1 Eaton Close Cheadle Hulme Cheadle SK8 5EY PROPOSAL

ITEM 1

Application DC/073373 Reference Location: 1 Eaton Close Cheadle Hulme Cheadle SK8 5EY PROPOSAL: Erection of two dwellinghouses (Use Class C3(a)) with associated car parking, landscaping and boundary treatments, following demolition of existing bungalow. Type Of Full Application Application: Registration 09.05.2019 Date: Target Date: 04.07.2019 Case Officer: Helen Hodgett Applicant: Mr Shuaib Ishaq, 45 Cheadle Road, Cheadle Hulme SK8 5EU Agent: Mr Frank Smith, James Campbell Associates, Campbell House, 173 Rochdale Road, Milnrow, Rochdale OL16 3BN

DELEGATION/COMMITTEE STATUS

This application is before Cheadle Area Committee, as objections have been received from the occupiers of more than 4 properties. Cheadle Area Committee can make a decision upon this planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Planning permission is sought for the erection of two, two-storey, four-bedroom dwellinghouses (Use Class C3(a)), with associated car parking (one external space plus garage space per dwelling), landscaped amenity space, and boundary treatments, following the demolition of one existing bungalow.

The proposed houses would be of brick and render external construction, incorporating aluminium and timber cladding, with slate and standing seam roofs. Openings are predominantly proposed to be provided within the front and rear elevations of the houses. Window openings within the side elevations would serve WC, bathroom and utility rooms.

It is proposed to retain the majority of landscaping upon the site, including the predominantly laurel mature hedging to the boundaries with adjacent residential properties. New boundary treatments are proposed within the site, to the frontage of the site and for an area to the northeastern side of the site adjacent to 2 Eaton Close, in place of existing hedging. Landscaping and turfed rear gardens are proposed for the houses.

Pedestrian and vehicular access would be along the unadopted highway of Eaton Close, which leads to the adopted highway of the A5149 Cheadle Road. It is proposed to widen the area of hardstanding to the frontage of the application site in order to provide additional space for passing and turning vehicles.

The application scheme and site area/boundary has been amended since submission. (Consultation has been carried out on both the original and amended schemes). The amendments shown on the revised plans/documents are summarised as follows by the Agent:

1. Mature landscaping hedge retained between application site and Irwin Court. 2. Application site edged in red moved in another 1m to the line that the occupiers of neighbouring properties believe is the boundary with their land. 3. As a result of 2 above the dwellings are reduced in width by 800mm (1600mm overall). The dwellings sit within the site, away from the disputed boundary, within the revised red line, and outside of the root protection areas.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

This application relates to land at 1 Eaton Close, Cheadle Hulme, which is currently occupied by one bungalow located within a landscaped curtilage. The curtilage is bounded by mature planting, which predominantly comprises laurel hedging. The trees within the site are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The site is located within a Predominantly Residential Area, as regards the development plan, and is surrounded by residential properties of varying scale and character.

Irwin Court to the southwestern side of the site, comprises an apartment building of three-storeys, located within curtilage. Some trees within the Irwin Court boundary are covered by TPOs. 2 Eaton Close to the northwestern side of the site is a large dormer bungalow and 3 Eaton Close, beyond 2 Eaton Close, is a large bungalow.

Bungalows along Grange Avenue are located to the front of the application site, to the northwest. The rear gardens of the bungalows along Grange Avenue abut the access road of Eaton Close. Two-storey houses are located to the southeast, off Anfield Road, to the rear of the site, and also to the south off Cheadle Road, including number 45A Cheadle Road, which is located adjacent to the Eaton Close access road at the junction with Cheadle Road.

The application site is located within an area that is affected by noise from Manchester Airport. The application site is located within flood zone 1 of the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) mapping system.

As advised, the vehicular access along Eaton Close is not adopted by the Council. The tarmac surfaced access is quite narrow in width, however, there is an area of pedestrian footway running alongside the roadway. As stated above, it is proposed to widen the hardstanding to the frontage of the application site for passing and turning space.

The access currently serves three properties, including the application site of 1 Eaton Close, together with numbers 2 and 3 Eaton Close. (Certificate B of the application form confirms that Notice has been served upon numbers 2 and 3 Eaton Close and 45 Cheadle Road, as owners of the land other than the applicant within the application site edged in red).

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’) (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

CS1: OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE SD-1: Creating Sustainable Communities SD-3: Delivering the Energy Opportunities Plans - New Development SD-6: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

CS2: HOUSING PROVISION

CS3: MIX OF HOUSING

CS4: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING H-1: Design of Residential Development H-2: Housing Phasing

CS8: SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT SIE-1: Quality Places SIE-2: Provision of Recreation and Amenity Open Space in New Developments SIE-3: Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment

CS9: TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT

CS10: AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT NETWORK T-1: Transport and Development T-2: Parking in Developments T-3: Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network

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 Open Space Provision and Commuted Sum Payments SPD Sustainable Design and Construction SPD Sustainable Transport SPD Transport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

A Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on 19th February 2019 replaced the previous NPPF (originally issued 2012 & revised 2018). The NPPF has not altered the fundamental legal requirement under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations (such as the NPPF) indicate otherwise.

The NPPF representing the governments up-to-date planning policy which should be taken into account in dealing with applications focuses on achieving a lasting housing reform, facilitating the delivery of a greater number of homes, ensuring that we get planning for the right homes built in the right places of the right quality at the same time as protecting our environment. If decision takers choose not to follow the NPPF, then clear and convincing reasons for doing so are needed.

N.B. In respect of decision-taking the revised NPPF constitutes a “material consideration”.

Extracts from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – link to full document - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

1. Introduction Para 1. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. It provides a framework within which locally-prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced.

Para 2. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements.

2. Achieving sustainable development Para 7. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs4.

Para 8. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives): a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

Para 10. So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11).

The presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. 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.

Para 12. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.

4. Decision-making Para 38. Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

Para 47. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Para 54. Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.

Para 55. Planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Agreeing conditions early is beneficial to all parties involved in the process and can speed up decision making. Conditions that are required to be discharged before development commences should be avoided, unless there is a clear justification.

Para 56. Planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

9. Promoting sustainable transport Para 108. In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that: a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

Para 109. Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Para 110. Within this context, applications for development should: a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.

11. Making effective use of land Para 117. Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

12. Achieving well-designed places Para 124. The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this. So too is effective engagement between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other interests throughout the process.

Para 127. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Para 213 existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. Due weight should be given to them, 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

DC/070618 – Withdrawn – Erection of two dwellinghouses (Use Class C3(a)) with associated car parking, landscaping and boundary treatments, following demolition of existing bungalow – 1 Eaton Close.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

NEIGHBOURS

The occupiers of neighbouring properties were notified of this planning application by letter. A site notice has also been displayed adjacent to the site from 19/6/19 for public consultation.

1st Consultation: Representations were received from the occupiers of 10 properties in response to the original consultation on this application, along with one petition signed by the occupiers of 9 properties objecting to the scheme.

A Report by a firm of Land Surveyors has been submitted on behalf of neighbours, regarding landownership and boundaries, to dispute the originally submitted application site edged in red and ownership of the site.

(A Report by a firm of Land Surveyors has been submitted on behalf of the Applicant, regarding landownership and boundaries, the application site edged in red and ownership of the site.

A rebuttal in response to the neighbour’s survey report has been received from the Applicant’s solicitor).

The individual representations in response to the scheme as originally received for this planning application DC/073373 can be reported as follows:

 Despite the detailed report from our Chartered Land Surveyor, the plans submitted yet again encroach onto land outside of the applicant’s ownership.  We question the size of the two four-bedroom houses. The two-storey side elevation of one of the proposed houses threatens to block a considerable amount of light and vision from our property. The footfall will also be increased on Eaton Close, with the increase from 1 three-bedroom bungalow to 2 four-bedroom houses, with an impact on privacy and the area.  Any application should have been based on a like for like build, with an additional floor, or at most two bungalows, utilising the space available appropriately.  The development will clearly create further traffic and noise on Eaton Close and its junction, which is a very narrow road, with its entry and exit on to Cheadle Road. Especially with contractors using the close to access the proposed building site.  No objections to the proposed houses subject to the access being improved.  If you approach Eaton Close from Cheadle, it is virtually impossible to turn left without hitting the curb, the only way is to move your car to the centre of Cheadle Road which is obviously very dangerous, look at the curves on the pavement, this wants correcting.  There is a tree on the footpath at the top of Eaton Close / Cheadle Road this wants to be removed to give Eaton Close its path back, so people walking/ jogging can clearly see it is a road access.  All houses to require their own water pipe system, not four houses connected to one, see previous reports. This is so important from a showering point of view.  The waste/ bin collection system requires urgent attention, at present there are up to ten bins on collection days, to double that to twenty bins would be a safety nightmare.  Their proposal does not show the largest tree which was cut down four months ago.  Safety concerns concerning cyclists / school children.

2nd Consultation: Neighbours and contributors have subsequently been notified by letter/email of the receipt of amended plans following revisions to the application site edged in red and the scheme.

No representations have been received to date regarding the amended scheme (consultation period 27/9/19 to 18/10/19).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

SMBC Highways – This application seeks permission for the demolition of a dwelling and the construction of two dwellings on the site, each with provision of one external vehicle parking space plus garage space per dwelling. The site is served by a private access road (Eaton Close) which although lit is not adopted highway.

In discussion with the applicant I have expressed concern with the nature and condition of Eaton Close and consider that without improvement it is unsuitable for an intensification in use. The applicant has acknowledged this concern and the need to appropriately mitigate for the intensification in use that will arise and has proposed some widening at the end of the Close, sufficient to enable small home delivery sized vehicles and cars to turn and safely pass each other. The submission also initially proposed the installation of two rumble strips within the length of the Close, however, I understand for legal reasons this will not be deliverable. I also acknowledge that improvement to the junction with Cheadle Road is not practical due to third party land ownership out the involvement of third party land and as such no work to the junction is proposed.

I welcome and support the widening that is proposed on the frontage to the new dwellings that will afford significant benefit to the both the development and existing users of the Close. Whilst I have some disappointment that rumble strips are no longer deliverable, I do strongly consider that the widening afforded to Eaton Close will provide significant benefit and reduce the risk of conflict between vehicles and I feel that this proposal is sufficient to mitigate the impact of development.

Recommendation: No objections. Conditions are requested including as regards:  construction management;  details of the construction, drainage and surfacing of the driveways and widening works, completion of works prior to first occupation and their retention;  details to be agreed for electric vehicle charging points to be installed and retained;  details of covered and secure cycle parking, to be installed prior to first occupation and retained.

SMBC Environmental Health – Land Contamination – Request an informative in case of the unexpected discovery of contaminated land.

SMBC Environmental Health – Noise – Require the imposition of a condition.

No development shall be occupied until a report in line with ‘BS8233-2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings' has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, noise reduction measures (where required) to ensure the stated rooms within the development will achieve the following maximum internal noise levels at the following times:

• living rooms 35dB between 07.00 hours and 23.00 hours • Dining rooms 40dB between 07.00 hours and 23.00 hours • Bedrooms 30 dB between 23.00 hours and 07.00 hours and 35dB between 07.00 hours and 23.00 hours

No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved noise mitigation measures in the report (where required) have been incorporated into the development.

Manchester Airport – The Safeguarding Authority for Manchester Airport has assessed this proposal and its potential to conflict aerodrome Safeguarding criteria. We have no aerodrome safeguarding objections to the proposal however we request the following advice is given to the applicant.

• During construction, robust measures must be taken to minimise any dust or smoke arising from the site. Reason: to ensure there is no ocular hazard to pilots of aircraft using Manchester Airport Reason: to ensure that aircraft engines are not compromised by dust or smoke

• During construction, whilst any earth is exposed, robust measures to deter birds from feeding at the site should be taken. Reason: to ensure that there is no increase of Birdstrike risk to aircraft using Manchester Airport.

Please note that any cranes or other tall equipment required during construction may present a hazard to aircraft and will need to be assessed separately to ensure that aircraft safety is protected. We therefore request that the following informative is attached to any approval granted:

• Cranes, whilst they are temporary, can be a hazard to air safety. The developer or crane operator must therefore contact Manchester Airport’s Control of Works Office using the details provided below, at least 21 days in advance of intending to erect a crane or other tall construction equipment on the site. This is to obtain a Tall Equipment Permit and to ascertain if any operating restrictions would be required. Any operating restrictions that are subsequently imposed by Manchester Airport must be fully complied with.

Reason: To ensure that Manchester Airport’s Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are protected to avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft.

SMBC Nature Development Officer – Provides the following comments:

Legislative and Policy Framework Nature Conservation Designations The site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise

Legally Protected Species Many buildings and trees have the potential to support roosting bats. In addition the application site is located amid suitable bat foraging habitat which increases the likelihood of roosting bats being present within the site.

All species of bat are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. 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, or to hibernate or migrate. b) the local distribution of that species. 3) Damage or destroy a breeding place or resting site of such an animal.

A preliminary bat roost assessment survey has been carried out and submitted with the application. The survey was carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist and followed best practice guidance. The survey involved an internal and external inspection of the building (house and garage) to search for evidence of roosting bats and an assessment of the potential for bats to be present. The survey was carried out in August 2018.

No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the roost assessment survey. Potential roosting features were however observed, including a gap behind soffits and gaps in mortar at the gable ends. The building was assessed as offering low to moderate roosting potential. A dusk bat activity survey was subsequently undertaken on 18 September 2018. No bats were observed emerging from the property however weather conditions during the survey were suboptimal for bat activity and furthermore the activity survey was carried out late in the bat survey season. A further dawn return to roost activity survey was therefore undertaken in July 2019 (in accordance with best practice survey guidance). No bats were observed roosting in the property during the dawn survey, with low levels of common pipistrelle activity recorded.

The Arboriculture Report submitted with the application states that no bat potential roosting features were recorded within the trees on site.

Buildings and vegetation/trees also offer potential habitat for nesting birds. All breeding birds and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Recommendations: No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the surveys and so there is considered to be limited risk of impacting a bat roost as a result of the proposed works. Bats can regularly switch roosting sites and so as a precautionary measure I would recommend that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential for bats to be present on site.

It should also 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 bats (or any other protected species) is discovered on site, works must cease and a suitably experienced ecologist contacted for advice. It is also advised that an update bat survey is carried out prior to demolition, should works be delayed beyond two survey seasons from the date of most recent survey (i.e. after May 2021). This can be secured by condition.

Developments are expected to provide net gains for biodiversity (in accordance with national and local planning policy). This could include the provision of bat and/or bird roosting/nesting facilities on the proposed buildings (as per the Bat Report recommendations) and can be secured by condition. Any proposed landscape planting should be submitted to the LPA for review and should comprise species beneficial to wildlife (preferably of local origin). I would also recommend that occasional gaps are provided (13cmx13cm) at the base of boundary fences/walls to maintain habitat connectivity for species such as hedgehog.

Replacement planting will be required to mitigate for any trees to be lost to facilitate the scheme. All retained trees should be adequately protected from potential impacts associated with the development in accordance with British Standards.

In relation to breeding birds, the following condition should be used: [BS42020: D.3.2.1] No vegetation clearance/demolition works should take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation/buildings for active birds’ nests immediately before vegetation clearance/demolition works commence and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the LPA.

Any proposed lighting should be sensitively designed so as to minimise impacts on wildlife associated with light disturbance (following the principles outlined in Bat Conservation Trust guidance: http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_lighting.html).

SMBC Arborist – Comments are reported as follows.

The proposed development will potentially have a negative impact on several trees located on site. The site layout plan clearly shows the removal of one tree on the site which would have potential for impact on the local environment as well as additional impact from encroachment/potential damage from machinery working in close proximity of the trees within the site. The site’s boundary has a fair level of vegetation and trees and as such there cannot be any loss of trees on site as this will have a negative impact on amenity and biodiversity without the clear replacement and enhancement of the site through new landscaping.

The proposed development would have the potential for a negative impact on the existing trees, therefore the main concern will be the proposed removal of this one tree, the construction works within the root protection areas of the neighbouring site, but with a detailed arboriculture impact assessment and engineering solutions in accordance with British Standards 5837 then the construction could be undertook in line with the council policy, but would require the protective fencing, minimal or no dig in root zones and proposed replacement planting to an equivalent or greater level through a landscaping scheme.

The construction materials or vehicles may also impact on the trees if they are to be retained and as such an advisory should be required to be given to make contractors aware of the highway trees and the installation of protective fencing to limit access to these areas to prevent compaction, accidental damage or spillage of chemicals on the root zones of all trees in the whole of the property and neighbouring property. If this is conditioned and complied with then the poor landscaping/tree planting would be the only issue for negative impact on the site and surrounding environment, which clearly requires improved planting at the front of the site, replace lost trees off site and replace the poor species laurel with more suitable native species.

The main concerns for this site is the impact on trees outside of the curtilage of the development and would only be allowed if the no dig or engineering solution is supplied and agreed as well as the replacement planting.

All retained trees are to be kept, so consideration is needed for the potential root disturbance from the construction traffic and material storage in proximity to the retained trees in the site which will have a negative impact on the trees root systems, therefore an exclusion zone through protective fencing will be required for the protection of the trees to the local area including those on the neighbouring verges of the site as the trees are an integral part of the tree scape for the residential estate and therefore cannot be lost.

The trees offer a high level of biodiversity/habitat benefit and as such they need retaining as the loss would be unacceptable as this would be further increasing urban sprawl of Cheadle area.

In principle the scheme will potentially have a minor negative impact on the tree in the area and if it’s to resolve the arboriculture concerns it will require the submission of an engineering solution or no dig proposal and an enhanced landscaping scheme. If the scheme is to be approved in its current format an improved landscaping scheme will need to be conditioned to show greater enhancement of the site, protective fencing plan and an advisory restricting all access to the protected trees in the property and adjoining the property area. Some of these should have been submitted as part of the planning application and therefore can be conditioned and submitted later then this will resolve any tree related issues.

Specifically regarding the removal of the laurel hedge, there are no objections. Disappointing they do not wish to replace or enhance the site with new appropriate hedge material rather than a fence, but not essential. If the hedge is within the applicant’s ownership, no issue with removal, provided root protection area fencing around the trees to prevent encroachment, and landscape design to compensate and enhance the site.

The following conditions are required if the scheme is approved;

Condition Tree 1 No existing tree within the site shall be cut down, topped, lopped, uprooted, wilfully damaged or wilfully destroyed without the prior written approval of the local planning authority, with the exception of those indicated otherwise on the approved plan. Any hedgerows, woody plants or shrubbery removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or being seriously diseased, within 5 years of the development commencing, shall be replaced within the next planting season with trees of such size and species as may be approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Condition Tree 2 No development shall take place until all existing trees on the site except those shown to be removed on the approved plans, have been fenced off in accordance with BS 5837:2012 "Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations". The fencing shall be retained during the period of construction and no work, excavation, tipping or stacking of materials shall take place within any such fence during the construction period.

Condition Tree 3 No development shall take place until details of all proposed tree planting, including the intended dates of planting, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into use.

SMBC Plan Policy Energy - The energy statement complies with the requirement of Stockport’s Core Strategy Policy SD3 in terms of sufficiently assessing low / zero carbon technologies for their potential inclusion in the design of the development. Since the level of development falls below the trigger for the carbon reduction target in the policy there is no requirement for the developer to go further than the current minimum building regulations requirements on energy.

Current Building Regulations for housing achieves a carbon saving of 27% over 2006 requirements.

There is also no policy requirement for developments of this scale to include low / zero carbon technologies so the application complies with policy which only requires them to assess the site and evidence that assessment in an energy statement.

ANALYSIS

Principle of development

Stockport is not currently able to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply. Policy CS2 of the core strategy, which relates to housing provision, states that a wide choice of quality homes will be provided to meet the requirements of existing and future Stockport households. The focus will be on providing new housing through the effective and efficient use of land within accessible urban areas, and making the best use of existing housing.

Policy CS3 of the core strategy advises that a mix of housing, in terms of tenure, price, type and size will be provided to meet the requirements of new forming households, first time buyers, families with children, disabled people and older people. It states that new development should contribute to the creation of more mixed, balanced communities by providing affordable housing in areas with high property prices and by increasing owner occupation in areas of predominantly social rented housing.

Policy CS4 of the core strategy, which relates to the distribution of housing, sets out how new housing development should be distributed across the Borough, advising that the distribution of housing across the Borough should be broadly in line with the following spatial proprieties – firstly within the Central Housing Area (50%), secondly within the Neighbourhood Renewal Priority Areas and the pedestrian catchment areas of district and large local centres (35%) and thirdly within other accessible locations (15%).

Policy CS4 also advocates the use of brownfield land within urban areas as a priority, with development on urban greenfield sites being undertaken in line with the following sequential approach;

firstly on accessible urban sites that are not designated as open space, or considered to be areas of open space with amenity value;

secondly in private residential gardens in accessible urban locations where proposals respond to the character of the local area and maintain good standards of amenity and privacy for the occupants of existing housing, in accordance with Development Management Policy H-1 'Design of Residential Development';

thirdly on accessible urban open space where it can be demonstrated that there is adequate provision of open space in the local area or the loss would be adequately replaced, in accordance with Core Policy CS8 'safeguarding and improving the environment';

fourthly, and only if it is essential to release additional land to accommodate the borough's local needs, particularly the need for affordable housing or to support regeneration strategies in Neighbourhood Renewal Priority Areas, a limited number of the most suitable Green Belt sites will be used for housing provided such sites are accessible, attached to the urban area, maintain openness between built-up areas, and there are no exceptional substantial strategic change to the Green Belt or its boundaries.

Policy H2 of the Core Strategy 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+. 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 will be supported, with the minimum accessibility score for new houses in the context of the current undersupply being 34/100 and the minimum accessibility score for new flats in the context of the current under supply being 45/100. Policy H2 also requires 80% of new housing development to be located on previously developed land.

Until the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.

Annex 2 of the NPPF provides a definition of what constitutes ‘previously developed land’ stating that “Previously-developed land is land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure”. It advises that land in built up areas, such as private residential gardens are not included in the definition of ‘previously developed land.’

According to this definition, the application site is predominantly a brownfield site, as the site is currently occupied by the built form of a bungalow.

The site is also located within an accessible location, being located upon a bus route and within walking distance of local education facilities, shops and services, including Cheadle Hulme centre, which includes a railway station.

Given that the application site is located within an accessible, predominantly residential area; introducing residential accommodation at the application site is deemed to be, in principle, acceptable and appropriate.

For these reasons, subject to the development being acceptable in terms of its visual impact; its relationship to neighbouring residents; its impact upon the highway network; and in all other regards, the principle of erecting a new dwelling at the site is acceptable and in accordance with the NPPF and policies CS2, CS3, CS4 and H2 of the Core Strategy; the proposal would provide additional residential accommodation and contribute towards meeting the housing needs of the Borough.

In any event, it is necessary to have regard to the fact that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, which means the housing polices in the plan are considered to be out of date with the NPPF. On this basis, it is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable; the site is located within an urban area with the proposal offering an opportunity to develop a site that is located within an accessible and sustainable location, and there are no specific policies in the framework which indicate that the development should be restricted.

Visual Amenity

The NPPF establishes the following within section 12 “Achieving well-designed places.” Para 127. of the NPPF states: “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.”

Policy MW1.5 of the UDP relates to the control of waste from development. It states that new development should make appropriate provision for the storage, handling and removal from the site of waste arising from the development.

Policy H1 of the Core Strategy states that the design and build standards of new residential development should be high quality, inclusive, sustainable and contribute to the creation of successful communities. It goes on to advise that proposals should respond to the townscape and landscape character of the local area, reinforcing or creating local identity and distinctiveness in terms of layout, scale and appearance.

Policy SIE-1 of the core strategy states development that is designed and landscaped to the highest contemporary standard, paying high regard to the built and/or natural environment, within which it is sited, will be given positive consideration.

These policy requirements are reiterated in the Design of Residential Development SPD, which provides advice and guidance on the design of new development with the aim of (a) promoting high quality inclusive design; (b) ensuring efficient use of resources; and (c) endorsing developments that make a positive contribution to the townscape and landscape character of the local area.

The proposed houses would be of brick and render external construction, incorporating aluminium and timber cladding, with slate and standing seam roofs. Openings are predominantly proposed to be provided within the front and rear elevations of the houses. Openings within the side elevations would serve WC, bathroom and utility rooms.

It is proposed to retain the majority of landscaping upon the site, including the predominantly laurel mature hedging to the boundaries with adjacent residential properties. New boundary treatments are proposed within the site, to the frontage of the site, and for an area to the northeastern side of the site adjacent to 2 Eaton Close, in place of existing hedging. Landscaping and turfed rear gardens are proposed for the houses. It is proposed to widen the area of hardstanding to the frontage of the application site in order to provide additional space for passing and turning vehicles.

The siting of the proposed houses is deemed to be acceptable, with the new units being sited upon the albeit smaller footprint of the existing bungalow, with the front elevations of the houses facing the Eaton Close access, with amenity space to the rear, as the existing and as per neighbouring 2 and 3 Eaton Close. Gated accesses between the garages of the proposed houses are proposed for each house to allow external access between the front and rear curtilages. This permits the storage of receptacles for segregated waste disposal and recycling within the rear garden areas, as shown on the plans. A landscaping scheme for the site is indicated upon the proposed plans.

The proposed houses would be of modern appearance, and therefore, the houses would appear different to the established form of development within the area, however, there is a mix of development within the area, and development does not have to appear similar to the existing to be acceptable, depending upon the scheme and the context.

It is considered that the proposed brick and render, two-storey houses, incorporating gable features and glazing, would appear acceptably within the built form context, in terms of scale, architecture, siting and design. Irwin Court to the southwestern side of the site, comprises an apartment building of three-storeys, 2 Eaton Close to the northwestern side of the site is a large dormer bungalow and 3 Eaton Close, beyond 2 Eaton Close, is a large bungalow.

Bungalows along Grange Avenue are located to the front of the application site, to the northwest. Two-storey houses are located to the southeast, off Anfield Road, to the rear of the site, and also to the south off Cheadle Road, including 45A Cheadle Road, which is located adjacent to the Eaton Close access road at the junction with Cheadle Road.

For these reasons, subject to the attachment of conditions to ensure the use of satisfactory materials and appropriate landscaping and boundary treatments, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with policy MW1.5 of the UDP, policies H1 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy, the Design of Residential Development SPD – it would not harm the visual amenities of the area.

Residential Amenity

As discussed above, the NPPF advises Councils to seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (paragraph 127).

Policy EP1.10 of the UDP relates to aircraft noise, setting standards that should be attained in order to ensure that occupants are not subjected to unacceptable levels of aircraft noise during the day or night.

Policy H1 of the Core Strategy states that new development should provide good standards of amenity, privacy, safety / security and open space should be provided for the occupants of new housing. It also advises that good standards of amenity and privacy should be maintained for the occupants of existing housing.

Policy SIE-1 of the core strategy states that new development should provide, maintain and enhance (where suitable) satisfactory levels of access, privacy and amenity for future, existing and neighbouring users and residents.

Policy SIE-3 of the core strategy advises that in some parts of the borough constraints will be placed on development so as to avoid unacceptable levels of noise from aircraft from Manchester Airport.

These policy requirements are reiterated in the Design of Residential Development SPD, within policies DCD1.1 and CDH1.1 stating that new development should provide satisfactory levels of privacy and amenity for future, existing and neighbouring users.

The document advises that the following separation distances should be maintained - 21m between facing habitable room windows located on the public or street side, 25m between facing habitable room windows on the private or rear, 12m between a habitable room window and a blank elevation/an elevation with non-habitable rooms/high level windows and 6m between a habitable room window and the site boundary, with these distances being increased by 3m per storey for 3 or more storey buildings.

With regards to the advocated space standards for separation and privacy between properties within the Design of Residential Development SPD, the proposed development is compliant. There would be in excess of 15m between the habitable room windows within Irwin Court and the side elevation of dwelling 2, which would contain non-habitable room windows serving a WC and a utility. There would be in excess of 25m between the rear of the proposed houses and the rear/side of houses located to the rear on Cheadle Road and Oak Tree Cottages, Anfield Road. The rear elevations of bungalows on Grange Avenue would be sited in excess of 30m from the front elevations of the proposed houses. There are no openings within the side elevation of 2 Eaton Close.

The side elevation of dwelling 1, which is proposed to include a utility window at ground floor and a bathroom window at first floor, would be located approximately 2 metres from the blank side gable of 2 Eaton Close. The side gable of dwelling 1 is proposed to project forward of the front elevation of 2 Eaton Close by approximately 5 metres. It is proposed to remove a section of laurel hedging from the boundary with 2 Eaton Close to accommodate dwelling 1. The hedging would be replaced by a close boarded timber fence.

It is noted that a fence would not afford the level of screening that the existing hedging provides, however, it is not considered that the removal of the hedging is in this case and location objectionable in Planning terms, as regards amenity, or regarding the environment, as confirmed above by the Arborist and Ecologist.

As advised, the gable of 2 Eaton Close does not contain openings. Although the front elevation of dwelling 1 would be situated forward of the front building line of 2 Eaton Close, there would be approximately a 2 metre gap between the two properties, and the ground floor of 2 Eaton Close adjacent to the new dwelling is a garage, with the first floor dormer bedroom window set in from the side elevation. The front building line of 2 Eaton Close then steps forward. The rear building lines of 2 Eaton Close and the proposed dwellings are virtually parallel.

The hedging between 2 Eaton Close and the application site is shown to be located within the area of the boundary. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the hedging is within the ownership of the applicant, however, as confirmed above, Notice has also been served upon the owners of 2 Eaton Close.

As discussed, due to the relationship between the properties, and as the hedging is not assessed to have overriding biodiversity or visual amenity value, it is assessed that the hedging could be replaced by fencing. The Planning system does not, however, over rule other areas of law, and the applicant should ensure that they are permitted to remove the hedging in this location in terms of ownership, prior to removal (an informative should be applied to this affect). Conditions regarding a final scheme for boundary treatments and landscaping would be required pursuant to policies, to ensure any boundary treatments, including the height and materials for fencing are appropriate, in the interests of residential amenity.

Windows of the proposed houses, particularly first floor bedroom windows, would afford some views over the rear gardens/curtilages of surrounding properties, including properties within Grange Avenue, 2 Eaton Close, 45 Cheadle Road and 19 Oaktree Cottages, however, the Council’s policies do not specifically seek to prevent overlooking of garden areas; the rooms at first floor are bedrooms rather than, for example, a lounge or kitchen; overlooking of garden areas is not out of character within the urban area; and there is separation between the proposed and neighbouring properties, with screening existing and possible.

It is acknowledged that a main three-storey elevation of Irwin Court, containing habitable room windows, would face the side gable of dwelling 2. As advised above, with a distance between the buildings of in excess of 15m, the proposal does accord with separation guidance in the SPD. The proposed house would additionally be located to the northeast of the apartment building. Further to revisions, the mature landscaping located between the two properties would also be retained to screen the proposed dwelling.

Having regard to the design and siting of the proposed houses, and the relationship of the proposed dwellings to the surrounding neighbouring properties, it is not considered that the introduction of the proposed dwellings would result in neighbouring residents experiencing an undue loss of amenity by virtue of a loss of light, privacy and/or overbearing impact, subject to the imposition of conditions to safeguard residential amenity, pursuant to policies, including, for example, the removal of permitted development rights for the proposed house and associated curtilage, regarding extensions and alterations including the insertion of further openings; obscure glazing to openings within the side elevations; details of any proposed raised deck amenity areas; the erection of boundary treatments and the protection and implementation of landscaping.

With regard to noise and disturbance, it is not considered that the introduction of two family dwellinghouses to the site, within a predominantly residential area, would generate a level of activity that would result in neighbouring land users being exposed to an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance. This is due to the compatible nature of the use and commensurate level and nature of activity. United Utilities would specifically manage connection to water supply.

With regard to the level of residential amenity future occupants of the proposed dwelling would enjoy, future occupants would be provided with adequate light and outlook from their habitable room windows. They would also be provided with an area of useable private amenity space in the form of a rear garden that is approximately 185m2 in area. The Council’s SPD “The Design of Residential Development” does advise for a 4/5 bed dwelling, 100sqm of private amenity space. The guide does, however, also explain that this is a guide. The proposal is considered acceptable.

Policy SIE-2 also advises that adequate formal recreation and children’s play space and facilities should be provided to meet the needs of the residents of the development, therefore, in accordance with the policy and the Council’s SPD Open Space Provision and Commuted Sum Payments, prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, a scheme for the provision and maintenance of formal recreation and children’s play space and facilities, including a timetable for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The application site is located within an area affected by noise from air traffic using Manchester Airport during both the day and night. It is therefore, considered that a condition should be attached that requires the submission, approval and subsequent implementation of a scheme for soundproofing of the dwelling in order to ensure that future occupants are not adversely affected by air traffic noise.

Subject to the attachment of the condition regarding noise mitigation, it is considered that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a satisfactory standard of living.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policy EP1.10 of the UDP, policies H1, SIE-1, SIE-2 and SIE-3 of the Stockport Core Strategy, the objectives of the Design of Residential Development SPD and the thrust of the NPPF, as the development would not unduly adversely affect the level of residential amenity neighbouring residents can reasonably expect to enjoy and the development would provide future occupants with a satisfactory standard of living.

Parking and highway safety Policy CS9 of the core strategy states that the Council will require that development is located in locations that are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. Policy T1 reiterates this requirement, with this policy setting out minimum cycle parking and disabled parking standards.

Policy T2 of the core strategy states that developments shall provide car parking in accordance with maximum parking standards for each type of development as set out in the existing adopted parking standards, stating that developers will need to demonstrate that developments will avoid resulting in inappropriate on street parking that has a detrimental impact upon highway safety or a negative impact upon the availability of public car parking.

Policy T3 of the core strategy states that development which will have an adverse impact on the safety and/or capacity of the highway network will only be permitted if mitigation measures are provided to sufficiently address such issues. It also advises that new developments should be of a safe and practical design, with safe and well- designed access arrangements, internal layouts, parking and servicing facilities.

Para 109. of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”

The application has been reviewed by a council highway engineer who has advised that the application seeks permission for the demolition of a dwelling and the construction of two dwellings on the site, each with provision of one external vehicle parking space plus garage space per dwelling. The site is served by a private access road (Eaton Close) which although lit is not adopted highway.

The engineer expresses concern with the nature and condition of Eaton Close and considers that without improvement, it is unsuitable for an intensification in use. The applicant has acknowledged this concern and the need to appropriately mitigate for the intensification in use that will arise and has proposed some widening at the end of the Close, sufficient to enable small home delivery sized vehicles and cars to turn and safely pass each other. The submission also initially proposed the installation of two rumble strips within the length of the Close, however, for legal reasons concerning ownership this will not be deliverable. It is also acknowledged that improvement to the junction with Cheadle Road is not practical due to third party land ownership without the involvement of third party land and as such no work to the junction is proposed.

The widening that is proposed on the frontage to the new dwellings is welcomed and supported, as that will afford significant benefit to the both the development and existing users of the Close. There is some disappointment that rumble strips are no longer deliverable. It is strongly considered that the widening afforded to Eaton Close will provide significant benefit and reduce the risk of conflict between vehicles, and this proposal is sufficient to mitigate the impact of development.

The likely increase in traffic at circa 6-8 trips per day is low and the benefit afforded by the improvement outweighs any impact from additional vehicle movements. Eaton Close is relatively short in length, so it would be unreasonable and difficult to argue that it is entirely inappropriate for additional development, and we are not aware of any accident record pertaining to vehicle movement through the Cheadle Road junction. We have to be minded of the improvement proposed when concluding that the cumulative traffic generation a total of four dwellings off this Close will not give rise to a level of risk of conflict that would reasonably and in isolation justify an objection. Conditions are required to ensure the scheme as proposed and any mitigation is delivered, including as regards: construction management; details of the construction, drainage and surfacing of the driveways and widening works, completion of works prior to first occupation and their retention; details to be agreed for electric vehicle charging points to be installed and retained; and details of covered and secure cycle parking, to be installed prior to first occupation and retained.

Having regard to the comments of the highway engineer, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or severe impact on the road network, subject to the attachment of the recommended conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies CS9, T1, T2 and T3 of the Stockport Core Strategy, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including paragraph 109.

Trees

Policy SIE3, which relates to protecting, safeguarding and enhancing the environment, states that development proposals affecting trees, woodland and other vegetation which make a positive contribution to amenity should make provision for the retention of the vegetation unless there is justification for felling, topping or lopping to enable the development to take place. It goes on to advise that even where there is a strong justification for a proposal the design should maximise the potential for retaining some mature planting, and replacement planting of appropriate species and covering a similar area should be provided within the site or nearby.

As discussed, the site includes and is bounded by mature landscaping. A detailed arboricultural age and condition report has been submitted, with accompanying layout plan to identify individual trees and hedging. The report concludes that the majority of trees and landscaping is of low quality, but in good condition. It is proposed to remove one Goat Willow (ref. T2 – Condition C 1/2) from the rear garden area of proposed dwelling 2, due to the proximity of the proposed built form to the tree and root protection zone. It is also proposed to remove, for the same reasons as for the Goat Willow, a section of laurel hedging from the area of the boundary with 2 Eaton Close (ref. H1 – Condition C 1/2).

The Council’s arborist has reviewed the proposal and confirmed they would have no objections to the removal of the trees/planting, subject to the attachment of a condition to secure appropriate replacement as part of a landscape scheme and conditions to protect retained trees and trees planted as part of the landscaping scheme.

Having regard to the comments of the arborist, and as assessed above, the loss of the landscaping in these locations would not introduce undue residential amenity issues, through the loss of screening, it is not considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact upon the area, subject to the attachment of conditions to secure appropriate replacement planting and tree protection. The proposal is therefore, considered to be in accordance with policy SIE-3 of the Core Strategy.

Ecology

Policy SIE-3, which relates to protecting, safeguarding and enhancing the environment, states that the Borough’s biodiversity shall be maintained and enhanced, with planning applications being required to keep disturbance to a minimum and where required identify mitigation measures and provide alternative habitats to sustain at least the current level of population.

The application has been reviewed by the Council’s Nature Development officer who has advised that they have no objections to the proposal subject to the attachment of conditions – one preventing the removal of trees/vegetation during the bird nesting season unless a competent ecologist has confirmed the absence of active birds’ nests immediately before clearance occurs; a second that requires appropriate replacement natuve tree planting; a third that requires all retained trees to be protected during construction; a fourth that requires biodiversity enhancements to be provided; a fifth that requiring a further bat survey prior to demolition if delayed beyond two survey seasons; and a sixth regarding the details of proposed external lighting. They have also requested that an informative is attached to advise the developer of what action to take should bats be unexpectedly encountered during development.

In respect of the condition that the nature development officer recommends to ensure that no trees or vegetation are removed during the bird nesting season, unless a competent ecologist has confirmed the absence of active birds’ nests immediately before clearance occurs; it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst in use or being built, and consequently it is not considered necessary to attach this condition, as it would duplicate that legislation. However, an informative would be added to remind the applicant of this.

For these reasons, subject to the attachment of the recommended conditions and two appropriately worded informatives to advise the developer of their responsibilities in relation to bats and nesting birds, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact upon ecology, and as such the scheme is considered acceptable in this regard.

The proposal is deemed to be in accordance with policy SIE-3 of the Core Strategy and the conserving and enhancing the natural environment chapter of the NPPF.

Energy Efficiency

Policy SD-3 of the Core Strategy, which relates to delivering the energy opportunities plan, states that minor developments should give consideration to incorporating low carbon and renewable technologies in order to make a positive contribution towards reducing CO2 emissions. An energy statement has been submitted that gives consideration to the use of various energy saving technologies.

Land contamination

Pursuant to Core Strategy policy SIE-3, an informative would be attached in case of the unexpected discovery of contaminated land.

Drainage

Policy SD-6 of the Core Strategy states that all development will be required to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), so as to manage the run off of water from the site. The policy requires development on Brownfield sites to reduce the rate of un-attenuated run off by a minimum of 50%, with any development on Greenfield sites being required to ensure that the rate of run off is not increased. In order to ensure compliance with the policy, a condition requiring the submission, approval and subsequent implementation of a scheme to manage surface water run- off from the site. This condition will also deal with foul drainage.

Conclusion

The development will make a small, but nonetheless valuable, contribution to addressing the shortage of new housing in Stockport, whilst delivering a design solution that ensures the amenity of neighbouring residents is not unduly impacted upon. It is not considered that highway safety would be compromised. Overall, the proposal is therefore, considered to comply with the development plan and NPPF for the reasons set out in the report and therefore, the NPPF requires the development to be approved without delay.

RECOMMENDATION Grant subject to conditions.