Application DC/066556 Reference Location: Old Canal Yard Reuben Street South Reddish Stockport SK4 1PS

PROPOSAL: Outline application including details of access, layout and scale for the erection of nine apartments (three blocks each containing three units).

Type Of Outline Application Application: Registration 27/09/2017 Date: Expiry Date: 22/07/2017 Case Officer: Mark Burgess Applicant: GIP Ltd Agent: Garner Town Planning Ltd

UPDATE FOLLOWING HEATONS AND REDDISH AREA COMMITTEE MEETING OF 16/04/18

As part of the consideration of the application at the meeting of the 16th April 2018, Members of Heatons and Reddish Area Committee resolved to refer the application to the Planning and Highways Regulation, following a site visit from the Visiting Team. Members of Heatons and Reddish Area Committee specifically requested clarification from Officers prior to Visiting Team and consideration be Planning and Highways Regulation Committee with regard to the planning policy status in respect of the former Manchester and Stockport Canal and clarification with regard the current position of the extant outline planning permission (Reference : DC062105) for the redevelopment of the site for 8 no. residential flats to the Northern portion of the site and replacement employment units to the Southern portion of the site. In response to Members requests, the following confirmation is provided :-

Manchester to Stockport Canal

The application site is located on the line of the former Manchester to Stockport Canal and the proposal is therefore subject to consideration under the provisions of saved UDP policy L1.10. This policy seeks to consider creating or improving recreational uses of former rail or canal routes, but does not require the route to be protected in its entirety. The policy is very much an aspiration to improve recreational routes, but does not cover the opening up of previous canals, albeit the supporting text to the policy states ‘The Council will have regard to the Stockport Branch Canal and the potential for restoration. The Council will have regard to the need to ensure that the route is not unnecessarily severed by new buildings and non-transport uses’.

The objection received to the application from the Manchester and Stockport Canal Society is noted and it is understood that a submission has been made to the Stockport Local Plan Review, to describe how the entire length of the canal within the boundary of Stockport might be brought back into use over the coming years.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that there are already a number of existing buildings and uses within and in the vicinity of the site which pre-date saved UDP policy L1.10. These existing buildings and uses include residential development to the North of the site, buildings within the Manchester Road Retail Park, in particular the ‘Asda’ superstore to the South of the site and existing buildings within the application site itself. Members’ attention is also drawn to the extant outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the whole site for employment and residential uses, granted in December 2016 as part of outline planning permission DC062105.

In consideration and determination of planning applications, Officers take account of the current and former route of the Canal and any impact that development would have on this policy. In many instances, due to the historic nature of applications, there are many areas where the potential of the previous route of the canal would be restricted, due to historic development pre-dating saved UDP policy.

In view of the above, noting the existence of existing built development and uses to the North and South of the site and the extant outline planning permission for redevelopment of the site, it is considered that the route of the former Canal in this particular location is already severed. As such, given the nature of the site, surroundings and existing severance issues, protection of the former Canal could not be warranted in this location as it could not serve as a functional nor desirable recreation route. On this basis, it is considered that the existence of the former Canal should not preclude the redevelopment of the site as proposed.

Extant Outline Planning Permission (DC062105)

On the 21st December 2016, Outline planning permission was granted for the erection of replacement employment units to the Southern portion of the site and the erection of one block of 8 no. flats to the Northern portion of the site (Reference : DC062105).

Notwithstanding the assumption and comments made by the Council Highway Engineer, contained within the Consultee Responses section below, the applicant has confirmed that there is still a firm commitment to develop the block of 8 no. flats to the North portion of the site, the principle of which was approved under Outline planning permission DC062105. Should the current Outline application (DC066556) for 9 no. residential flats and relevant Reserved Matters be granted and subsequently implemented, the employment units to the South of the site, as approved under Outline planning permission DC062105, would obviously not be capable of implementation.

Members are advised that should Outline planning permission be granted for the current application (DC066556), a subsequent Reserved Matters application for the details of this development would need to be submitted for consideration and approval. The same is the case for the existing Outline planning permission (DC062107), should the applicant wish to develop the block of 8 no. apartments to the North of the site. Details such as traffic generation and parking provision would need to be assessed as part of any subsequent Reserved Matters applications that may follow the Outline planning permissions.

It is however noted that the current proposal would use exactly the same access layout which was approved for the extant Outline planning permission (DC062105) for the mixed employment and residential use. In terms of trip generation figures, the current proposal for 9 no. apartments would result in one additional traffic movement in the morning peak period and two additional trips in the evening peak, when compared to the previously approved employment units. This is not considered to have a material highway impact and would have the resulting benefit by eliminating large-scale commercial traffic.

DELEGATION/COMMITTEE STATUS

Planning and Highways Regulation Committee – Departure from the Development Plan. Application referred to Heatons and Reddish Area Committee for comment and recommendation only.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Outline planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and the redevelopment of the site to comprise the erection of nine apartments.

The application seeks outline permission for the principle of residential development at the site, access, layout and scale, with matters of appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration and approval. As such, the application is accompanied by a proposed site plan to indicate the proposed access to the site from Reuben Street to the North West, an access road running along the North Eastern boundary of the site and the provision of 14 car parking spaces (including 3 spaces designated for disabled users) at various locations within the site. The proposed apartments would be arranged within three separate blocks within the central and South Eastern end of the site, close to the South Western boundary. The proposed blocks would be of three storey scale, with a width of 8.3 metres, a maximum length of 12.0 metres and a maximum height of 8.5 metres. Each floor of the blocks would contain one apartment, comprising a lobby, cycle store, lounge/kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms.

The application is accompanied by the following supporting information :-

 Planning Statement;  Employment Land Statement;  Geo-Environmental Site Assessment;  Acoustic Report.  Energy Statement

The proposal has been amended since its original submission in order to address Officer concerns raised. Details of the proposed development are attached to the report.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The 0.18 hectare application site comprises a long narrow strip of land containing a collection of single storey buildings in a poor state of repair and associated hardstanding which were last used for employment/commercial purposes in 2015. Access to the site is taken via an existing narrow access point from Reuben Street to the North West.

The site is adjoined to the North East by commercial and industrial units on Coronation Street, which are situated at a lower level to the site. Beyond a small car park to the South East is an ‘Asda’ superstore. Adjoining the site to the South West are residential properties on Reuben Street and the former Rope Works site on Stanbank Street, for which full planning permission for the conversion and redevelopment of this site to create 34 residential dwellings was granted in February 2018, following consideration and approval by Heatons and Reddish Area Committee (Reference : DC063392). To the North West of the site are residential properties on Reuben Street and The Parklands.

POLICY BACKGROUND

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

The Statutory Development Plan for Stockport comprises :-

 Policies set out in the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (Saved UDP) adopted on the 31st May 2006 which have been saved by direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; and

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

N.B. Due weight should be given to relevant saved UDP and Core Strategy DPD policies according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued on the 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 the 6th March 2014.

The application site is allocated within an Employment Area, as defined on the UDP Proposals Map and falls within the Heaton Moor Conservation Area. The following policies are therefore relevant in consideration of the proposal :-

Saved UDP policies

 EP1.7 : DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK  L1.2 : CHILDRENS PLAY  L1.10 : CANALS AND DISUSED RAILWAYS  E3.1 : PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT AREAS  MW1.5 : CONTROL OF WASTE FROM DEVELOPMENT

Core Strategy DPD policies

 CS1 : OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE  SD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES  SD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN – NEW DEVELOPMENT  CS2 : HOUSING PROVISION  CS3 : MIX OF HOUSING  CS4 : DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING  H-1 : DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT  H-2 : HOUSING PHASING  H-3 : AFFORDABLE HOUSING  CS7 : ACCOMMODATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  AED-3 : EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EMPLOYMENT AREAS  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  T-1 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT  T-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS  T-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK

National Planning Policy Framework Conformity

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

Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents

Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents (SPG’s and SPD’s) do not form part of the Statutory Development Plan. Nevertheless, they do provide non-statutory Council approved guidance that is a material consideration when determining planning applications. Relevant SPG’s and SPD’s include :-

 RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS SPG  PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPG  DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPD  SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SPD  SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SPD

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF, issued by DCLG on the 27th March 2012 sets out the Government's planning policies and how they are expected to be applied.

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

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

Paragraph 197 states : ‘In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

Paragraph 215 states : ‘………..due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)’.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 DC062105 : Erection of replacement employment units and erection of one block of flats (Outline application, means of access and layout only). Resubmission of DC059714 : Granted – 21/12/16.

 DC059714 : Erection of replacement employment units and erection of two blocks of flats of 9 units (Outline application, means of access and layout only) : Refused – 23/12/17.

 DC053757 : Creation of new dwelling - resubmission of amended scheme (Land to North of site, adjacent to Number 14 The Parklands) : Granted – 26/11/13.

 DC051142 : Erection of a new dwelling (Land to North of site, adjacent to Number 14 The Parklands) : Refused – 11/12/12.

 J.68766 : Variation of condition 2 of planning permission J.61357 to retain the timber hut : Granted – 17/12/97.

 J.61357 : Retention of timber hut : Granted – 08/08/95.

 J.27288 : Offices and warehouse : Withdrawn.  J.27069 : Change of use for storage of rush mats, wicker-works and similar items for ancillary use (Section 53 determination) : Planning Permission Required – 24/02/82.

 J.25071 : Change of use for importing and distributing electrical tools and equipment (Section 53 determination) : Planning Permission Required – 24/02/82.

 J.11253 : Change of use from builders and joiners yard, to storage of car cleaning equipment and 4 or 5 cars : Refused – 04/04/78.

 J.3866 : Change of use to use part of existing building for private car repairs : Refused – 20/08/75 : Appeal Dismissed – 09/03/76.

 J.3603 : Change of use to boarding kennels : Refused – 30/07/75.

NEIGHBOUR'S VIEWS

The owners/occupiers of surrounding properties and units were notified in writing of the application and the application was advertised by way of site and press notices.

No letters of representation have been received to the application.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Planning Policy Officer (Employment)

The proposed development would involve a loss of land allocated as an employment area, as shown on the UDP proposals map, and is thus contrary to the development plan (Policy E3.1 of the saved 2006 UDP Review and Policies CS7 and AED 3 of the approved Core Strategy).

Nothwithstanding the decision to grant permission for a housing use on the adjacent Rope Works (DC063392), the applicant would still have to demonstrate why this site is no longer appropriate for employment use, given the shortage of employment land identified in the Employment Land Review (ELR) for office uses to 2031 and the likely shortage of land for industry and warehousing post 2020.

Highway Engineer

Initial comments of 24/10/17

This application, seeking outline permission (with layout, access and scale for consideration) for the erection of nine apartments (three blocks each containing three units) at an existing employment site at the northern end of Reuben Street (a mainly residential street in South Reddish), follows on from application DC/062105 for a mix use development (three small employment units, containing workshop / storage and office accommodation, together a blocks of flats of 8 units), which was approved in December 2016. As with the previous scheme, the development will be served via an access road which will take access from the end of Reuben Street. The three apartment buildings, however will be located to the middle and southern end of the site, with parking provided in various locations. All three blocks will have roof top gardens / amenity terraces and the ones on the central and northern blocks will be constructed in part over the site access road. The applicant outlines that 16 parking spaces are proposed to be provided for occupiers of the 9 apartments within two parking areas, although a further 9 spaces are indicated on the submitted plans. The submitted plans also show each apartment building will have a secure cycle store.

After reviewing the submitted plans, I would make the following comments:

 Highway Impact

A Transport Statement has not been submitted in support of this application but, as outlined above, planning approval was granted in December 2016 (application DC/062105) for a mix use development, comprising of an apartment building of 8 apartments, together with three employment units. Although this current scheme has one additional apartment, it does not contain any employment units and, as such, it should generate fewer vehicles movements than the previously approved scheme. The submitted plans, however, show 9 parking spaces being provided to the northern end of the site which would be in addition to the 16 spaces that will be provided for the apartments. Depending on who would use these spaces, these could also generate vehicle movements, and therefore I consider that this needs to be clarified. I would therefore recommend that the application is deferred and the applicant is requested to clarify the use of these spaces. In addition, I would request that the applicant is also asked to clarify what the intended use of the land to the north of the site (within the site edged blue) will be. Notwithstanding that, that I note that the site edged red does not incorporate all the “development” shown on the submitted plans, with a section of the site access road and parking area to the north of the access road (which incorporates a turning area) outside the site edged red (but within the site edged blue). The site edged red therefore needs to be amended to include all of the proposed development.

 Parking

16 parking spaces are proposed to be provided for the 9 flats, which equates to a level of parking of 178%. This is within the maximum permitted based on the Council's parking standards and should meet demand noting the car ownership level in the area is approx. 100%. Although the 2 of these parking spaces are for disabled badge holders and these are well located in respect to the central and southern apartment blocks, these will be located a distance from the northern block. As such, I would recommend an additional space is provided for disabled badge holders near the entrance to the northern block. A revised plan is therefore required to address this issue.

With respect to cycle parking, the submitted plans show each apartment building will have a secure cycle store within the ground floor of the building. The store should be able to accommodate 6 cycles (2 cycles per apartment) which will be in line with the adopted parking standards. As such, subject to the need to agree the type and layout of cycle stands (which can be dealt with by condition), I consider the proposed cycle parking arrangements acceptable. I do note, however, that the door to the cycle store is not shown on the elevation drawing and therefore I would recommend that the applicant is advised to correct this.

 Accessibility

Examination of the site's accessibility using the Council's accessibility model (which considers a site’s accessibility in relation to employment, retail, schools, health centres, hospitals and evening economy uses) concludes that it scores 65-67, indicating that the site's accessibility score exceeds the current threshold for dwellings. In addition, the site is within walking distance of a bus route, a large food store, 2 primary schools and various other shops and services and cycle parking is proposed to be provided within the development. As such, I would have no objection to the proposal, in principle, on the grounds of accessibility. I do note, however, that none of the junctions / accesses on Reuben Street have dropped kerbs with tactile paving and there are missing sections of footway, which will hamper pedestrian access to the site. As such, I would recommend that any approval granted is subject to a condition requiring the provision of uncontrolled pedestrian crossings and footway improvements along Reuben Street. In addition, I note that the pedestrian access routes within the site are sub-standard and not continuous and therefore consider that this also needs to be addressed (see comments below).

 Access and site layout

The development is proposed to be served by an access road that will be constructed from the end of Reuben Street, curve into the site, run past the northern and central apartment blocks and will then terminate at a turning area before the car park in front of the southern block. The roof top gardens / amenity terraces on the central and northern blocks will be constructed in part over the access road, at a height of approx. 5.2m above the road.

The access road, however, does not meet adoptable standards, is not wide enough for vehicles to pass along its full length, does not include a footway/s along its full length and the turning area to the south of the central block appears too small for use by service vehicles, such as fire appliances and refuse vehicles. Whilst it is unlikely to be possible for the whole road to be designed and constructed to adoptable standards, the first section should be and the rest of the road needs to be of a design that allows the development to be accessed and serviced in a safe and practical manner. I therefore recommend that the application is deferred and the applicant is requested to review and amend the site layout so it incorporates an access road and pedestrian routes that will allow the site to be accessed and serviced in safe and practical manner. This should include:

1) The first section of road (from the head of Reuben Street) being designed to adoptable standard and incorporating a turning head (this could be incorporated into the aisle of the car park to the north of the access road) 2) A 2m footway (or 1.5m absolute minimum if 2m is not possible) being provided through the site from Reuben Street to the entrance of each building (and the bin stores) 3) A 4.8m wide access road (with localised narrowing to 3.7m, if required) 4) A turning head towards the south of the site for refuse vehicles and fire appliances 5) Traffic calming to ensure low speeds on sections of straight roads. 6) Smoother kerb alignments along the access road

A revised site layout plan should then be submitted for review, together with vehicle swept-path diagrams that demonstrate that refuse vehicles and fire appliances can negotiate the access road and turn in the turning areas. In addition, noting that it will not be possible to adopt all the access road, the applicant should clarify what arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the access road is managed and maintained to a satisfactory standard in perpetuity.

Finally, with respect to design, the roof top gardens / amenity terraces appear to be supported on the eastern side by three columns. These, however, are not shown on the elevations and I would suggest that some form of protection should be provided as these would be located adjacent to the kerb line of the access road in the case of the northern and southern blocks. This should therefore be reviewed.

 Conclusion

Although I would have no objection, in principle to the construction of a residential development at this site, the scheme is not considered acceptable in its present form and therefore I would request that the application is deferred and the applicant requested to amend the scheme and submit the additional information requested with the aim of addressing the issues identified.

Comments of 29/03/18, following receipt of amended plans

I write with reference to drawing 017-138-02 Rev I ‘Residential Development Site Layout’ which has been submitted to address the comments I raised in my consultation response of the 24th October 2017. The scheme has been revised fairly significantly following detailed discussions with this department and now includes:

1) 3 apartment buildings, comprising of 3 apartments each, of a different design to that previously proposed. 2) An amended access road, with turning areas, footways and traffic calming 3) Car parking for 14 cars (including 3 spaces for disabled badge holders)

I also understand that the applicant has confirmed that the apartment building which was previously proposed to be constructed to the north of the site as part of DC/062105 is no longer proposed to be constructed.

After reviewing the revised plan, I would make the following comments:

1) The revised scheme (9 apartments) should generate fewer vehicle movements than the previously approved scheme (8 apartments and three employment units) 2) The proposed level of parking, which equates to a level of parking of 155%, accords with the Council's parking standards and should meet demand 3) Parking for cycles and disabled badge holders is proposed to be provided in accordance with the adopted standards 4) Although the access road does not meet adoptable standards and the turning area is slightly sub-standard, I would consider it is of design that will enable the site to be accessed and serviced in a safe and practical way. As such, and having regard to the site’s constraints, subject to detail (which can be dealt with by condition / at detailed design stage), I would consider the access road acceptable.

I can therefore confirm that the revised plan addresses my previous comments and, as such, I raise no objection to the application, subject to conditions.

 Recommendation: No objection to the application, subject to conditions.

Conditions

No development shall take place until a method statement detailing how the development will be constructed (including any demolition and site clearance) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall include details on phasing, access arrangements, turning / manoeuvring facilities, deliveries, vehicle routing, traffic management, signage, hoardings, scaffolding, where materials will be loaded, unloaded and stored, parking arrangements and mud prevention measures. Development of the site shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: To ensure that the approved development is constructed in a safe way and in a manner that will minimise disruption during construction, in accordance with Policy T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD. The details are required prior to the commencement of any development as details of how the development is to be constructed need to be approved prior to the commencement of construction activities.

No development shall take place until detail drawings of the access road (and associated turning areas and tie in with Reuben Street) that will serve the approved development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with details of how the road will be managed and maintained. The drawings shall include:

1) A general arrangement / layout, based on a topographical survey and to a scale not less than 1:200, showing the road, footways, verges and turning areas 2) Details of kerbing, levels, pedestrian crossing points and traffic calming features 3) Specification details 4) Details of how the road will be drained 5) Details of street lighting, signage and carriageway markings 6) Details of the vehicle restraint system to be erected along the east side of the road 7) Details of visibility splays

No part of the development shall be occupied until the access road has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and is available for use. No structure, object, plant or tree exceeding 600mm in height shall subsequently be erected or allowed to grow to a height in excess of 600mm within the visibility splays. The access road shall thereafter be retained, remain available for use and be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order that the site will benefit from safe and practical access arrangements, parking, turning and servicing facilities in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD. The details are required prior to the commencement of any development as the layout and levels of the road need to be agreed prior to the commencement of development as subsequent changes may not be technically possible or could result in work that has been carried out being abortive.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no gate or other means of obstruction shall be erected across the site access road that will serve the approved development at any time.

Reason: In order to ensure that vehicles can enter and exit the site unhindered and turn within the site in terms of Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

No work shall take place in respect to the construction of the car parking facilities to be provided for the approved development until a detailed drawing of the car parking facilities has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include how the car parking facilities will be surfaced, drained, marked out, signed and illuminated. The approved development shall not be occupied until the car parking facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved drawing and are available for use. The car parking facilities shall thereafter be retained and shall remain available for use. The car parking facilities shall be illuminated at all times during the hours of darkness that the car park is in use (either permanently or using motion-controlled lighting).

Reason: To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided and that they are appropriately located and are of a safe and practical design, in accordance with Policies SD-6 ‘Adapting to the impacts of climate change’, SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, T-1 Transport and Development’, T-2 ‘Parking in Developments’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by Chapter 10, ‘Parking’, of the SMBC ‘Sustainable Transport’ SPD.

A detail drawing/s illustrating a scheme to:

1) Provide uncontrolled pedestrian crossings (dropped kerbs with tactile paving) at the existing access points on the north-western side of Reuben Street between the site and Manchester Road 2) Construct footways where there are missing sections of footway on the north- western side of Reuben Street between the site and Manchester Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the crossings have been provided and footways have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing.

Reason: To ensure that the development has safe and good quality pedestrian access arrangements in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’, T-1 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD

No work shall take place in respect to the provision of cycle parking within the site until details of proposals to provide long-stay cycle parking facilities for the approved dwellings (which shall be in the form of covered and secure cycle stores that will accommodate a minimum of one cycle for each dwelling) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Each dwelling within the development shall not be occupied until the cycle parking facility for that dwelling has been provided in accordance with the approved details. The cycle parking facilities shall then be retained and shall remain available for use at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that safe and practical cycle parking facilities are provided so as to ensure that the site is fully accessible by all modes of transport in accordance with Policies CS9 ‘Transport and Development’, T-1 ‘Transport and Development’ and T- 3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD and the cycle parking facilities are appropriately designed and located in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by paragraph 5.6, ‘Cycle Parking’, of the SMBC Transport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD.

Informatives

The Highway Authority (Stockport Council) considers the first section of the site access road and turning head to the north of the site should be constructed to adoptable standards and offered to the Highway Authority as highway. This will require the applicant / developer to enter into a Section 38 Agreement, under the Highways Act 1980. The Agreement will need to be in place prior to the commencement of any works. The applicant / developer should contact the Highways Section of Planning Services (0161 474 4905/6) with respect to this matter.

In addition to planning permission, the applicant / developer will need to obtain the consent of / enter into an agreement with the Highway Authority (Stockport Council) for the approved / required highways works. There will be a charge for the consent / to enter into an agreement. Consent will be required / the agreement will need to be in place prior to the commencement of any works. The applicant / developer should contact the Highways Section of Planning Services (0161 474 4905/6) with respect to this matter.

A condition/s of this planning consent requires the submission of detailed drawings / additional information relating to the access arrangements / parking / works within the highway. Advice on the discharge of highways related planning conditions is available within the ‘Highways and Transport Advice’ section of the planning pages of the Council’s web-site (www.stockport.gov.uk). The applicant is advised to study this advice prior to preparing and submitting detailed drawings / the required additional information.

A condition of this planning consent requires the submission of a Construction Method Statement. In order to ensure that the statement includes all the required information the applicant / developer is advised to use the Council’s template Construction Method Statement. This can be obtained from the ‘Highways and Transport Advice’ section within the planning pages of the Council’s web-site (www.stockport.gov.uk).

Conservation Officer

No comments made.

Arboricultural Officer

The proposed development site is located within the grounds of the site predominantly on the existing hard standing/commercial area. The plot is comprised largely of hard standing/informal grounds.

There is no Conservation area protection within this site or affected by this development.

There are no legally protected trees within this site or affected by this development.

The proposed construction including associated infrastructure of the site predominantly sits within the informal grounds and hard standing areas of the site and will not have an impact on trees on site or neighbouring the site.

The main concern for the development is the potential accidental damage during the construction stages of the site and the ever increasing urban aspect of the site and surrounding areas. There is no indicative tree planting shown on the site layout plan and landscape plan, so there is no evidence on how they propose to enhance the ever increasing urban setting but some consideration needs to be given to the increase of screening of the site from the properties and vice versa as well as increased hard landscaped tree pit planting at the entrance to the site with the removal of the grass verge or design to allow a trench tree pit along the access road to enhance the route and improve SUDs capacity of the site, while also considering the biodiversity and environmental aspect of trees within the urban setting.

The proposed development will potentially not impact on the trees through the construction stages on site with no trees being shown within proximity of the new build and without the tree survey details it is assumed no impact from developments will occur.

Due to the ever increasing urban aspect of South Reddish further enhancement planting scheme needs to be delivered in accordance with the Councils policy for tree cover in revised landscape scheme submitted to off-set the impact on the biodiversity of the site and enhancing the local environment with increased level of tree cover for the site or within surrounding environment if no room within the red edge, but this can be submitted as part of the full planning application.

The tree planting will impact on biodiversity, aesthetics and general screening of the site. The development will not need to supply protective fencing and advisory notices to prevent any damage, accidental spillage or compaction on the trees and their root systems.

Consideration should be given to the proposed tree planting as part of the scheme as the plan shows no proposed tree planting throughout the site that will enhance the local area the details of the tree size which needs to be increased to a minimum of extra heavy standards for all planting and species need to be reviewed as some species need to be assessed with inappropriate/nuisance species removed to prevent future issues on the site and noted in the landscape plan.

In principle the proposed construction will not have an impact on the trees on site and within neighbouring properties, therefore it is only acceptable in its current format with the submission of a revised landscaping schemes submitted to discharge the conditions and consideration of the above is given in this schemes.

The following condition would be relevant to any planning application relating to the site :-

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.

Nature Development Officer

The site is located off Reuben Street. The application seeks outline consent including details of access, layout and scale for the erection of nine apartments (three blocks each containing three units). The site comprises hard standing and buildings.

The site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise.

Many buildings have the potential to support roosting bats. All species of bats and their roosts are protected under UK (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) and European legislation (The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010).

Paragraph 016 of the Natural Environment Planning Practice Guidance states that the local authority should only request a survey if they consider there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present and affected by development. Access was not possible to the site during the site visit however, the building appears to have limited bat roosting potential owing to its construction. I would therefore not require any further survey in relation to bats as part of the current planning application for the site as there is considered to be a low risk of roosting bats being affected.

Buildings can offer potential bird nesting habitat. All breeding birds and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

No invasive species were recorded during the site visit.

In this instance I do not consider it reasonable to require a bat survey as part of the current planning application. However I would recommend that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential for buildings/structures to support roosting bats. It should also include information stating that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to abide by the laws which are in place to protect biodiversity. Should at any time bats, or any other protected species be discovered on site, work should cease immediately and Natural England/a suitably experienced ecologist should be contacted.

Similarly, if any building demolition works are proposed during the nesting bird season (which is typically March-August, inclusive), then the following informative should be used [BS42020 D.3.2.2]: Structures are likely to contain nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. These features are present on the application site and are to be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates, unless a recent survey has been undertaken by a competent ecologist to assess the nesting bird activity on site during this period and it is absolutely certain that nesting birds are not present.

The proposed site layout submitted with the application shows indicative landscape proposals for the site, including tree planting and roof-top gardens. These are welcome inclusions within the proposals as developments are expected to make a positive contribution to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the natural environment within the borough. Any proposed landscape planting as part of a full planning application for the site should comprise locally native species and/or species beneficial for wildlife (such as nectar-rich and berry/fruit producing plants). These measures are particularly important to improve habitat connectivity and to ensure the proposed development is in accordance with local and national planning policy (including 3.286 and 3.296 of CS8 in the LDF and the NPPF). Further suitable opportunities for biodiversity enhancements include provision of integrated bat roosting and bird nesting features within the proposed new buildings.

Environment Team (Land Contamination)

I have reviewed the Phase 1 report. The report states that a Phase 2 investigation and gas assessment are required, therefore can I request the following conditions :-  CTM 1 : No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment into contamination at the site, in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing by the local planning authority, has been carried out. The investigation and risk assessment shall include recommendations for remedial action and the development shall not be occupied until these recommendations have been implemented.

 CTM 2 : No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the specified use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme to be submitted shall specify but not be limited to :-the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria (ii) all remedial works to be undertaken including the quantities of materials to be removed from and imported to the development site. (iii) the proposals for sourcing and testing all materials imported to the site including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and actual and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment in accordance with the document "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination" (CLR11)).

 CTM 3 : The development shall not be occupied until the approved remediation scheme required to be submitted by Condition XXX has been carried out. Within 6 months of completion of remediation measures, a validation report assessing the effectiveness of the remediation carried shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall specify any further remediation measures necessary and indicate how and when these measures will be undertaken.

 LFG 1 : No development shall take place until (i) a method statement for the carrying out of an investigation and assessment of the potential for landfill gas being present on the land has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and (ii) the investigation and assessment has been carried out in accordance with the approved method statement and (iii) a written report of the investigation and a copy of the assessment has been submitted to the local planning authority. All precautionary and remedial measures (whether relating to excavation and other site works, building development and construction, gas control measures or otherwise) recommended or suggested by the report and assessment shall be taken or carried out in the course of the development unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 LFG 3 : No part of the development shall be occupied until all works necessary to prevent landfill gas migration into the development have been approved in writing by the local planning authority and carried out in full.

Environment Team (Pollution Prevention) I have assessed the above proposed development for outline permission for the erection of nine apartments. I have assessed the noise report submitted with the application and I do not object to the development.

Development to be constructed as per mitigation measures outlined within noise ‘report 0287/APR1 on 26 September 2017 by lighthouse Acoustics’.

Drainage Engineer/Lead Local Flood Authority

No comments made.

United Utilities

United Utilities will have no objection to the proposed development provided that the following conditions are attached to any approval:

 Foul Water

Condition 1 : Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

 Surface Water

Condition 2 : Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. In the event of surface water draining to the combined public sewer, the pass forward flow rate to the public sewer must be restricted to 6.5 l/s.

Reason : To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG.

The applicant can discuss any of the above with Developer Engineer, Will Harrison, by email at [email protected].

 Management and Maintenance of Sustainable Drainage Systems

Without effective management and maintenance, sustainable drainage systems can fail or become ineffective. As a provider of wastewater services, we believe we have a duty to advise the Local Planning Authority of this potential risk to ensure the longevity of the surface water drainage system and the service it provides to people. We also wish to minimise the risk of a sustainable drainage system having a detrimental impact on the public sewer network should the two systems interact. We therefore recommend the Local Planning Authority include a condition in their Decision Notice regarding a management and maintenance regime for any sustainable drainage system that is included as part of the proposed development.

For schemes of 10 or more units and other major development, we recommend the Local Planning Authority consults with the Lead Local Flood Authority regarding the exact wording of any condition. You may find the below a useful example.

Example condition : Prior to occupation of the development a sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development shall be submitted to the local planning authority and agreed in writing. The sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan shall include as a minimum:

a. Arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker, or, management and maintenance by a resident’s management company; and b. Arrangements for inspection and ongoing maintenance of all elements of the sustainable drainage system to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

The development shall subsequently be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that management arrangements are in place for the sustainable drainage system in order to manage the risk of flooding and pollution during the lifetime of the development.

Please note, United Utilities cannot provide comment on the design, management and maintenance of an asset that is not in our ownership and therefore should the suggested condition be included in the Decision Notice, we will not be involved in discharging this condition.

 Water Comments

A water supply can be made available to the proposed development.

The applicant must undertake a complete soil survey, as and when land proposals have progressed to a scheme design i.e. development, and results submitted along with an application for water. This will aid in our design of future pipework and materials to eliminate the risk of contamination to the local water supply.

Please note that for properties over two stories high and commercial properties we recommend the developer considers the installation of tanks and pumps. The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction.

A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.

Should this planning application be approved, the applicant should contact United Utilities on 03456 723 723 regarding connection to the water mains or public sewers.

 General comments

It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. United Utilities offers a fully supported mapping service and we recommend the applicant contact our Property Searches Team at [email protected] to obtain maps of the site.

Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

 Supporting information

United Utilities wishes to draw attention to the following as a means to facilitate sustainable development within the region.

 Site drainage

In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way.

The NPPG clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. We would ask the developer to consider the following drainage options in the following order of priority:

1. Into the ground (infiltration); 2. To a surface water body; 3. To a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; 4. To a combined sewer.

The comments made in this letter regarding site drainage reflect this approach.

If the applicant intends to offer wastewater assets forward for adoption by United Utilities, the proposed detailed design will be subject to a technical appraisal by an Adoptions Engineer as we need to be sure that the proposal meets the requirements of Sewers for adoption and United Utilities’ Asset Standards. The proposed design should give consideration to long term operability and give United Utilities a cost effective proposal for the life of the assets. Therefore, should this application be approved and the applicant wishes to progress a Section 104 agreement, we strongly recommend that no construction commences until the detailed drainage design, submitted as part of the Section 104 agreement, has been assessed and accepted in writing by United Utilities. Any works carried out prior to the technical assessment being approved is done entirely at the developers own risk and could be subject to change.

 Justification for Pre-commencement condition

If a ‘Pre-commencement’ condition has been requested in this correspondence, please consider the following information as justification of this request.

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Part 6, we have been asked to provide written justification for any pre-commencement condition we may have recommended to you in respect of surface water disposal.

The purpose of the planning system is to help achieve sustainable development. This includes securing the most sustainable approach to surface water disposal in accordance with the surface water hierarchy.

It is important to explain that the volume arising from surface water flows can be many times greater than the foul flows from the same development. As a result they have the potential to use up a significant volume of capacity in our infrastructure. If we can avoid and manage surface water flows entering the public sewer, we are able to significantly manage the impact of development on wastewater infrastructure and, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, minimise the risk of flooding. Managing the impact of surface water on wastewater infrastructure is also more sustainable as it reduces the pumping and treatment of unnecessary surface water and retains important capacity for foul flows.

As our powers under the Water Industry Act are limited, it is important to ensure explicit control over the approach to surface water disposal in any planning permission that you may grant.

Our reasoning for recommending this as a pre-commencement condition is further justifiable as drainage is an early activity in the construction process. It is in the interest of all stakeholders to ensure the approach is agreed before development commences.

Further information regarding Developer Services and Planning, can be found on our website at http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders-developers.aspx. Canal and River Trust

The Canal & River Trust is a statutory consultee under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. The current notified area applicable to consultations with us, in our capacity as a Statutory Consultee was issued to Local Planning Authorities in 2011 under the organisations former name, British Waterways. The 2011 issue introduced a notified area for household and minor scale development and a notified area for EIA and major scale development.

This application falls outside the notified area for its application scale. We are therefore returning this application to you as there is no requirement for you to consult us in our capacity as a Statutory Consultee.

Greater Manchester Fire Service

No comments made.

ANALYSIS

Policy Principle

The application site is allocated within a designated Employment Area, as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. The detailed comments received to the application from the Council Planning Policy Officer are contained within the Consultee Responses section above.

Saved UDP policy E3.1 and Core Strategy DPD policies CS7 and AED-3 essentially seek to protect such sites for continued employment use. As such, the proposed loss of employment use at the site is contrary to the above policies and the principle of a proposed residential development at the site represents a departure from the development plan. In order to justify the proposed residential development, it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate why the site is no longer appropriate for employment use, given the shortage of employment land identified within the Employment Land Review (ELR) for office use to 2031 and the likely shortage of land for industrial and warehousing use, post 2020.

In an attempt to justify the loss of the existing employment use at the site, the applicant has submitted an Employment Land Statement. In summary, the following is asserted by the applicant :-

 The site was last used over two years ago for employment uses and has remained vacant since 2015;

 The site is typical for such a form of long-standing small-scale commercial use which has declined over the years to a point where its location and condition is unattractive to the market;  The existing buildings are poorly insulated, badly positioned, have no dedicated parking or service areas and contain potentially dangerous materials for their construction;

 Although abutted to the East, West and South by commercial development, the site is adjacent to residential development on Reuben Street and The Parklands;

 The site immediately adjacent to the West at The Rope Works has recently been granted planning permission for a residential development of 34 dwellings. This permission has left the application site as the only commercial use reached from residential streets off Manchester Road. The proposed residential development would therefore compliment the area;

 If not developed for residential use, the site would be left as a ‘finger’ of commercial land adjacent to dwellings which would not fit in with the residential nature of the area and lead to environmental conflicts between uses, due to industrial operations which generate noise, disturbance and fumes. Redevelopment of the site for commercial purposes would also lead to conflict with the soon to be introduced residential occupiers at The Rope Works;

 The Council has an ambition to support a ‘Brownfield First’ approach to new development in the Borough, placing an emphasis on the importance of delivery. In order to minimise pressure for development on greenfield sites and the Green Belt, the Council has identified an objective to identify all existing brownfield sites to explore and optimise their potential for development. The current proposal completely adheres to these objectives and is precisely the type of brownfield land redevelopment which the Council seeks to encourage within the Borough;

 A core principle of the NPPF is that planning should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. The NPPF also advises that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

 Whilst saved UDP policy E3.1 seeks to protect employment uses on allocated sites, it does accept that, in some circumstances, non-employment uses may be appropriate;

 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing, therefore the NPPF is a material consideration that carries substantial weight in the decision making process. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is clear that where no five year supply can be demonstrated, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be used to determine planning applications. The proposal is considered to achieve the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental);  Commercial agents in the area have confirmed that “Access to the site is not ideal down a tight residential cobbled street which would not be suitable for heavy goods vehicles and this would severely affect the marketability of the site as commercial land” and “The site is very constrained in the fact that it is a long, thin site which would not suit the majority of commercial style development. As a result, we feel that the only viable use for the site would be for residential redevelopment and we would not feel it appropriate to market the site for continued commercial usage”

The concerns raised to the proposal from the Planning Policy Officer are noted and it is acknowledged that saved UDP policy E3.1 and Core Strategy DPD policies CS7 and AED-3 undoubtedly seek to retain and protect employment uses on allocated employment sites. Nevertheless, a balancing exercise needs to be undertaken to identify whether there are material considerations that would justify a departure from established employment policy. It is evident from the Employment Land Statement submitted in support of the application that it is clear that the applicant has demonstrated that, due to the identified characteristics and constraints of the site, the site is no longer considered appropriate for employment use. As such, it is considered that the release of this designated employment site and the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is clearly justified as a departure from the development plan in this particular case.

With regard to the principle of the proposed residential development at the site, it is noted that the site is not located within one of the two main spatial priority areas for residential development, as set out in Core Strategy DPD policy CS4. However, the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply, with 3.8 years-worth of supply against a requirement in national policy for 5 years plus a buffer. In these circumstances, Core Strategy DPD policy H-2 allows for residential development on sites that meet the relevant accessibility criteria. It is noted that the site achieves an accessibility score of 65 which exceeds the current accessibility score of 45 required for new apartments. In accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy DPD policy H-2, the proposal would also result in an acknowledged regeneration benefit, in the form the re-use of a vacant, previously developed brownfield site. Moreover, Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is clear that where no 5 year supply can be demonstrated, the presumption in favour of sustainable development identified within Paragraph 14 of the NPPF should be used to determine planning applications, unless the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole. On this basis, the principle of much needed residential development on a brownfield site, within an accessible and sustainable location, directly adjacent to a Predominantly Residential Area, is considered acceptable, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS2, CS4 and H-2.

With regard to the issues of open space and affordable housing provision, National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) directs that tariff style planning obligations or affordable housing provision should not be sought from development of ten units or less and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1000 square metres. On this basis, the proposal for 9 residential units/711 square metres of gross floorspace is exempt from the payment of a commuted sum contribution towards open space, as required under saved UDP policy L1.2, Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-2 and the Recreational Open Space Provision and Commuted Payments SPG and affordable housing provision, as required by Core Strategy DPD policy H-3.

Impact on Visual and Residential Amenity

The application seeks outline planning permission for layout and scale, with matters of appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration and approval.

In terms of the issue of visual amenity, the site is located in a position where limited public vantage points are available, with the site predominantly screened to the South West by the former Rope Works building and residential properties on Reuben Street, Morton Street and Stanbank Street. No concerns are raised to the layout of the proposed development, with the proposed access road running along the North Eastern boundary of the site and the proposed three residential blocks arranged in various locations close the South Western boundary. In terms of scale, no concerns are raised to the size and height of the proposed development, incorporating residential accommodation over two conventional floors and within the proposed roof space, reflective of the scale and height of surrounding buildings. The proposed density of development at 50 dwellings per hectare is considered appropriate within an urban location. A total of 425 square metres of communal amenity space would be provided to serve the proposed development, in accordance with the Design of Residential Development SPD recommendation of 35 square metres of communal amenity space per proposed two bedroomed apartment. In the absence of objections from the Council Conservation Officer, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its relationship to the adjacent former Rope Works building, a Locally Listed Building.

With regard to the issue of impact on residential amenity, the site is adjoined to the North East by commercial and industrial units on Coronation Street and to the South East by an ‘Asda’ superstore. The proposed development would be well separated from the residential properties on The Parklands, Reuben Street, Morton Street and Stanbank Street to the North, North West and South West. Noting the extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the adjacent former Rope Works site for residential development, the proposed site plan submitted with the application demonstrates that the proposed development would achieve a satisfactory relationship to these approved dwellings.

In view of the above, it is considered that the layout and scale of the proposed development could be successfully accommodated on the site without causing undue harm to the visual amenity of the area or the residential amenity of surrounding properties. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy DPD policies SIE-1 and H-1 and the Design of Residential Development SPD.

Access, Highway Safety and Parking

The detailed comments received to the application from the Council Highway Engineer are contained within the Consultee Responses section above. In order to address concerns raised by the Highway Engineer to the proposal as originally submitted, significant amendments have been made to the scheme, in terms of the proposed access road and parking provision. As such, the following consideration of the proposal by the Highway Engineer has been made on the basis of the submitted amended scheme.

In terms of traffic generation, the Highway Engineer notes that the proposal for 9 apartments should generate fewer vehicle movements than the previously approved and extant scheme for 8 apartments and 3 employment units at the site, approved as part of planning permission DC062105. The proposed 14 parking spaces equates to a level of parking of 155%, which accords with the Councils adopted parking standards and should meet demand. Parking for cycles and disabled badge holders is proposed, in accordance with adopted standards. Although the Highway Engineer acknowledges that the proposed access road does not meet adoptable standards and the proposed turning area is slightly sub-standard, it is considered that it is of a design that would enable the site to be accessed and serviced in a safe and practical way. As such, subject to matters of details which can be controlled at the detailed design stage and by condition, the proposed access road is considered acceptable for the development.

In view of the above, on the basis of the submitted amended scheme, no objections are raised to the proposal from the Highway Engineer. Suitably worded planning conditions are recommended in relation to the submission and approval of a Construction Method Statement; details of the proposed access road; details of the proposed car park; off-site pedestrian crossing and footway improvements; and cycle parking. Subject to compliance with such conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable from an access, traffic generation, parking and highway safety perspective, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies SD-6, SIE-1, CS9, T-1, T-2 and T-3.

Impact on Trees

The detailed comments received to the application from the Council Arboricultural Officer are contained within the Consultee Responses section above.

It is noted that existing trees on site are not protected by way of Tree Preservation Order or Conservation Area status and the Arboricultural Officer considers that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on trees within the site. Nevertheless, it is recommended that a condition is imposed to require the submission, approval and implementation of a planting and landscaping scheme, to enhance the development from a visual, environmental and biodiversity perspective. Subject to compliance with such a condition, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to its impact on trees, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies SIE-1 and SIE-3.

Impact on Protected Species and Ecology

The detailed comments received to the application from the Council Nature Development Officer are contained within the Consultee Responses section above. It is noted that the site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise and the existing building on site appear to have limited bat roosting potential. As such, it is considered that there is a low risk of roosting bats being affected by the proposed development, however the applicant will be advised of legislation and procedures in place should bats or other protected species be discovered on site and with regard to demolition works within the bird nesting season by way of informative notes. It is recommended that the landscaping scheme for the site comprises locally native species and/or species beneficial for wildlife and biodiversity enhancements are provided within the proposed buildings.

In view of the above, in the absence of objections from the Council Nature Development Officer, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to it impact on protected species, biodiversity and the ecological interest of the site, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-3.

Land Contamination

The detailed comments received to the application from the Council Environment Team are contained within the consultee responses section above.

It is noted that the Phase 1 report submitted with the application recommends that a Phase 2 investigation and gas assessment are required. As such, it is recommended that conditions are imposed, which should be applied as a phased approach, to require the submission, approval and implementation of an investigation, risk assessment, remediation scheme and remedial action into potential land contamination and landfill gas at the site. Subject to compliance with such conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would not be at risk from land contamination or landfill gas migration, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-3.

Drainage

The detailed comments received to the application from United Utilities are contained within the Consultee Responses section above.

No objections are received to the proposal from United Utilities, subject to the imposition of conditions to require foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems; the submission, approval and implementation of an appropriate surface water drainage system; and management and maintenance of such a drainage system at all times thereafter. Subject to compliance with such conditions, it is considered that the proposed development could be drained in a sustainable and appropriate manner without the risk of flooding elsewhere, in accordance with saved UDP policy EP1.7 and Core Strategy DPD policies SD-6 and SIE-3.

Impact on Former Canal

The application site lies on the line of the former Manchester to Stockport Canal and saved UDP policy L1.10 seeks to protect the line of the Canal for recreational routes. Whilst the aspiration and potential for the former Canal to be restored is noted, Members attention is drawn to the fact that the North of the site is occupied by existing residential development and the South of the site is occupied by the Manchester Road Retail Park. On this basis and noting the extant planning permission for redevelopment of the site for employment and residential purposes (Reference : DC062015), it is considered that the existence of the Canal should not preclude the redevelopment of the site as proposed.

Energy Efficiency

Although the proposed development for less than 10 residential units does not trigger the Council's carbon reduction targets, as defined by Core Strategy DPD policy SD-3, an Energy Statement has been submitted in support of the application. The Energy Statement confirms that energy efficiency measures would be incorporated within the fabric of the building, in order to comply with current Building Regulations. With regard to low and zero carbon technologies, the use of solar photovoltaic, solar hot water and heat pumps is to be considered within the development dependent upon financial viability, with the use of wind power, micro- hydro, district heating and biomass discounted on the grounds of technical feasibility. On this basis, the submitted Energy Statement is compliant with the requirements of Core Strategy DPD policy SD-3.

SUMMARY

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through decision-taking. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF establishes three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental and Paragraph 8 of the NPPF indicates that these should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

The location of the site within an allocated Employment Area and the requirements of saved UDP policy E3.1 and Core Strategy DPD policies CS7 and AED-3 are acknowledged. However, it is considered that the applicant has clearly demonstrated that the site is no longer appropriate for employment use in order to justify the release of the site for residential development and approval of the application as a departure from the development plan. Further weight is afforded for the proposed residential development due to the accessible and sustainable location of the site and the provision of much needed residential development on a previously developed, brownfield site, at a time of housing under-supply within the Borough.

On the basis of the submitted amended scheme, no objections are raised from the Highway Engineer, with regard to the issues of access, highway safety, traffic generation and parking. It is considered that the proposal could be successfully accommodated on the site without causing undue harm to the visual amenity of the area or the residential amenity of surrounding properties. In the absence of objections from relevant consultees and subject to conditional control, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on trees; impact on ecology and protected species; flood risk and drainage; impact on the former Stockport to Manchester Canal; and energy efficiency. In view of the above, notwithstanding the site allocation within an Employment Area and the fact that approval of the development would constitute a departure from the development plan, in considering the planning merits of the proposal against the requirements of the NPPF, the proposal is considered to represent sustainable development. On this basis, in accordance with the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant - Should Members agree the recommendation, the application should be referred to the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee for determination as a departure from the Development Plan.

HEATONS AND REDDISH AREA COMMITTEE (16/04/18)

The Planning Officer introduced the application and highlighted the pertinent issues of the proposal. The Planning Officer updated Members of the receipt of and verbally summarised a letter of objection from the Manchester and Stockport Canal Society, which was received following report preparation.

Members sought clarification as to whether or not the line of the former Canal is protected. The Planning Officer described the route of the former Canal and referred to and explained the requirements of saved UDP policy L1.10. The Planning Officer explained the site and surroundings, including existing development on the line of the former Canal and the extant Outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the site. Given the nature of the site, the Planning Officer considered that the line of the former Canal is already severed and a refusal of the application on this ground would not be sustainable. Members sought clarification as to existing planning permissions to the North of the site. The Planning Officer confirmed the extant Outline planning permission for 8 apartments to the North of the site and confirmed that there was an aspiration from the applicant for this to be developed, which would require the submission and consideration of a subsequent Reserved Matters application. Members sought clarification with regard to the Highway Engineers comments in relation to parking and highways and how this would relate to the extant Outline planning permission and the current proposal. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was an intention from the applicant to deliver the 8 apartments to the North of the site, however such highways, parking, traffic generation and access issues could be considered as part of any subsequent Reserved Matters or Full planning application. Members sought clarification as to the Highway Engineers comments, in terms of the access, traffic generation issues and whether or not the extant Outline planning permission for 8 apartments to the North of the site would raise any issues in respect of these matters. The Planning Officer confirmed the applicants aspirations to develop both portions of the site and reiterated that any subsequent Reserved Matters application would need to assess the traffic generation differences between 8 apartments and employment units as previously approved and 8 apartments and the current proposal for 9 apartments.

Mr Bravey (on behalf of the Manchester and Stockport Canal Society) spoke in objection to the application. Reference was made to saved UDP policy L1.10 and the need to have regard to the protection of the line of the former Canal. It was stated that a proposal had been made as part of the Local Development Plan Review, where proposals had been made as to how the line of the former Canal should be dealt with over time and that the opportunities for the former Canal to be restored as a leisure route and green corridor should be considered. Whilst existing development in proximity to the line of the former Canal raised some issues, policies could be put in place to reinstate the line. Diversion or other alternative arrangements would be possible where the line of the former Canal had already been built on. Objections were raised to the current proposal as something could be done on this part of the former Canal now.

Members debated the proposal. Councillor McGee felt that there needed to be clarity in terms of the access to the previously approved 8 apartments to the North of the site and the current proposal for 9 apartments and raised concerns that this would represent a double-hit on a sub-standard access. Councillor Driver made reference to saved UDP policy L1.10 and felt that clarification as to whether or not the proposal complies with this policy would need to be provided prior to the determination of the application by the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee. Further clarification was provided by the Planning Officer with respect to this matter, including the existing severance issues and the extant Outline planning application for redevelopment of the site. Councillor Brett raised concerns to the relationship of the current proposal to the extant Outline planning permission for 8 apartments to the North of the site, in terms of site access and felt that clarification of this matter was required, as would a site visit prior to consideration by Planning and Highways Regulation Committee. Councillor Driver felt that a site visit would be helpful, to view the site and the relationship to the former Canal. Whilst brownfield development should be encouraged, the issues regarding the access to the site, the relationship to previously approved schemes and whether or not the proposal complied with saved UDP policy L1.10 would need to be clarified prior to consideration by the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee.

Following the debate, it was resolved to refer the application for a site visit with no recommendation made. It was considered that clarification should be provided as to the relationship of the proposed development to the line of the former Canal and clarification should be provided as to the relationship of the current application to the extant Outline planning permission for the development of the Northern portion of the site for 8 apartments.