memorial Park from the north of the river; A new bridleway/cycleway to the north of the River Goyt linking Stockport Road West with Dark Lane in Bredbury and the new foot/cycle bridge; A new shared cycleway /footway to the south of the River Goyt through Woodbank Park linking the new foot/cycle bridge with existing pathways within the Park; A ramp to the south easterly end of Annable Road incorporating a proposed gabion basket wall; Timber post and four rail fencing at various points along the new bridleway/cycleway/footway; Two speed reduction barrier systems on the new shared cycleway/footway within Woodbank Memorial Park Proposed mitigation planting will look to replace any trees that would be removed to facilitate the proposed scheme, in agreement with the Council’s own landscape team.

The application was accompanied by the following documents:

Planning Statement including a Design and Access Statement; Heritage Statement; Arboricultural Assessment; Ecology Appraisal; Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy; Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Report; Badger Survey; Tree Survey

The applicant states that the proposed development is required in order to provide a quiet and attractive commuter and leisure route pedestrians, cyclists and partially for equestrians. The predominantly off carriageway cycle route will extend the current designated cycle route between the town centre and Vernon Park to Woodley avoiding the sometimes congested distributor (Stockport Road West).

Furthermore, the proposed development will provide links into Romiley via Clapgate and Otterspool/Chadkirk and Marple via Otterspool and the Connect 2 cycle route. The extended cycle routes will allow cyclists to avoid Stockport Road West, Marple Road, Offerton Lane and Hall Street. Each of these cycle routes will provide safer routes off main carriageways and potential travel planning benefits to companies based in Pear and Welkin Mills, as well as supplying leisure opportunities to businesses in the local area including Bredbury Hall staff and patrons and the wider community.

There is currently a missing link in the National Cycle Network (NCN) between routes 55 and 62 (the Trans Pennine Trail). The proposed development will connect these two routes. NCN Route 55 (Ironbridge to Preston) currently ends at Dark Lane and restarts at Penny Lane/Lancashire Hill. The proposed development provides an off road connection for this national route, as well as linking with NCN 62.

Using the bridge proposed over the River Goyt to enter Woodbank Park will also provide links to Stockport Civic Centre via the St Mary’s Way Bridge and also link to the south of the town centre. It will also provide a link to the existing cycle route through the park which provides connectivity towards Offerton.

The proposed development will contribute towards overcoming severance of the walking, cycling and equestrian networks in and around the Goyt Valley. Also, residential area in and around the proposed development will be connected to each other and to Stockport town centre through the enhancement of sustainable transport measures.

The proposed development will also encourage a modal shift in terms of encouraging the use of sustainable transport measures, which should help to reduce the general traffic congestion in the area. More people will be able to access significant areas greenspace as part of the proposed development through providing access to Woodbank Park from the north of the River Goyt.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site comprises an area of approx. 5ha, including land within Woodbank Memorial Park and in particular Cow Lane, a surfaced track bounded by tree which lies to the east of Woodbank Hall (a Grade II* Listed Building) and slopes down towards the meadow fields. To the north lies the River Goyt separated from the meadow field by a line of mature woodland. Mature trees line the river embankments to both sides and to the edges of the meadow. Two 18th century tunnels run below the park and open out into the river bank.

Beyond the river, to the north lies an electricity substation and Pear Mill and its car park is located to the west accessed from Stockport Road East. This area of land is currently private and there is no public access from the eastern edge of Pear Mill as far as the public footpath at Annable Road. To the north east lie residential development and a public footpath runs from the south eastern end of Annable Road and Doric Avenue (cul-de-sacs) in an easterly direction along the western boundary with Bredbury Hall leading out along the edge of Daisyfield Recreation Ground and Dark Lane further east.

The proposed scheme passes through Woodbank Park which is designated as a Grade B Site of Biological Interest (SBI) and a Local Nature Reserve (LNR). It is also located approximately 15m from Vernon Road Wood SBI (which is the other side of Dark Lane, at the eastern extent of the scheme boundary.

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 site lies in the green belt and within a Landscape Character Area as shown on the proposal map of the UDP Review. Woodbank Park is designated as a Grade B Site of Biological Interest (SBI) and a Local Nature Reserve (LNR). A small portion of the application site is also allocated as Local Open Space (Dairyfield Recreation Ground).

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 GBA1.1 - Extent of Green Belt; GBA1.2 - Control of Development in the Green Belt UOS1.3 - Protection of Local Open Space; NE1.1 – Sites of special Nature Conservation Importance; NE1.2 - Sites of Nature Conservation Importance; NE1.3 - Protection and Enhancement of Green Chains; L1.7 – Recreation Routes: Maintenance and Expansion of Network; L1.8 – Strategic Recreation Routes; L1.11 – Development Related to Recreation Routes; LCR1.1 -Landscape Character Areas; LCR1.1a – The Urban Fringe Including the River Valleys; EP1.7 – Development and Flood Risk;

LDF Core Strategy/Development Management policies CS5 Core Policy ‘Access to Services; CS6 Core Policy ‘Safeguarding and Strengthening the Service Centre Hierarchy’; Development Management Policy SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’; Development Management Policy SIE-3 "Protecting Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment"; CS8 Core Policy ‘Safeguarding and Improving the Environment’; Development Management Policy AS1 ‘The Vitality and Viability of Stockport’s Service Centres’; CS10 Core Policy ‘An Effective and Sustainable Transport Network’; Development Management Policy T-1 ‘Transport and Development’;

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.

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 129 states “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal”.

Paragraph 132 states “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional”.

Paragraph 135 states: “The effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset”.

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)”.

PLANNING HISTORY None of relevance.

NEIGHBOURS VIEWS The owner/occupiers of neighbouring properties have been notified by letter and the proposal has been advertised as a major development and a departure from the development plan by site and press notice. The consultation period has closed.

To date 5 letters of objection have been received and 2 responses from The Friends of Woodbank and Vernon Parks and the Stockport Buildings Preservation Trust who assert the following: loss of protected trees; Loss of habitat for wild animals; Affect on the bat population; Loss of privacy; Increase in noise pollution from Bredbury Hall and people using the facility, especially illegal use by off road motorbikes. Increase in light pollution from Bredbury Hall, if trees are removed; Lack of maintenance of the facility. Increase in antisocial behaviour behind the residential houses, vandalism break-ins and youths drinking alcohol. Increase in traffic on Annabel road/surrounding areas Destruction of protected trees; Decrease in property value; Loss of privacy and organic outlook; Concerns over the steep terrain of Cow Lane and potential danger to pedestrians from cyclists as visibility is poor. Organised groups who use the park will feel intimidated by faster moving traffic; Increase use by cyclists could put people off using the park for recreational purposes; Cow Lane surface will attract BMX’s and skateboards; Concerns that the route is now referred to as a leisure route and not a commuter route; Cyclists unlikely to use the route in dark mornings/evenings in inclement weather; As track would be unlit it will not be safe; How ill emergency vehicles access the meadow if chicanes are locked; Concerns over drainage and flooding in the meadow form existing collapsed drains; What alternative arrangements are available for access if Cow Lane is closed; What arrangements for signposting have been proposed – it should conform to a design standard across the park; Concerns over the increase in night time vandalism, theft and arson within the park since the park is general unsupervised; Public safety issues arising out of increased riverbank access so could security fencing be placed across the tunnel entrances in the park; Could the tunnel entrances be marked with appropriate historical and engineering information as an education feature of the route; Insufficient expert survey has been carried out on the historic landscape and associated engineering infrastructure to guarantees its safety and welfare before and during the works.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer I raise no objection to this application which seeks permission to construct a new bridleway/cycleway between Stockport Road West and Dark Lane, a new footbridge across the River Goyt and a new cycleway / footway within Woodbank Park, which is part of a wider package of highway improvements that are proposed to be carried out in and around Stockport Town Centre. The proposed route will provide pedestrians and cyclists with a safe off-road route between Offerton / central Stockport and Lower Bredbury, providing an alternative route to the well-trafficked A560. In addition, as it will connect to other existing paths / routes in the area, it will tie in with these paths to provide a safe and practical route to Romiley, Bredbury, Woodley, Marple and beyond, thus encouraging cycle in and around Stockport. As such, the scheme should prove a positive benefit to the local highway network and encourage sustainable travel.

Recommendation: No objection

Healthy Planning This is an extremely important part of the active travel network which is essential to promote healthy travel and thereby improve air quality, reduce congestion, and address heart disease, mental health, osteoporosis, diabetes and obesity.

I very strongly support this planning application.

Planning Policy

Green Belt comments The proposal is for the laying out and construction of a proposed new bridleway/cycleway between Stockport Road West and Dark Lane, a new footbridge across the River Goyt and a new cycleway/ footway within Woodbank Park, including landscaping.

The proposed development is located within the Greater Manchester Green Belt. The proposal is therefore subject, in particular, to paragraphs 79, 81, 87,88, 89 and 90 of the NPPF and GBA 1.2 ( Control of Development in the Green Belt).

Rights of Way Circular (1/09) Guidance for Local Authorities sets out that in areas where rights of way are fragmented, new links between existing routes would provide a more extensive and useful local network than exists at present. In order to meet the Government’s aim of better provision for cyclists, equestrians and walkers, highway authorities need to understand the use and demand for rights of way. This proposal fulfils the Governments aims and objectives for Rights of Way.

Core Policy CS 10 (An Effective and Sustainable Transport Network) aims to ensure that the walking and cycling networks in the borough are as continuous and safe as possible and there will be an emphasis on providing connections across severances caused my major roads , railways an rivers.

UDP Review Policy L.5 (Countryside Recreation) outlines how the council will seek to improve access to countryside recreation opportunities and will continue to support the Trans Pennine Trail.

Paragraph 81 of the NPPF emphasises that local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. The proposal will be help facilitate recreation through providing linkages to the existing cycling and Rights of Way network thereby helping satisfy the ethos of paragraph 81.

Paragraph 90 from the NPPF sets out that there are certain ‘other forms of development’ which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location which are ‘not inappropriate’ in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt some of these exemptions are ‘engineering operations’ and ‘local transport infrastructure'. The proposed works falls within these categories , however in order to be considered ‘not inappropriate’, regard should be had to the impact on openness, which is dealt with below.

Openness and other harm At a local level, development in the Green Belt is dealt with under UDP Policy Review GBA 1.2 ‘Control of Development in the Green Belt’. This policy allows for certain forms of development in the Green Belt providing they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF emphasises how the Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt and how the essential characteristics of the Green Belt are its openness and permanence. The bridge across the River Goyt that forms part of the scheme would be 1.4m in height , 60.9m in length and 3m wide and located across a relatively flat topography . The bridge is noted as having the main visual impact from the proposed development , from the accompanying Landscape and Visual Impact assessment. For the reasons outlined , it is considered that this element of the proposal would have an impact on openness. Paragraph 87 sets out that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’.

Other harm NPPF paragraph 79 refers to the need to consider other harm when determining whether ‘very special circumstances’ might be held to be of sufficient weight to justify otherwise inappropriate development. Caselaw (Redhill Aerodrome Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1386, Sullivan, Tomlinson, Lewison LJJ) has established that the phrase “and any other harm” means any harm, not only harm the Green Belt. It is important to note, therefore, that the site also falls within the Goyt Valley Landscape Character Area, which is an important recreational and ecological resource to Stockport and as such is subject to ‘saved’ UDP Review policy LCR1.1 and LCR1.1a. These policies jointly seek to protect and enhance the landscape and environmental character of the valley.

The proposal passes through Woodbank Memorial Park Site of Biological Interest (SBI) and Local Nature Reserve (LNR) , the Goyt River Geological Site and Vernon Road Wood (SBI) and is therefore subject to NE1.1 ‘Sites of Special Nature Conservation Importance’ this sets out that Development which would destroy or adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the natural or wildlife value of a LNR will not be permitted unless there is a justification for carrying out development in that particular area which overrides any harm to the substantial nature conservation value of these sites. UDP Review Policy NE1.2 ‘Sites of Nature Conservation Importance’, is also of relevance regarding the Geological site and SBI, this policy states that development should seek to secure the continuing viability of the habitat or wildlife habitat of the site. The potential harm to the LNR, SBI and Geological site will be covered in further detail within the nature conservation officer’s response and should be taken on board when considering ‘other harm to the Green Belt’.

Paragraph 88 sets out that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Special Circumstances Neither local nor national policy specify what demonstrating a case for ‘very special circumstances’ should entail but there is considerable case law which suggests that adhering to the following approach is likely to be suitable: 1. Identify (with evidence) an essential objective that the proposal is intended to meet; 2. Demonstrate that that essential objective could not reasonably be met in a less harmful way (i.e. consideration of other sites outside of the Green Belt or alternative sites within the Green Belt but where less harm would be caused or which would amount to a form of development excepted by NPPF paragraph 89) 3. Demonstrate that the proposed development would meet the essential objective and that doing so clearly outweighs the degree of harm caused by the proposal (this should include demonstrating that the essential objective could not be achieved less harmfully by an alternative scheme at the same site).

It is accepted that in terms of very special circumstances, the sole purpose of this application is to facilitate the Stockport Town Centre Access plan (TCAP) and that this is the most appropriate and sustainable method of achieving this. The overall aim of the STCAP is for ‘An integrated transport investment strategy to tackle congestion and barriers to movement in Stockport town centre to support and enhance the local economy , provide access to jobs , improve community wellbeing and create a vibrant town centre’. It is considered that ‘very special circumstances’ do exist , which are referenced below;

· The bridge would be helping fill a missing link in a National Cycle network (NCN) (the Trans Pennine trail) , thereby fulfilling the Governments aims and objectives for Rights of Way and Core Strategy Policy CS 10 ‘ An Effective and Sustainable Transport Network’ · The bridge would ensure the delivery of key components of STCAP · More people will be able to access the significant area of greenspace through providing access to Woodbank Memorial park from the north of the River Goyt, thereby creating an inherent part of Green Infrastructure · Development within the Green Belt is considered to be the only option for the bridge, alternative locations were ruled out due to excess damage that would be caused to the woodland habitat within the SBI/LNR · It will provide a quiet and attractive commuter and leisure route for pedestrians, cyclists and partially for equestrians from the town centre to surrounding ares of the borough

Concluding comments Taking account of the above, the scheme would represent development which has very special circumstances identified and has benefits which are a consideration which would outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt, caused by the increase in openness. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if all possible harm to the Green Belt can be ruled out (refer to comments from Nature Conservation officer) the proposal is compliant with the relevant sections of the NPPF.

On balance, the scheme is considered to accord with the NPPF, however UDP Policy GBA1.2 does not allow for forms of development which do not maintain openness. For this reason, the application should be advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.

Nature Development Officer Re: Land Within and North of Woodbank Park Thank you for your request for comments on the biodiversity implications of the above application. Having considered the available information, I have the following comments to make:

Site Context The site is located north and within Woodbank Memorial Park. Proposals are for a new bridleway/cyclepath between Stockport Road West and Dark Lane, a new footbridge over the River Goyt and a new cycleway/footpath in Woodbank Park, together with associated landscaping.

Legislative and Policy Framework Nature Conservation Designations The proposed scheme passes through Woodbank Park which is designated as a Grade B Site of Biological Interest (SBI) and a Local Nature Reserve (LNR). It is also located approximately 15m from Vernon Road Wood SBI (which is the other side of Dark Lane, at the eastern extent of the scheme boundary. Some of the woodland within the designated sites is ancient woodland, and is identified as a habitat of principle importance under the NERC Act 2006. Other areas of woodland, hedgerows, grassland and the river corridor, all of which offer value to biodiversity would be impacted by the proposed scheme.

Legally Protected Species An ecological assessment has been carried out and submitted with the application. This involved assessing the habitats present and their potential to support protected species. The surveys were carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist and were undertaken in February, March, May and July 2016.

Many trees have the potential to support roosting bats. All species of bats and their roosts are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The latter implements the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Bats are included in Schedule 2 of the Regulations as ‘European Protected Species of animals’ (EPS). Under the Regulations it is an offence to: 1) Deliberately capture or kill a wild EPS 2) Deliberately disturb a wild EPS in such a way that significantly affects: a) the ability of a significant group to survive, breed, rear or nurture young. b) the local distribution of that species. 3) Damage or destroy a breeding place or resting site of such an animal. Trees were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. No suitable roosting features were identified. It should be noted that access to sub-station land was no possible due to land access restrictions, and so survey could only take place from a distance, however, tree cover here is low and previous ecological survey work within this site (2012 as part of planning application DC054135) assessed the trees present here as offering negligible potential to support roosting bats. It is recommended that this survey information is updated to ensure no significant changes in this assessment. Habitats within the site (e.g. trees, hedgerows and the River Goyt provide high quality habitat for foraging and commuting bats.

The trees, hedgerows and other vegetation within the application area offer suitable bird nesting habitat. All breeding birds and their nests receive protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

The River Goyt was assessed for its potential to support riparian mammals (otter and water vole). It is considered to offer suitable habitat for otter, however no signs indicative of otter presence were recorded during the survey. Otters receive the same level of legal protection as bats (outlined above)

Evidence of badgers (including a main sett and two outlier setts, evidence of foraging and mammal pathways) was recorded within the survey area during the 2016 surveys and during 2012 surveys as part of a previous planning application (DC054135). Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This makes it an offence to kill or injure a badger, damage or destroy a badger sett or obstruct access to it, or disturb a badger in it. The ecological assessment report indicates that the setts will not be lost as a result of the scheme, however, impacts on the main sett could not be fully assessed due to access restrictions. At the very least, the setts will be subject to disturbance impacts and as such appropriate mitigation will be essential and a licence from Natural England will likely be required.

Invasive Species Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam have been recorded in various locations within the application site. Rhododendron is also present within the woodland. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence to plant or otherwise cause these invasive species to spread in the wild.

LDF Core Strategy Core Policy CS8 Safeguarding and Improving the Environment Green Infrastructure Refer to 3.286

Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Refer to 3.296

DEVELOPMENT MANAGMENT POLICY SIE-3 A) Protecting the Natural Environment Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment Refer to 3.345, 3.346, 3.347, 3.361, 3.362, 3.363, 3.364, 3.365, 3.366, 3.367, 3.368 and 3.369 Stockport’s Unitary Development Plan (Retained Policy) Refer to NE1.1 and NE1.2

Recommendations: No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the surveys however I would recommend that a Reasonable Avoidance Method Statement is prepared and submitted to the LPA for approval, detailing how trees will be felled to prevent harming any bats that may be present (e.g. soft felling ) –as outlined in the ecological assessment report. This should be secured by condition. In addition, it is recommended that update surveys to assess bat roost potential of trees to be impacted within substation land are carried out. This assessment should be undertaken prior to determination of the application to ensure that impacts on protected species are fully assessed. The findings of the badger survey indicate that badgers will be subject to disturbance impacts as a result of the proposals. Impacts on the main sett could not be fully assessed due to land access restrictions. An update pre-works badger survey should therefore be carried out prior to determination of the application to allow impacts to be fully assessed and appropriate mitigation to be developed (as outlined in the 2016 badger survey report). The requirement for the survey information prior to determination of the application is in line with national and local planning policy and is reinforced by legal cases which emphasise the duty the local planning authority has to fully consider protected species when determining planning applications.

This survey data will also inform any licensing requirements. A method statement providing details of mitigation measures to minimise potential impacts to badgers within the application area (including any fencing required to be sensitively designed so as not disturb/disrupt badger access) should be prepared and submitted to the LPA for approval prior to any works commencing.

No tree felling/pruning or vegetation clearance works should take place during the bird nesting season (which is typically March-August inclusive) unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA.

All retained trees and hedgerows should be adequately protected from any adverse impacts of the proposed development, following British Standards, and in agreement with the relevant Council Arboriculture Officer.

A condition should be attached to any planning permission granted to state that the spread of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and Rhododendron will be avoided In addition, a Method Statement detailing the management, treatment and eradication of these invasive species should be submitted to the LPA for approval prior to any development commencing.

No evidence of otters was recorded during the ecological surveys. It is recommended however that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted to state that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to abide by the legislation in place to protect biodiversity. If at any time during works, evidence of otters, or any other protected species, is discovered on site, works must stop and Natural England/a suitably experienced ecologist contacted for advice. A detailed landscaping plan should be produced and submitted to the LPA for approval. This should include creation of replacement habitats to compensate for the loss of woodland, grassland, hedgerows, and trees associated with the proposals. Provision for the future management of these habitats should also be included in line with Policy NE1.2 of the retained policies of the UDP. Opportunities for biodiversity enhancements (as outlined in the ecological assessment report) should also be sought within the proposals in line with national and local planning policy. For example, it is advised the proposed retaining wall is ‘greened-up’ to maximise benefits to biodiversity.

A River Protection Plan to protect the River Goyt from any adverse impact of the proposals should be prepared and submitted to the LPA for approval prior to commencement of works. This should follow the principles of the Environment Agency (2007) Pollution Prevention Guidelines 5 (PPG5) in order to reduce the risk of pollution to the watercourse during the proposed works, for example through the release of fuel or waste materials. It should also ensure that the river corridor remains unlit and unobstructed throughout the scheme (both construction and operational phases) to ensure impacts on nocturnal and riparian animals will be minimised.

A Habitat Management Plan should be submitted to the LPA for approval prior to any works commencing. This should include details of how impacts on habitats, particularly the ancient woodland habitat, will be minimised and appropriately mitigated for during works and habitats subsequently managed so as to ensure the integrity of the designated sites is not compromised. The cycle route will improve access to the site and is therefore likely to lead to an increase in visitor numbers to the site. The Habitat Management Plan should therefore also include details of how impacts associated with increased disturbance to the LNR/SBI resulting from increased visitor numbers will be alleviated. A financial contribution from the developer towards the management and enhancement of the habitats within the LNR and SBI sites would be welcomed to mitigate for any disturbance impacts.

Landscape Team (Greenspace) My comments are below:-

Soft Landscape More details are required about the proposed and replacement trees and vegetation, as well as the proposed new habitat creation.

In terms of soft landscape details we require:-

• Name, location, size and planting density of all tree/planting material • Girth and height of the proposed trees • Tree staking methods • Tree pit sizes • Growing medium/topsoil for all proposed landscape areas and trees; including proposed depths of topsoil • Details and depths of proposed mulch to planting beds Conclusion We support this application subject to our requirements and recommendations.

Conservation Officer Comments awaited.

Environment Agency Comments awaited.

GMP Comments awaited.

LLFA - Drainage Team We have assessed the FRA and DS for this planning application and in principle the LLFA, subject to the review of the detailed drainage design proposals, have no objection to the development application.

The following comment should be noted to the planning officer and conditioned in granting planning permission:

1) Where there are no existing positive drainage features the proposal to direct storm water run-off to adjacent areas via infiltration to ground is acceptable to the LLFA. All new positively drained areas will be restricted to green field run-off or maximum 5 l/s if Qbar run-off calculation is less than 5 l/s.

2) The following information is to be submitted for review: • Topography of the development site, showing existing surface water flow routes, drains, sewers and watercourses. • Ground investigation information. • Initial scoping of flood risk issues. • Existing drainage layout showing catchment areas and impermeable areas. • Hydraulic model calculations for the existing drainage system(s) with discharge rates. • Preliminary sustainable drainage proposals. • Results of any internal condition surveys of the existing drainage network. • A plan of the proposed drainage system with new connection / outfall details. • Hydraulic model calculations for the positively drained new areas will be restricted to green field run-off or maximum 5 l/s should Qbar run-off calculations be less than 5 l/s”. • On-site storage requirements.

The last paragraph of section 1.3 of the FRA refers to the proposed link bridge crossing the River Goyt. This states quote, “The minimum soffit level shown is 1.452m above the 1 in 100 year (+20% Climate Change) flood level of 47.6m mOD”. The bridge Engineer when considering his design should be made aware the Environment Agency (EA) have reviewed their former guidance on climate change allowances to be used in Flood Risk Assessments (FRA’s) and have issued a new guidance on of the recent 19 February 2016 which was updated on 12 April 2016. (See Internet link below and attached hard copy which should be forwarded to the bridge design engineer). Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK The former guidance for peak river allowances for FRA’s up to the year 2115 was to increase design figures by 20% for climate change. The new guidance for peak river allowances (refer to Table 1 of above guidance) requires that less vulnerable development in a Flood Zone 3 flood risk assessments should assess both ‘Central’ and ‘Higher Central’ allowances to understand the range of impact. For assessments up to the year 2115 the two new figures for the North West river basin district are 30% and 35% respectively. This effectively means that the new ultimate climate change allowance for FRA assessment has shifted from 20% to 35%. It may be that the EA have not yet prepared updated flood level information based on these new climate change allowances but nevertheless the design engineer should consult with the EA to the likely impact on this proposed bridge soffit level and any river bank modifications required to accommodate the bridge design.

GMAAS Thank you for consulting GMAAS on this proposal. The application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement prepared by AECOM in August 2016. This provides an account of the historic landscape, buildings and their settings in relation to the proposed cycle route. GMAAS welcome the identification of two 18th century tunnels on the river bank and the statement that these have been taken into account and will not be affected by the cycle scheme and new bridge. However, the study fails to fully examine archaeological interest and impacts. It utilises the Stockport Historic Environment Database but the Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record has not been consulted.

The Greater Manchester HER shows two entries that should have been identified as being relevant to the scheme’s impact. A Bronze Age axe hammer was found near Woodbank Hall and there are several other prehistoric finds from the surrounding area. These finds, taken together with evidence from recent archaeological investigations elsewhere in Greater Manchester, suggest that the high ground of Woodbank Park has potential for prehistoric activity and settlement. The other HER entry relates to the early settlement of Bredbury located near Bredbury Hall. In the Domesday Book Uluric is named as holding "Bretberie" prior to the Norman Conquest as a free man. The place name suggests a fortified site and it is quite possible that an Anglo-Saxon settlement was located here close to the river. Disturbance of ground for the cycle way foundations close to Bredbury Hall may reveal evidence for this settlement.

The application would have benefited from a more detailed study of archaeological interests, which would have been in keeping with NPPF paragraph 128 and also Stockport MBC Core Strategy policy SIE-3. However, it is accepted that the impact on current ground levels and therefore potential archaeology interest is limited mainly to new sections of laid path and the bridge construction. GMAAS recommend that the best way to mitigate for impact on potential archaeological remains is to have an archaeological watching brief during ground works for new sections of path and bridge. This would comprise an archaeologist being present during ground excavation and making a record of features and finds of archaeological interest. A contingency should be factored in case significant remains or finds are revealed that require more detailed investigation. A report will be produced on the results and the archive deposited with Stockport Museums Service. The archaeological works should be secured through a condition attached to planning consent. The condition should be worded as follows:

No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. The works are to be undertaken in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) submitted to and approved in writing by Stockport Planning Authority. The WSI shall cover the following: 1. A phased programme and methodology of investigation and recording to include: - an archaeological watching brief 2. A programme for post investigation assessment to include: - analysis of the site investigation records and finds - production of a final report on the significance of the below-ground archaeological interest. 3. Provision for publication and dissemination of the analysis and report on the site investigations commensurate with their significance. 5. Provision for archive deposition of the report, finds and records of the site investigation. 6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the approved WSI.

Reason: In accordance with NPPF Section 12, Paragraph 141 - To record and advance understanding of heritage assets impacted on by the development and to make information about the heritage interest publicly accessible. To record and advance the understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible in accordance with NPPF policy 12, paragraph 141 and SIE-3 "Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment" of the adopted Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

The work should be undertaken by a suitably experienced and qualified archaeological contractor, funded by the applicant, and in accordance with guidance provided by GMAAS who would also monitor the implementation of the works on behalf of Stockport MBC.

Environment Team – Contaminated Land No objection to the proposed development. Recommends the imposition of an informative to any planning consent.

ANALYSIS

Background The road scheme before Members forms one element set out in the Stockport Town Centre Action Plan (TCAP), of which the overall aim is for “An integrated transport investment strategy to tackle congestion and barriers to movement in Stockport town centre to support and enhance the local economy, provide access to jobs, improve community wellbeing and create a vibrant town centre. The 6 key objectives of the TCAP are: Increase employment and generate economic growth; Promote fairness through job creation and the regeneration of local communities; Reduce the impact of traffic congestion; Boost business integration and productivity; Support lower carbon travel and improve well-being; and Improve road safety

This proposal before Committee forms part of the Phase 2 of the plan.

The main issues in consideration of the proposal are impact on the openness of the green belt, impact on the landscape character and woodland, ecology and landscaping, design and safety; drainage and flooding, impact on heritage assets ,

Green Belt and Landscape Character Paragraph 81 of the NPPF emphasises that local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. The proposal will be help facilitate recreation through providing linkages to the existing cycling and Rights of Way network thereby helping satisfy the ethos of paragraph 81.

UDP Policy Review GBA 1.2 ‘Control of Development in the Green Belt’. This policy allows for certain forms of development in the Green Belt providing they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF emphasises how the Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt and how the essential characteristics of the Green Belt are its openness and permanence. The bridge across the River Goyt that forms part of the scheme would be 1.4m in height , 60.9m in length and 3m wide and located across a relatively flat topography . The bridge is noted as having the main visual impact from the proposed development , from the accompanying Landscape and Visual Impact assessment. The proposed siting of the bridge was considered the best option as other locations would have sustained a greater visual impact. For the reasons outlined , it is considered that this element of the proposal would have an impact on openness. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF sets out that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’

NPPF paragraph 79 refers to the need to consider other harm when determining whether ‘very special circumstances’ might be held to be of sufficient weight to justify otherwise inappropriate development

Landscaping and ecology The Nature Development Officer has assessed the ecology and arboricultural appraisals and raises no objection in principle and recommends conditions to require a Method Statement to control tree felling ( to prevent harming any bats which may be present), a River Protection Plan, Habitat Management Plan and a detailed Landscaping Plan. Due to the lack of public access to the northern side of the river around the electricity sub station, the nature development officer recommends to secure further updated habitat surveys in respect of badgers and the bat roost potential of trees to be impacted on within substation land. Notwithstanding it is considered that these additional surveys be conditioned and full mitigation measures and method statements be secured prior to the commencement of the development.

The Greenspace Team support the proposal and recommends that full details in respect of additional tree planting and replacement tree planting are provided. This can be dealt with by condition. A landscaping management plan and full landscaping scheme showing all planting and tree planting will satisfy the provision of RUDP policies NE1.1, NE1.2 and NE1.3 and LCR1.1.

Design and Safety The proposed bridge across the River Goyt measures 1.4m in height , 60.9m in length and 3m wide, constructed using 3 span steel trusses metal structure coloured green with a 1.4m high pedestrian/cycleway parapet set on two stone faced piers. Its design is similar to the bridge over the River Goyt at Chadkirk and to the recently erected pedestrian bridge across St. Mary’s Way. The applicant advises that the length of the bridge has been determined by a requirement for sufficient clearance between the river and the bridge deck to ensure the bridge is not located within the 1 in 100 year flood plain.

It is proposed to construct the bridge from the northern bank of the River Goyt and a plan proposing a haul route has been submitted, which essentially shows the route from the Pear Mill access road to Stockport Road East, and running in a south easterly direction and to the south of the sub-station. The route would be made good and the land restored following completion of the development and this together with the specific detail of its construction can be dealt with through securing a construction methodology statement condition.

The surface treatment to the proposed cycleways/footpaths will comprise Ultitrec which is a bonded surface of a light colour and so will not be visually intrusive nor look incongruous in the parkland/ open space locations and the recreation ground adjacent to Dark Lane so as to accord with CS policy SIE-1. The path and trees would be located to edge of the meadow and recreational fields and so not reduce the available area for outdoor pursuits in accordance with RUDP policy UOS1.3. but are required to be located 4m away from the tree canopy to allow for the maintenance and mowing of grass between the pathway and trees.

The existing route of Cow Lane within Woodbank Park will be surfaced in bitmac and two chicances/speed reduction barriers are proposed at the two bends to restrict vehicular access to the park whilst ensuring access for the park maintenance vehicles to address the concerns have been raised in terms of gradient and speed along the lane. The applicant has indicated a design of the barriers of a galvanised finish with coloured hazard markings but has accepted that the final design will be secured by a planning condition in the interest of visual amenity, public safety and to ensure the character of the park is not unduly harmed. This would concur with the request from the Stockport Buildings Heritage Trust to use sympathetic materials .

The Conservation Officer is satisfied that the widening of Cow Lane to 3m in width and the introduction of chicanes will not impact on the setting of Woodbank Hall to the west and so accord with CS policy SIE-3 and that tree loss will be mitigated by replacement planting.

The proposed new route to the west from Annable Road will require the use of gabion baskets to ensure the stability of the sloping land as well as boundary fencing to the rear of nos. 92-96 Annable Road. The route to the east towards Bredbury Hall involves the construction of new metal fencing to the Bredbury Hall boundary.

Sustainability A key objective of the TCAP package is to support lower carbon travel and improve well being by providing improved facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport .

The merits to people’s wellbeing have been highlighted in the comments received from the “Healthy Planning Team”. Overall the proposal satisfies the objectives of Core Strategy policies CS8 and CS10.

Flood Risk and Drainage A flood risk assessment was submitted with the application. The LLFA raise no objection in principle to the proposal subject to the submission of detailed drainage design proposals which can be secured by condition.

However the comments of the EA are awaited and will be reported orally at the meeting.

Heritage Considerations The proposed scheme within the boundaries of Woodbank Park will not impact on the setting of Woodbank Hall and will preserve its character and setting and so accord with CS policy SIE-3 and that tree loss along the route of Cow Lane will be mitigated by replacement planting. The use of Ultritec surfacing for the cycle route across the open meadow through Woodbank Park will not impact on the two 18th century tunnels which run underneath as Ultritec is surface laid and does not require deep foundations.

GMAAS have raised no objection to the proposal noting that two 18th century tunnels on the river bank will not be affected by the cycle scheme and new bridge. They do however require a written scheme of investigation to be secured by condition to secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological works.

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

The developer has provided satisfactory justification as to the special circumstances in regard to this development proposal in assessing the development against the Council’s green belt policies and the NPPF. The development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the openness of the green belt nor harm the landscape character of the river valley.

The proposal accords with the Council’s development plan policies as identified above and would result in the implementation of the Councils objectives as part of TCAP works, of which the overall aim is for “An integrated transport investment strategy to tackle congestion and barriers to movement in Stockport town centre. The main rational of which is to support and enhance the local economy, provide access to jobs, improve community wellbeing and create a vibrant town centre. There are no material considerations of weight which would justify refusal of the application. The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions

RECOMMENDATION GRANT.

WERNETH AREA COMMITTEE COMMENTS 12/12/16 The planning officer introduced the report and informed committee of 2 additional consultation responses. The Conservation Officer is satisfied that the proposed scheme would not harm the historic parkland setting of Woodbank Hall and that any planning approval should be subject to conditions requiring the design of directional / interpretation sings and chicanes along Cow Lane for future approval.

Great Manchester Ecology Unit comments have raised concerns over the proposed track though the SBI. Although the path along Cow Lane is an existing path the proposed works will involve considerable disturbance and widening the path will result in loss of trees and disturbance to ground flora species and the scale of such work is not appropriate. The section of path in the SBI by the River Goyt creates a 3m path where only informal paths currently exist. This area will also be impaired by the path width. The path width and construction zone should be reduced.

GMEU have proposed conditions and mitigation measures should planning permission be granted. They recommend that full planting details and a long term management plan be secured, no removal of hedgerows, trees, shrub during the bird nesting season, a scheme requiring dealing with invasive species, as well as following the recommendations of the submitted ecology report such as providing a woodland method statement, tree felling method statement in relation to bats, trees and hedgerow protection, provide updated pre-commencement surveys and rive protection.

The planning officer advised committee that the mitigation measures proposed by the GMEU concur with those recommended by the Council’s Nature Development Officer, in order to address the issues raised.

A member of the public spoke against the application concerned about the creation of new pathways when other pathways are being neglected as well as the potential overall harm to the Goyt Valley from the new by-pass proposal.

The applicant spoke in favour of the proposal describing the development to committee and highlighting that the proposal is a key scheme to be brought forward in fulfilling the TCAP objectives. He informed committee that two public consultations exercises were carried out prior to the submission of the application. The first in October 2014 received 79 responses; 24 in support and 45 raising concerns. The ecology matters raised in the Phase 1 consultation were taken into consideration for the revised scheme for the phase 2 consultation. Response to the Phase 2 consultation included those from park users and so speed reduction measures at the base of Cow Lane were introduced in a further revised scheme.

The Chair of Committee indicated she had been lobbied by Friends of Woodbank Park indicating that the new bridge will allow undesirables to flee more easily from the park. The applicant responded by stating the proposed development will introduce more people to the park and more lawful users will put others off from behaving unlawfully. Steps and squeeze gates can be installed in order to stop motor bikes and quad bikes from entering/leaving the park at particular points.

Committee debated the application and recommended that planning permission be granted.

CENTRAL AREA COMMITTEE COMMENTS 15/12/16 The Planning Officer introduced the application and advised Committee the proposal also went before Werneth AC on Monday who recommended the application be granted. Updates were provided by the officer, received between the area committee agenda deadline and the meeting-:

Conservation Officer – he is satisfied that the scheme will not harm the historic parkland setting of Woodbank Hall grade II*. Any approval should be subject to conditions requiring the submission of design details of directional/ interpretation signage and chicanes along Cow Lane for future approval. Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Concern raised regarding potential damage/ disturbance to flora and fauna in the SBI in Woodbank Park as a result of the widening of the path. They wish to see the path relocated and the current application refused. Notwithstanding, if the application is granted they set out further information that should be required to be submitted (by condition)/ what mitigation could compensate. These comments concur with those of the Council’s Nature Development Officer. Environment Agency – Raise objection due to the deficiencies in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. The EA have agreed with the applicant the scope of additional information required to be submitted to overcome the EA objection. This will be submitted to the LPA and appraised prior to PHRC in January.

Ann Forrester (Chair of Friends of Woodbank Park and member of Stockport Building Preservation Trust) spoke in opposition to the proposals. She indicated that they didn’t opposed section 1 but opposed section 2 & 3. Key comments included: cycles will conflict with other park users (Cow Lane a speed trap; cycles and other users will be a toxic cocktail); it’s unrealistic that cycles will travel to the town centre via St Mary’s Bridge; park users have not been fully consulted; previous consultations indicated that the route would be a commuter route, not for leisure; Police reluctant to attend incidents in the park.

Nick Whelan/ Georgina Summers (applicant) spoke in support of the proposals. They indicated that the proposals form a key part of TCAP and address the severance of cycling/ walking/ equestrian routes in the Goyt Valley. The proposal supports sustainable travel, improving access to the town centre from the east. There have been two phases of consultation and proposals have been revised from those originally proposed to address issues raised. There is significant mitigation in terms of tree planting and the removal of invasive species proposed.

Cllr Harding queried when it would be implemented. The applicants stated – 6 phases starting Spring 2017 at Bredbury Hall and on highways works at Vernon Park; bridge – spring 2018.

Members queried the overall costs of each scheme and implementation timetable, and questioned if whether the scheme north of the river could be separated from the scheme proposed in the park; if the applicant has met with the Friends of Woodbank Park, and how long would the work take to the paths in the park.

Members resolved that a site visit be undertaken by the Visiting Team (the route needed to be visited in its entirety) prior to the Planning and Highways Regulation meeting in January 2017.

RECOMMENDATION Site Visit.