Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Item 1
Application Reference: DC/056881 Location: Elisabeth Mill and Friedland Building site, Houldsworth Street, North Reddish, SK5 6BN Proposal: Refurbishment and conversion of Elisabeth Mill to form 152 dwellings; demolition and replacement of Friedland Building and a temporary contractors/marketing building with 49 dwellings and community floorspace; and, associated access, landscaping and car parking. Type of Application: Outline Planning Permission
Registration Date: 02/12/2014 Expiry Date: 03/03/2015 Case Officer: Pippa Brown
Applicant: De Trafford Estates Group Agent : Paul Butler Associates
COMMITTEE STATUS PHRC decision. Residential Development in excess of 100 dwellings. Application referred to Heatons & Reddish Area Committee for comment/ recommendation.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT This is a large scale major development. It is an outline application that seeks approval for 'access', 'layout', 'scale' and 'appearance', with only 'landscaping' reserved for future determination.
It involves the conversion and extension by one storey at roof level of Elisabeth Mill to form 152 apartments over six floors. The dwelling mix comprises 72 x 1-bed apartments and 80 x 2-bed apartments. The proposals also involve some minor alterations to the exterior, most notably the demolition of the existing predominantly single-storey structure attached to the southern elevation and the provision of an external stair. Alternations to the internal space most notably include the creating a large atrium to allow natural light into the building. The lower ground floor is given over to car parking, and there is further provision within the atrium at ground floor level. Most flats have a small sitting out space outside their flat and there is communal amenity space at 3rd floor level. Windows are proposed to be metal and the roof top extension clad in a grey cladding (to be determined).
The Friedland building and a temporary contractors/marketing building on site will be demolished and replaced with 49 dwellings including 5 live-work units (the latter provide within block 10 comprises of a total of 119.285 sqm B1(c) gross floorspace) in a series of ten small scale blocks of between two and three storeys in height, plus a community space located in block 11 (D2, 823sqm net). Dwellings comprise of 10 x 2-bed flats, 13 x 2-bed houses, 19 x 3-bed houses and Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
7 x 4-bed houses. Houses have gardens, with flats (including duplex) having gardens or communal amenity space.
The blocks are different footprints and a variety of (modern) designs, and are broadly arranged in a series of courtyards. They have a distinctly industrial aesthetic reflecting the history of this site, and are clearly subservient to Elisabeth Mill. Materials are predominantly brick with dark grey tiled roof tiles and tile hanging, plus some timber including windows and cladding.
The proposals also include associated access, car parking and communal gardens. Roads are block paved, shared spaces are flagged or resin bound gravel, pavements flagged, and parking spaces a mix of all three.
SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The site consists of two main buildings that were previously used for industrial purposes. The site is now vacant. Elisabeth Mill is positioned towards the north-eastern corner of the site, and is a four storey red brick mill building of traditional character dating from 1874 that is locally listed. The Friedland building is of a similar scale but is a concrete structure dating from the 1980s and located towards the south-western corner of the site. There is also a temporary single storey contractor/ marketing building towards the western boundary of the site.
The site is not marked by any significant change in level but falls from east to west by around a couple of metres. There are trees, shrubs and other vegetation along the western boundary with Houldsworth Golf Course along with metal fencing, and the southern boundary with the golf course's access road which also incorporates a brick wall. To the north is Victoria Mill (and associated car parking/ landscaping), which forms part of the same mill complex as Elisabeth Mill, and this mill building has already been converted to flats (with extension at roof level). The boundary to Victoria Mill comprises of temporary hoarding. The eastern boundary is to Houldsworth Street, and this boundary includes temporary hoarding, metal railings gates providing access into the site and an electricity substation. Opposite and across Houldsworth Street is a green open space.
The site forms part of the Houldsworth Conservation Area, a planned industrial development dating from the late 19th century that is dominated mills, community buildings and terraced housing. The wider area is predominantly residential in character.
POLICY BACKGROUND The statutory development plan for Stockport comprises policies set out in the Stockport Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Core Strategy DPD) adopted March 2011 and policies of Stockport's UDP Review that have been saved by direction under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning & Compulsory Purchases Act 2004.
The site is allocated as 'predominantly residential area' on the UDP proposals map. The site also lies within the Houldsworth Conservation Area.
The following policies are of relevance in consideration of the application:
CORE STRATEGY DPD CS1 - Overarching Principles: Sustainable Development - Addressing Inequalities & Climate Change SD1 - Creating Sustainable Communities Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
SD3 - Delivering the Energy Opportunities Plans - New Development SD6 - Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change CS2 - Housing Provision CS3 - Mix of Housing CS4 - Distribution of Housing H1 - Design of Residential Development H2 - Housing Phasing H3 - Affordable Housing CS5 - Access to Services CS8 - Safeguarding & Improving the Environment SIE1 - Quality Places SIE2 - Provision of Recreating & Amenity Open Space in New Developments SIE3 - Protecting, Safeguarding & Enhancing the Environment CS9 - Transport & Development CS10 - An Effective & Sustainable Transport Network T1 - Transport & Development T2 - Parking in Development T3 - Safety & Capacity on the Highway Network
SAVED UDP REVIEW POLICIES HC1.1 Demolition & Tree Felling in Conservation Areas HC1.3 Special Control of Development in Conservation Areas HC1.4 New Uses for Buildings in Conservation Areas L1.1 Land for Active Recreation L1.2 Children's Play L1.10 Canals & Disused Railways CTF1.1 Development of Community Services & Facilities CDH1.2 Non Residential Development in Predominantly Residential Areas CDH1.9 Community Facilities in Predominantly Residential Areas
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE/ DOCUMENTS Affordable Housing SPG Recreational Open Space Provision & Commuted Sums SPG Design of Residential Development SPD Sustainable Design & Construction SPD Sustainable Transport SPD Transport & Highways in Residential Areas SPD
NATIONAL PLANNING LEGISLATION National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
PLANNING HISTORY DC045743 - Non material amendment to DC012448 for alterations relating solely to Elizabeth Mill (Phase 2) for a reduction in unit numbers, internal alterations providing different apartment types and mix, removal of one additional floor to the roof of the building, partial demolition of the existing extension on the southern elevation, creation of garden areas, alterations to the landscaping layout, alterations to ground floor windows, addition of balustrading to roof and amendments to access and parking layout, Elisabeth Mill, Houldsworth Street, North Reddish. Grant 15/12/10 Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
DC042522 - Change of use from distribution centre (B8 use class) to training centre for construction skills (D1 Educational use), Former Friedland Building, Houldsworth Street, Reddish. Grant 02/02/10 DC023503 - Erection of 4 No. flags adjacent to entrance (temporary consent for three years), Elisabeth Mill, Houldsworth Street, Reddish. Grant 21/08/06 DC012450 - Demolition of existing ancillary buildings prior to redevelopment of site (Conservation Area Consent). Grant 06/08/04 DC012448 - Residential Development of 486 apartments comprising of conversion & extension to existing mills to provide 318 units, extension to existing warehouse to provide 80 units and erection of 88 units in six-storey block, erection of multi-storey car park with associated car parking, landscaping & access works. Grant 03/08/04 DC012353 - Screening Opinion. Not EIA development 05/08/03 DC008330 - Certificate of Lawfulness for B2 use Unit b, New Mill, Houldsworth Street, Reddish. LDS Est use - s191. Withdrawn 26/07/02 74608 - Prior notification for installation of telecommunications antennae & equipment cabin. Grant 24/11/99 64833 - Creation of car park including lighting columns. Grant 15/08/96
NEIGHBOURS VIEWS The occupiers of the 180 properties within Victoria (the adjoining) Mill and the adjoining golf club were notified in writing of the proposal. The application was also advertised in the press and on site as a major development; affecting the character of the conservation area and the setting of a grade II* listed building. The consultation periods have now expired.
No letters of objection, support or offering comments have been received during the consultation period.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
English Heritage: The application site is located in the Houldsworth Conservation Area. This is an important conservation area with a distinctive townscape that contributes to the settings of a group of highly graded listed buildings, including Houldsworth Mill (II*), the Working Men's Club (II*), St Elisabeth's Church (I), school & rectory (II*). Although unlisted Elisabeth Mill which was built in 1874 by AH Stott and makes a positive contribution to the conservation area.
A previous application proposed the total demolition of Elisabeth Mill and we were concerned about the harm to the conservation area and settings of the above listed buildings. However, the current application incorporates Elisabeth Mill into the scheme with a creative approach to forming a large atrium in the centre of the building. The new build elements that would replace the 1980s Friedland Building respond well to the character and appearance of the conservation area with an industrial aesthetic. Details such as the northern light roof structure to block 7, the taller repetitive front elevations to block 2 and the varied industrial responses to the elevations of block 11 should work well.
We therefore welcome the amended approach and support the scheme, which is consistent with our Constructive Conservation approach. Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Environment Agency: We have no objection in principle to the proposed development but would wish to make the following comments.
The following document has been reviewed: REC Ltd Geo-Environmental Site Assessment. Elisabeth Mill, Houldsworth St, Reddish. Client: DE Trafford Estates. Report No. 45657p1r0 Dated June 2014.
The report provided indicates that the site has been subject to previous contaminative land uses, which may be a potential source of contamination to Controlled Waters in the vicinity of the site, which include a glaciofluvial sand and gravels (Secondaty A aquifer), Chester Pebble Beds (Principal aquifer). A groundwater abstraction is located 63m south of the site.
Potential sources of contamination on the site identified in the report include industrial mill buildings, historic infilled ponds, an infilled canal, boiler house, fuel tanks and electricity sub stations. We note that a site investigation has been recommended and we concur with this recommendation, however we are aware of previous submissions in regard to the same site, which indicated that significant historical contamination may be present that may pose a significant risk to controlled waters. This information has not been assessed within the provided Geo-Environmental Site Assessment Report. The Geo-Environmental Site Assessment report should be updated to include this information and the site reassessed before commencing the site investigation.
Advice to Applicant We are aware of previous submissions in regard to the site, which indicated that significant historical contamination may be present on site that may pose a significant risk to controlled waters, however none of this information has been reviewed and assessed within the provided REC Geo-Environmental Site Assessment Report. We recommend that the REC Geo-Environmental Site Assessment Report is updated to include all historical site investigations, chemical data and risk assessments. These should be consolidated, reviewed (if necessary revised) and resubmitted for accurate site specific comments to be made. Copies of this information may need to be obtained from the site owners, their agents or requested from previous site owners.
The previous reports included site investigations, a tank investigation report, Controlled Waters Risk Assessment. The particular contaminants of concern included oil within the sands, the Trichloroethylene (TCE) Plant and TCE Storage, TCE/ Vinyl chloride contamination.
Groundwater The application should consider the hydrogeology of the area, if impacts are identified mitigation methods must be put in place. We would expect that any planning application submitted should include a scheme for disposal of foul and surface water including a foul and surface water drainage plan to be submitted to us in relation to the site. There should be no infiltration of surface water on contaminated land or any discharge of any contaminated water to ground.
Geological maps show the site is underlain by the Chester Pebble Beds (Principal aquifer). This is shown to be overlain by superficial deposits glaciofluvial sand and gravels (Secondary A aquifer).
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Our records show a groundwater abstraction is located 63m south of the site. Due to its proximity to the site it is considered to be within a Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2). There may be some private groundwater abstractions, which we do not have a record of. The applicant is advised to contact the local council for details of these.
United Utilities: Awaiting comments.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service: The application has been submitted with an archaeological desk-based assessment (dba) prepared by the Centre for Applied Archaeology. The dba draws together a variety of historic documentary, index, cartographic and graphic evident in setting out the archaeological and historic documentary, index, cartographic and graphic evidence in setting out the archaeological and historical background to the site. A gazetteer of sites is created and the significance of the archaeological (below ground and standing structures) resource is discussed. It then considers mitigation of the development impact. The dba recognises that the heritage assets within the development site are of local/ regional significance and that for some the likely impact ranges from 'neutral' to 'slight'. For these it proposes that no further investigation is required. However, for those heritage assets of local/ regional significance where a 'moderate' impact is anticipated it is recommended that further archaeological recording be undertaken and completed prior to the redevelopment of the site. In this regard below ground archaeology associated with gazetteer entries 3 (New Mill), 5 (Mill Boiler House) and 8 (late 19th century tank) is thought to merit further archaeological investigation. In respect of standing archaeology the dba highlights the impact of the proposed development upon gazetteer entry 2 (Elisabeth Mill)).
It is unclear if the full impact of the current proposals for converting Elisabeth Mill into apartments were fully appreciated when the dba was being compiled. The dba recognises that Elisabeth Mill was subject to a level of archaeological building survey in 2004. That work consisted of a written historical account and description of the mill supported by photographic images (EH level 1/2). Concerning the present proposals the dba speaks of 'the alteration of the interior' (7.2) and recommends that "further archaeological work would be required to record details of the surviving power systems within the mill". The current proposals actually involve demolishing the central portion of the mill's eastern elevation along with the central core of the mill to form an open, elongated courtyard for vehicles. Such significant, large scale demolition goes beyond "the alteration of the interior" and suggests a significant loss of historic fabric, both internally and externally. This raises a question as to whether the impact assessment should have been 'major' rather than 'moderate'.
GMAAS is of the opinion that the dba should be accepted as submitted, thereby meeting the recommendations set-out in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 128. However, GMAAS would wish to see a more detailed level of archeological building survey for Elisabeth Mill than currently exists or is proposed in the dba. To secure the implementation of this conditioned programme of archaeological work GMAAS recommends it is conditioned.
The work of should be undertaken by a suitably experienced and qualified archaeological contractor, funded by the applicant and in accordance with guidance provided by GMAAS who would also monitor the implementation of the works of behalf of Stockport MBC.
Planning Policy (Housing): Update following assessment of Viability Case: Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Notwithstanding the requirements of policy in respect of affordable housing provision, Core Strategy Policy H3 allows for viability assessments to be submitted in order to justify lower or lack of such provision in a proposed scheme. The Council has sought advice on the viability assessment which has been submitted in support of the proposal and on the basis of the comments received it would appear that the requirement of any affordable housing provision would make the scheme unviable. It should be noted that this does not mean that the proposal is contrary to policy, because policy explicitly seeks provision “subject to viability”.
With respect to my previous comments regarding the possibility of clawback, I note Ian also thinks the revenue figures may be low (though not unreasonable) and given that we will have a lead in time before these units are on the market it may be something we need to think about. Whether we can put this off for now given that we’re at the outline stage or whether we’d need to do it now, I’m not sure.
Initial Comments: The proposal is an outline application for the redevelopment of two buildings in a Conservation Area within the Predominantly Residential Area. The proposal is for a total of 201 units to be created through the conversion of Elizabeth Mill and the demolition of the Friedland Building and its replacement with new build residential units. This is to be split down as follows: 13 no. 2-bed houses, 19 no. 3-bed houses, 7 no. 4+bed houses, 72 no. 1-bed flats and 90 no. 2-bed flats.
In terms of the general principle of housing, the reuse of land and buildings in this area for this purposes is acceptable due, in part, to its proximity to the nearby district centre. The proposal complies with Core Strategy Policies CS2 (Housing Provision), CS3 (Mix of Housing) and CS4 (Distribution of Housing). In any event, the proposed use has been established by a previous permission (DC012448) which has been part implemented, with 180 flats created at the adjacent Victoria Mill. Consequently there is no objection to the proposal in term of the general principle and the provision of an updated scheme at the site is welcomed in order to bring forward the development of much needed housing units in the area.
It is noted that the applicant intends to submit further information relating to affordable housing provision. The requirement for affordable provision on this site would be 20-25%. Contrary to the comment in Para 6.50 of the Planning Statement this split would normally be required to be 75/25 for shared ownership/social rent rather than the 50/50 stated in the supporting statement. This should be raised with the applicant as it may form part of the viability case which is due to be submitted. Further comment on the provision of affordable housing when assessed against Core Strategy Policy H3 will be possible when the further information is submitted.
Planning Policy (Open Space): We are aware that this proposed development does not provide any on-site formal recreational space or children’s amenity space, nor does it offer to provide any section 106 funds to provide any off-site provision. We believe the proposal conflicts with the surrounding planning policy framework in terms of sustainability, particular in relation to the lack of open space provision.
The underlying thread to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to help achieve sustainable development. It sets out that sustainable development is about positive growth – making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations.
The environmental and social progress is related to having access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation as it can make an important contribution to the health Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 and well-being of communities, as set out under paragraph 73 of the NPPF.
We do not consider this development to be in favour of sustainable development as required by the NPPF nor does it fulfil one of the core planning principals of the NPPF which is ‘to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and …facilities and services to meet local needs.’
Based on the number of bedrooms to be provided within the development, the population capacity of this development will be 560 (378 provided by Houldsworth Park and 182 from the remaining accommodation). We note paragraph 6.27 from the planning statement sets out that ‘there will be a significant level of open space and recreation facilities available to future occupants of the scheme.’
We are also aware that these facilities listed in the planning statement come from ‘Houldsworth Park to the east and south of the site, Houldsworth Golf Course, Highfield Country Park which is located 1.3 miles to the west and Reddish Vale Country Park, 0.7 miles to the south-east. The Borough as a whole has an undersupply of open space. This open space provision listed is therefore not meeting the current needs of the population of Stockport and the proposed development will further exacerbate this undersupply substantially. The open space surrounding the proposed development therefore cannot be off-set against the provision/ off-site contributions that would be triggered below.
Open Space provision Core Strategy policy SIE2 (Provision of Recreation & Amenity Open Space) indicates that occupancy levels of 100 or more are expected to provide 1.7ha per 1,000 population for formal recreation and 0.7ha per 1000 population for childrens' plan and casual recreation. This policy requires as much as possible of open space to be provided within or adjacent the new development and play provision should incorporate facilities based on the hierarchy set out below:
1. Local Area of Play LAP 2. Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) 3. Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP)
The policy requires that development will be expected to take a positive role in providing recreation and amenity open space to meet the needs of its user/occupants, and be appropriately related in scale and kind to the proposed development. Opportunities to combine a LEAP and NEAP in the same locality could be considered but it is important to note that the elements of the three tiered structure are targeting different age groups. The minimum children’s amenity space to be provided is 0.7 ha per 1000 (7sq.m. per person) for children’s play. This has been the consistent approach since the policy was first adopted. Consequently the total population of 560 requires 3,920 sqm. (560 x 7sq.m. = 3,920sq.m).
In line with Policy DM SIE-2 Provision for on-site children’s play provision would be required on site, in addition to the formal open space contribution and an off-site contribution for what cannot be provided on site. We request that the scheme is revised in order to be in line with the Council’s policy requirements. Until we know the on-site provision to be provided, we are not in a position to set out the offsite provision of children’s play space.
Formal Provision Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
As above the requirement of the Core Strategy policy is for on-site provision The space required for formal provision would be 9,520 sqm Formal 560 x 17sq.m. = 9,520sq.m.
Commuted Sums Formal Provision 560 x £198.35 = £111,076 Formal Maintenance 560 x 17sq.m. x £11.86 = £112,907.2 Total = £22,3983.2
The development has the population capacity of 560, I don’t believe not providing any onsite open space / contributions is acceptable in terms of achieving sustainable development and hence incompliant with the NPPF.
Planning Policy (Health & Environment Advisor): Update following receipt of Energy Statement Addendum report: No objection.
Initial Comments: I have looked at the Energy Statement for this application and have the following comments to make.
Generally the energy statement is on the right track in that it acknowledges the target requirements and addresses how they will be achieved through the design of energy efficient buildings. However, as the Low Carbon Design Guidance clearly states, ALL planning applications are still required to consider the inclusion of microgeneration and low carbon technologies in order to reduce CO2 emissions. If no compliance is intended then applicants will need to detail why not in terms of technical feasibility and financial viability.
So even if the targets will be achieved through design alone, the policy still requires an energy statement to show consideration of all low / zero carbon technologies and I would refer the applicant to the table on low / zero carbon technologies in the sample energy statement that the Council provides: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/2013/2994/developmentcontrol/planningpolicy/sampleenergystate mentlarge
Each technology should be considered for its capacity to contribute to on site carbon savings. Where there is no intent to make use of the technology then either evidence of technical reasons why the technology would not work on the site should be stated (e.g. average wind speeds on the site, space available / unavailable for ground source heat pumps); or evidence of costs per dwelling should be stated if the technology would be technically feasible but is not considered financially viable. Stockport Council provide a Guide to Technology Costs document which has costings for different types of dwellings and these costings can be used to inform this element of the energy statement: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/2013/2994/developmentcontrol/planningpolicy/technologycostsguid e
In the case of this site as there is a Heritage element any claims of not using technologies on heritage grounds should be cleared with the Council’s Conservation & Heritage Officer, Crispin Edwards to confirm that the technologies are not compatible with any heritage aspects of the site. Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Highways Engineer: This application, seeking outline permission (with only landscaping reserved for subsequent consideration) for the refurbishment and conversion of Elisabeth Mill at Houldsworth Street, Reddish, to form 152 apartments, together with the demolition of the Friedland Building and construction of 49 dwellings and community floorspace in its place, as well as associated access, landscaping and car parking, has been submitted following detailed pre-application discussions with this department. Consent has previously been granted for the conversion / extension of Elisabeth Mill to 138 units and the Fried land Building to 80 apartments as part of a larger residential scheme (DC/012448) which also involved the conversion of Victoria Mill (to 180 apartments) and the construction of a new apartment building (with 88 units) to the north of the site (providing a total of 486 units) but the applicant is now proposing to develop the southern half of the larger site independently from the rest of the site.
As with the previous scheme, access will be gained from Houldworth Street via a simple priority junction, although the access is proposed to be located slightly further north (closer to Elizabeth Mill) than the approved scheme. Internally, the site is proposed to be served by a network of "home-zone" style, blocked paved and flagged shared-surfaced streets and paths, some of which are proposed to be offered up to the Highway Authority for adoption as public highways. Car parking is proposed to be provided for a total of 148 cars (including 21 spaces for disabled badge holders) within various external parking courts and lay-bys and within ground floor and basement parking areas within Elizabeth Mill. Cycle parking will also be provided for a total of 219 cycles within communal bike stores and individual cycle stores and various communal bin stores are proposed to be provided around the site.
Various documents have been submitted in support of the planning application, including a Transport Statement, Framework Travel Plan and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. After reviewing the submitted information and visiting the site, I would make the following comments:
Accessibility
The principle of residential development at the site has previously been established and accepted when the original application for the site was approved. When the original application was considered, however, it was concluded that the site was in excess of the maximum recommended walking distance of Gorton Road Integrated Bus Corridor, bus services along arrogate Road were infrequent, that existing stops were sub-standard and there was a need for pedestrian improvements (e.g. the provision of uncontrolled pedestrian crossings) in the vicinity of the site. As such, planning approval was granted subject to the requirement to upgrade bus stops on Gorton Road and arrogate Road (4 stops in total prior to the occupation of Phase 2, Elizabeth Mill), carry out pedestrian improvements and increase the frequency of the 173 bus service to a minimum of 3/hour between 0700-1000 and 1600-1900 Monday-Saturday (prior to the occupation of Phase 4).
The TS has, however, re-examined the site's accessibility and outlines that the site will have a good network of footpaths and shared surface areas, a number of streets within the area are subject to a 20mph speed limit to improve the pedestrian environment, the site is within reasonable walking distance of shops and local amenities, the site is within reasonable cycling distance of Stockport Town Centre, much of the Heatons, Gorton, Brinnington and Levenshulme and is served by 9 bus services (4 that travel along Broadstone Road and 8 that travel on Gorton Road providing access to Stockport, Ashton, Didsbury, Manchester, Stepping Hill, Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Wythenshawe, Bridge Hall and Hazel Grove), Houldworth Street is an advisory cycle route (linking up with national cycle routes 6 and 60 to the north) and Heaton Chapel Railway Station is 1.8km from the site. As such, it concludes that the site is "well located in terms of accessibility by all major car modes of transport".
Although there have been some improvements to the site's accessibility since the original scheme was considered (e.g. bus stops have been upgraded and the local cycle network has been improved), there are still deficiencies in pedestrian, cycle and public transport infrastructure / services that prevent / discourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. As such, I would conclude that there is need to carry out some improvements to transport infrastructure as part of the development. After reviewing what measures would be most cost-effectively improve the site's accessibility I would conclude that the provision of dropped kerbs with tactile paving at junctions on key pedestrian routes to / from the site, together with the creation of a cycle link along the pedestrianised section of Leamington Road and pedestrian / cycle wayfinding signage (to direct pedestrian and cyclists to key destinations / routes) would be most appropriate to be provided as part of this development. I would therefore recommend that any approval granted is subject to conditions relating to the provision of a number of uncontrolled pedestrian crossings, minor cycle improvements and pedestrian / cycle wayfinding signage (this would be instead of improvements to bus stops), together with cycle parking.
In addition to the provision of infrastructure to allow and encourage occupiers and their visitors to travel by sustainable modes of transport, there is also a need to implement measures to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport in the form of a Travel Plan. In respect to this, a Framework Travel Plan has been submitted in support of the planning application. This outlines various measures that are proposed to be provide to encourage residents to travel by sustainable modes, including the provision of travel welcome packs and setting up a car sharing scheme / register, and also outlines that the creation of a bicycle users group and having a car club will be investigated. Consideration of the submitted document concludes that a much more extensive and robust set of measures are likely to be needed to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and notably, negate the need for residents to own a car, which will be critical for the development, noting the level of car parking provision. As such, I would conclude that a Travel Plan needs to be developed that is much more comprehensive than that which is currently proposed, which should include the introduction of a car club and measures that have specific regard to the level of car provision. I would therefore recommend that any approval granted is subject to a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a robust Residential Travel Plan.
Finally, as previously outlined, the original planning approval was granted subject to a planning obligation to increase the frequency of the 173 bus service (that runs between Stepping Hill / Stockport and Manchester) prior to the occupation of Phase 4. There is, I would conclude, still the need for such as service improvement, but as the requirement to fund such an improvement was previously linked to Phase 4, I would conclude that it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to fund such an improvement as part of these current proposals in addition to the improvements outlined above. I would therefore conclude that this issue can be dealt with in the context of the redevelopment of the Phase 4 site. Noting that the original planning approval was subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to this and other obligations, I would recommend that advice is sought from Legal Services as to how this current permission effects the obligations linked to that consent, notably whether Phase 4 could be implemented in the event that this application was approved and implemented.
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Traffic and highway impact
As outlined above, this current scheme essentially involves revised proposals for the redevelopment of Elizabeth Mill and Fried land Building of the "Houldworth Park" development which was approved in 2004 (phases 2 and 3 of that development). The original scheme proposed the conversion of Elizabeth Mill and the Fried land building to form a total of 218 apartments, whereas this scheme proposes the conversion of Elizabeth Mill to form 152 apartments and the construction of 47 houses and 2 apartments in the place of the Fried land Building, resulting in a total of 201 dwellings (17 fewer dwellings).
Based on analysis of the TRICS database, the TS outlines that the 218 apartments that were previously approved would be expected to generate approx. 55 two-way vehicle movements during the AM peak, 52 vehicle movements during the PM peak and 479 vehicle movements each day. It then outlines that the 154 apartments and 47 dwellings now proposed would be expected to generate approx. 66 two-way vehicle movements during the AM peak, 64 vehicle movements during the PM peak and 578 vehicle movements each day. As such, the proposal could generate an additional 12 vehicles at peak time and nearly 100 additional vehicles each day, compared with the approved scheme. Although the proposal will result in an overall increase in vehicle movements to / from the site each day, the increase equates to just one additional vehicle every 5 minutes at peak hour. Such an increase in vehicle movements would not have a material impact on the local highway network and therefore I would not object to the proposal on grounds of traffic impact providing travel plan measures are implemented to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport so as to ensure that any increase in vehicle movements is kept to a minimum.
Although it is concluded that the additional traffic generated as a result of the revised proposals should not have a material impact on the local highway network compared with the consented scheme, when that scheme was considered, it was concluded that although there was traffic calming on arrogate Road and part of Houldworth Street, this did not extend to other routes between the site and the main highway network. As such, it was concluded that in order to mitigate the impact of the development, a more comprehensive traffic calming scheme was required. A scheme was therefore drawn up which involved the provision of speed cushions on Priory Lane, Ilkey Crescent, Wharfdale Road, Finsbury Road, Naseby Road, Lillian Grove, Wellbeck Road, Wentworth Road, Houldworth Street, Rupert Street, Oldham Street and Liverpool Street. The scheme was subsequently approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring the payment of a commuted sum of £68,000 (at 2003 prices) to cover the costs of implementing such a scheme prior to the occupation of Phase 3 of the development. Noting that the current scheme will generate a similar level of vehicle movements and there has been no change in circumstances that would negate the need for such works, I would conclude that any approval granted should also be subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to the funding of traffic calming / a 20mph limit on these roads. To ensure consistency between the original and current permissions, I would suggest that the agreement requires payment of £93,445 (the original sum increased by RPI inflation) prior to the occupation of the 139th unit.
Parking
Car parking is proposed to be provided for a total of 148 cars (including 21 spaces for disabled badge holders) within various external parking courts and lay-bys and within ground floor and basement parking areas within Elizabeth Mill (based on the revised layout, A123_P_200F). This equates to an overall level of parking of 74% although the TS outlines that these will be allocated Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 as follows:
1) 150% provision for the 3 and 4 bedroom houses (39 spaces for 26 houses) 2) 100% provision for the 2 bedroom houses (21 spaces for 21 houses) 3) 57% provision for the apartments (88 spaces for 154 apartments)
Although this is in line with the adopted parking standards, Policy T-2 'Parking in Developments' of the Core Strategy states that "developers will need to demonstrate that developments will avoid resulting in inappropriate on-street parking that has a detrimental impact upon the safety of the highway, and that they also avoid impacting negatively upon the availability of public car-parking". Having regard to this, the TS outlines that it is considered that the level of parking will meet demand having regard to the nature of the development, the site's accessibility, car ownership levels in the area and provision of cycle parking. It also outlines that a parking accumulation exercise has been carried out outlines that even if all the spaces are occupied overnight, this will not be exceeded during the day. A Technical Note that has subsequently been submitted outlining that parking surveys carried out at the adjacent Victoria Mill site (which has 226 spaces for 180 apartments, or a 126% provision) shows that parking demand reaches 82% (with 9% of the demand being vans), the TRICS database shows that parking demand for affordable apartments in similar suburban averages at 34 / 41% (depending on how it is measured), the apartments are likely to generate a lesser parking demand due to the market they will be aimed at (less affluent people who are less likely to own cars) and people who choose to live there would know parking was limited before choosing to live there. The Technical Note also outlines that in the event that not all occupiers or visitors can park on site, cars could park on the east side of Houldworth Street without adversely effecting highway safety or access, parking restrictions are in place on the west side of Houldworth Street to ensure parking does not take place in unsuitable locations and that the applicant would be willing to fund the provision of additional parking restrictions in the event that it was considered necessary to provide additional restrictions.
Consideration of this level of parking concludes that the overall level of parking is significantly below the level that was previously proposed / agreed for the site as a whole (127%), which at the time was considered to be "a minimum level at which substantial over-spill of parking should not occur onto the local residential streets". This was based on parking surveys that had been carried out in 2003 (at the adjacent Houldworth Mill) which recorded an average parking demand of 1 car per apartment (100%). It is also less than average car ownership levels for this area of Reddish (which takes into account all households and not just those in privately owned apartments / houses) which is 0.88 cars per household (2011 Census information). As outlined above, however, a more recent parking survey at Victoria Mill has recorded a parking demand of 82% and the applicant considers that the nature of the proposed apartments means that parking ownership levels for these will be lower than the average for the Reddish area, as well as Victoria Mill. Having regard to this, I would conclude that whilst evidence would suggest car parking demand is likely to be less than 127% (the level of parking required for the previous consent), demand may not be as low as 57% (the level of provision for the apartments) and as such, some on-street parking is likely to occur (I would estimate in the region of 30 cars). Noting that this level of parking demand should be able to be accommodated on Houldworth Street and St. Elisabeth's Way without adversely effecting access or highway safety (subject to no parking taking place near junctions / crossing points) and car parking is unlikely to over spill onto residential streets due to their distance from the site, I would conclude that an objection on grounds of parking would be hard to justify and defend in the event that the application was refused and the applicant chose to take it to appeal. I do, however, consider that measures Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 should be put in place to minimise parking demand and that it is important to manage where parking take place (both on street and within the site). As such, I would recommend that any approval granted is subject to the payment of £5000 to fund traffic regulation orders within and within the vicinity of the site and conditions relating to the provision of cycle parking and the production and implementation of a robust travel plan (which, I would recommend, should include the requirement to integrate the scheme in a car club).
In addition to parking demand and provision for the development which is currently proposed, consideration needs to be given to the wider site. With respect to this, I note that the 218 units that were previously proposed on the site of this current application had a parking generation of 275 spaces, but approx. 357 spaces were to have been provided on the site (including 240 spaces within a multi-storey car park). As such, 82 spaces to be provided within the site were to have been provided to meet the parking demand on Victoria Mill and the proposed new building (Phases 1 and 4). This current scheme, however, makes no provision for these spaces, which potentially has implications for Phases 1 and 4. The applicant, however, has outlined that 226 spaces have been provided for Victoria Mill within that site, equating to a level of parking of 126% (approx. in line with the original requirement of 127%). As such, the current development will not effect car parking provision for Victoria Mill. It will, however, mean that Phase 4 cannot be implemented in its approved form as 82 fewer parking spaces will be provided than is required by the previous approval. Reference also needs to be made to a Section 106 obligation relating to the original scheme, which required the payment of £25,000 (2004 prices) to the Council prior to the occupation of Phase 4 towards the cost of reviewing whether there was a need to implement a Resident's Parking Scheme and subsequent implementation of such a scheme. As outlined above, it is considered that the provision of parking restrictions will be sufficient to manage on-street parking that may result from this current scheme, having regard to the nature of the streets adjacent to the site and the distance from residential streets, but that the need to implement a Resident's Parking Scheme will need to be reviewed again in the event that redevelopment proposals for the Phase 4 site come forward in the future. As with other obligations, I would recommend that advice is sought from Legal Services as to how this current permission effects the obligations linked to the previous consent.
Finally, with respect to cycle parking, secure and covered parking for a total of 183 cycles is proposed to be provided within a communal bike store within Elisabeth Mill (100 spaces), the basement car park of Elisabeth Mill (34 spaces), 3 shared cycle stores (13 spaces) and within individual cycle stores in the gardens / yards of individual dwellings (36 spaces). In addition, 18 Sheffield stands are proposed to be provided at 4 locations within the development providing visitor parking for 36 cycles. This level of parking complies with the adopted parking standards and therefore I would consider the proposal acceptable in this respect.
Detailed design
Examination of the proposed layout (as indicated on drawing A123_P-200F) concludes that the proposed internal layout, which has been designed having regard to Home-Zone / Manual for Streets principles, should prove safe and practical. The main access roads are of suitable geometry for use by both cars and service vehicles, the layout is designed to encourage low vehicle speeds and to prioritise pedestrians, pedestrian routes are of reasonable width on all key routes throughout the development and street trees and street furniture are proposed to be provided at various locations so as to prevent cars parking on footways. There will, however, be a need to provide parking restrictions in some locations (as outlined above) and there will be a need to agree matters of detailed design. These matters, however, can be dealt with at detailed Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 design stage / by condition / S106 obligation.
Servicing
With respect to servicing, the internal highway layout has been designed to allow service vehicles, including refuse vehicles, to negotiate the two main access roads and reverse to the bin stores. Whilst this will require refuse vehicles to reverse and bins to be wheeled slightly further than is desirable, I would conclude that as this is similar to what occurs in many existing residential areas and should not have highway safety implications, an objection to this on highway safety grounds could not be sustained. I would, however, recommend that SMBC's Waste & Recycling Department are consulted on the proposals for their views.
As all the access roads do not have turning areas suitable for fire appliances within 20m of the end of each road, the layout will not comply with Building Regulation B5 without an agreed exception by the Fire Service. If, however, approved sprinkler systems are installed in dwellings a distance away from the main access roads, these will provide additional time for hoses to be laid out, allowing "hose distances" to be doubled to 90m. As such, subject to such systems being installed to the satisfaction of GM Fire Service (a matter which can be dealt with by condition), I would consider the proposal acceptable in this respect.
Recommendation: No objection, subject to conditions and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement in respect to:
1) The payment of a financial contribution of £93,445 to the Council prior to the occupation of the 139th unit to fund the provision of traffic calming and a 20mph speed limit on roads within the vicinity of the site; and 2) The payment of a financial contribution of £5,000 to the Council prior to the commencement of any development to fund the provision of traffic regulation orders / parking restrictions on streets within the vicinity of the site.
Conservation Officer: Updated Comments: The issues raised have been negotiated upon and adequately addressed. No objection subject to conditions.
Initial comments: Thanks for this consultation, and the information below indicating that the viability assessment appears sound.
The building itself is locally listed, although as an early example of fireproof construction it is worthy of more recognition than it currently enjoys in the canon of AH Stott’s work. It’s a little unfortunate that the heritage assessment and archaeological assessment are separate documents, but they are both of good quality and add to our previous knowledge. The site forms an important component of the Houldsworth conservation area, and although they have been divided, it is intrinsically linked with the adjacent Victoria Mill, with which it shared a boiler house (pedestrian links between the two sites will be an important thing). It also forms part of the setting of and has group value with the other key buildings within the conservation area. Some of these are Listed in Grades 2* and 1, and are thus of the highest national significance, and potentially significant in an international context. (Reddish is little recognised as a planned settlement with institutional and employment buildings of very high quality). There are also HER entries on the Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 site, and you’ll need to consult GMAAS (I’m sure they will want to condition the archaeological recording recommended in the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment).
Additionally, I should cover the ‘Friedland Building’. The heritage assessment incorrectly states that this is not identified as a key building within the conservation area. Actually, it is identified as such (P.27 of the character appraisal), but has in error been omitted from the map showing these buildings. However the documents mentioned above shine more light on the building. This does not (as thought) relate to the 1960s and the last phase of textile production, but to the 1980s and later use for storage and distribution. It is thus rather outdated in its design, and also of much less significance as a non-textile building. The assessment of it as neutral is thus probably somewhat kind, although it is architecturally unusual.
The most important aspect of the proposal is the retention of Elisabeth Mill, which was threatened with demolition and urgently requires repair and conversion. The proposed subsidising development will not in my view have a harmful effect on the setting of the mill or the character and appearance of the conservation area. The design quality is good (subject to some comments below), and the materials, massing and regular rhythm of fenestration generally reflect the industrial buildings that previously existed on the site. The rooftop extension to the mill is smaller than that previously approved, and subject to some queries/suggestions for improving its design, I have no objection to this.
Overall, I feel that the scheme carries a significant positive benefit for heritage, and that this should be weighed in the balance when considering any deficits in regards to other policies. Paras 137 and 140 of the NPPF would apply, and there is no conflict with our policies SIE-3 and HC1.3.
I’ll provide conditions when you need them, but will recommend some phasing conditions to ensure that both demolition and the construction of new buildings are linked to repair of the mill, to ensure that the regenerative benefits that justify the development do arise.
Below is a summary of our joint design comments. Again, most of these could be dealt with via condition, but the earlier they are aware of them the more chance we have of getting agreement.
The overall layout has been supported previously. However we are concerned that there is still no real recognition in the landscaping proposals of the line of the canal. This could easily be identified on the ground through the use of materials, and also with some interpretation, and we feel that this really should be taken further, as without the Stockport branch the mills would not have been sited here, in open countryside. There is a long term aspiration in the community, which the Council supports in principle, of improving recognition of the former canal, whose line is still largely undeveloped, especially at its northern end. This development could really act as a catalyst for that by providing good landscaping that highlights the canal’s presence below ground.
These are comments on the individual blocks: 1) Generally supported subject to agreement of materials, but we did feel that the central portion of the E (road) elevation of the roof extension was a bit blank and could do with being broken up a bit more. 2) OK 3) We think brick rather than vertical tiling might be better at high level on the rear, in oblique views from the street particularly. We also feel that the overall proportions of the windows are a little tall, and that having a single transom lower than mid-height looks awkward. Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
4) Not convinced that such large areas of stained timber cladding are appropriate, but otherwise OK. 5) Blank first floor front is a concern, could this be alleviated through some obscure glazing or even blind brickwork features? 6) The car ports at ground floor should be open sided rather than enclosed, particularly as the reason there is no habitable accommodation at ground floor is to respect the line of the canal, which if the ground floor is enclosed can’t be read on site. We’re not convinced that an almost entirely timber clad building is appropriate here, and have the same concern about vertical tiles as on Block 3, although this block is less visible. 7) We think this is probably the most successful design of the various blocks. 8) See 3 9) See 3 10) We think the brick cornice detail is appropriate, but wonder why the parapet upstand is so tall in the first place for a flat roof? 11) We’re not convinced by the timber side panels to the windows as the glazing looks squashed, as if the timber has been inserted into normally proportioned windows.
If there is an opportunity to discuss potential amendments with the architects we’d be grateful. Please let me know when you need suggested conditions.
Regeneration & Development Team: We are pleased to see the retention of Elisabeth Mill & that this locally listed building in Houldsworth Conservation Area will be given a sustainable future whilst creating new homes in the area.
The Friedland Building is a part of the continuum of factory building in the conservation area and it is a shame that this key building in the conservation isn't retained as part of the scheme.
Where good occupation levels can be achieved the creation of new homes in this area of Reddish should help to support the District Centre.
Overall the scheme is a welcome investment in the economic future of the Houldsworth Mill Conservation Area bringing a currently disused locally listed building back into use and with potential wider long term benefits for the neighbourhood and Reddish District Centre.
Arboricultural Officer: Thank you for your request for comments on the arboriculture implications of the above application. Having viewed the details submitted as part of an outline planning application consultation I have the following comments to make:
Site Context The proposed development site is located within the grounds of the existing building and informal grounds predominantly on the old hard standing and informal garden area. The plot is comprised largely of former hard standing and industrial buildings/informal gardens.
Legislative and Policy Framework
Conservation Area Designations The proposed development is within or affected by a conservation Area (Houldsworth).
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Legally Protected Trees There are no legally protected trees within this site or affected by this development.
Invasive Species There were no signs of any invasive species during the site inspection therefore no control measures are required.
Stockport’s Core Strategy DPD:
CS – 8 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation SIE-1 Development Management SIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and enhancing the Environment 3.345/3.346/3.347 Stockport’s Unitary Development Plan (Retained Policy) NE1.1 SITES OF SPECIAL NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE NE1.2 SITES OF NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE NE3.1 PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF GREEN CHAINS
Recommendations: The construction site footprint predominantly sits within the formal and informal grounds of the site, the new residential buildings are predominantly within the area of the existing building and informal garden area and the proposed new developments will potentially impact on the trees on and off the site. A full tree survey has been supplied as part of the planning application to show the condition and amenity levels of the existing trees and where applicable which trees could be retained to increase the amenity levels of the site with retained mature trees.
There is only two concerns over the proposed scheme which is the loss of the trees along the frontage of the site, whilst it is accepted the amenity and condition of the trees proposed to be lost is low they still offer tree cover for the area and add to the local biodiversity of the site and surrounding community.
The second concern is encroachment into the root zone of the trees being retained and the details to identify the protective fencing location and the replacement tree planting to off-set the trees to be felled. There is a root protection plan detailing the restrictive zone around the proposed retained trees, this will need to be conditioned as the majority of the plan is acceptable with the exception of the Hedge at the rear of the site which currently has a building plot and car parking spaces too close to the hedge resulting in constant conflict with the hedge and result in improper management of the hedge to reduce the overall amenity and biodiversity this currently offers.
There is a general landscaping scheme detailing up the tree planting to compensate the loss of the trees which are proposed for removal on the site as at least several trees are shown on the plans for removal They will need to consider the local provenance and improved amenity and interest, with this in mind the following species should be considered; Quercus robur ‘Fastigiata’ (Upright Oaks), Fruit species such as apple, pear, plum and damson to allow patrons access to fruit and local biodiversity or Ilex aquifolium varieties (Variegated Holly).
In principle the design will have a negative impact on the trees on site and within neighbouring properties, therefore it could only be accepted in its current format with some alterations to the encroachment of the Plot 26 and car parking spaces on the hedge trees (H1) and improved Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 landscaping design, the landscaping scheme will need to be altered to increase the number of trees, Take care with the proposed siting of the trees and the species of the trees to offer some diversity in the species and improved biodiversity the trees offer increasing wildlife benefits to an ever increasing urban area.
There is an opportunity to increase the number of trees to improve the greening and screening of the development along Houldsworth Street frontage, as well as greening the boundaries through the site.
The following conditions would be relevant to any planning application relating to the site:
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.
Should you have any queries regarding these comments please do not hesitate to contact the Tree & Woodland Section.
Nature Development Officer: Update following submission of Bat Inspection Report: Thank you for forwarding me the bat inspection report. I am happy that this provides sufficient evidence that the buildings subject to survey offer low potential to support roosting bats. I would recommend however that the recommendations made in the bat report (relating to provision of roosting sites and an update survey prior to works) are attached by condition to any planning permission granted.
Initial Comments: Site Context The site is located on Houldsworth Road in Reddish. The application is for outline approval for the refurbishment and conversion of Elisabeth Mill to form 152 dwellings; demolition and replacement of Friedland Building and a temporary contractors/marketing building with 49 dwellings and community floorspace; and associated access, landscaping and car parking. Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Legislative and Policy Framework Nature Conservation Designations The site itself is not subject to any nature conservation designations legal or otherwise. The golf course immediately to the west of the site is designated as Green Chain. I do not however envisage any significant adverse impacts on this designated site as a result of the proposals.
Legally Protected Species An ecological survey has been undertaken and submitted as part of the planning application. This involved an extended phase 1 habitat survey which assessed the habitats present on the site and the potential for them to support protected species.
An external inspection survey of the buildings for bats was carried out. Due to health and safety restrictions it was not possible to carry out an internal inspection survey. The buildings have been assessed as offering negligible potential to support roosting bats. However, having visited the site I noted numerous potential roosting features within the mill building (e.g. within the external brick work and window lintels) and so I disagree with this assessment.
All species of bats and their roosts are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The latter implements the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Bats are included in Schedule 2 of the Regulations as ‘European Protected Species of animals’ (EPS). Under the Regulations it is an offence to: 1) Deliberately capture or kill a wild EPS 2) Deliberately disturb a wild EPS in such a way that significantly affects: a) the ability of a significant group to survive, breed, rear or nurture young. b) the local distribution of that species. 3) Damage or destroy a breeding place or resting site of such an animal.
Further bat survey information should be submitted with this application to determine the impact that the proposed works will have on protected species.
The trees within the application area were assessed as offering negligible potential to support roosting bats.
Birds may Birds may utilise the buildings and vegetation on site for nesting. The nests of all wild birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended).
The application area is located approximately 180m from the nearest pond. Ponds and their surrounding terrestrial habitat have the potential to support amphibians such as great crested newts. Great crested newts and their habitat receive the same level of legal protection as bats (see above). 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. The pond is stocked with fish which reduces the likelihood of great crested newts being present. In addition, the terrestrial habitats within the application area are considered to be of poor suitability to great crested newts due to their composition (e.g. hard standing).The proposed works are therefore considered to be of low risk to great crested newts and in this instance I Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 do not consider it reasonable to require a great crested newt survey.
Invasive Species Cotoneaster and Rhododendron have been recorded within the site. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence to plant or cause these Rhododendron and many Cotoneaster species to spread in the wild.
LDF Core Strategy Core Policy CS8 Safeguarding and Improving the Environment Green Infrastructure Refer to paragraph 3.286
Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Refer to paragraph 3.296
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY SIE-3 A) Protecting the Natural Environment Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment Refer to paragraphs 3.345, 3.361, 3,362, 3.366, 3.367 and 3.369
Stockport’s Unitary Development Plan (Retained Policy) Refer to NE3.1
Recommendations: It is recommended that this application should not be determined in the absence of further bat survey information (at buildings B1 and B2 referred to in the Habitat and Arboricultural report). This should be undertaken by a suitably experienced ecologist, at an appropriate time of year following best practice guidance. This survey work is likely to involve nocturnal emergence/re-entry surveys. The impact of the proposed work on protected species and appropriate mitigation is also required. This requirement for the survey information to be submitted prior to determination of the application is in line with national planning policy (NPPF, Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Green Infrastructure Guidance Paragraph 106), local planning policy (paragraph 3.369) and is reinforced by legal cases which emphasise the need for local planning authorities to fully consider protected species when determining planning applications.
I would recommend that no building works or vegetation clearance is undertaken in the bird nesting season (March – August inclusive) unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority (as per recommendation in the Habitat and Arboricultural Report).
I do not require any further information relating to great crested newts. However, I would recommend that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential for terrestrial habitats around ponds to support great crested newts. 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 great crested newts, or any other protected species be discovered on site, work should cease immediately and Natural England/licensed ecologist should be contacted.
A condition should be attached to any planning permission granted, stating that the spread of Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Cotoneaster and Rhododendron will be avoided.
It is recommended that the proposed lighting scheme should be submitted to the council for approval as part of any full planning application. This should incorporate measures to minimise impacts on biodiversity.
Opportunities for biodiversity gains should be sought within the development in line with national and local planning policy. This could include the incorporation of bat roosting and bird nesting facilities on nearby trees and within the refurbished buildings. In addition, landscape planting to comprise locally native species. A landscaping strategy should be submitted for approval by the Local Authority as part of any full planning application.
Director of Public Health: The following concerns are raised regarding Active Travel and in light of the Core Strategy Policy CS10 AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT NETWORK, which states an aim ‘To ensure that the walking and cycling networks are as continuous and safe as possible, there will be an emphasis on good quality infrastructure, providing connections across severances caused by major roads, railways and rivers.’ It may be useful to request an update of the Framework Travel Plan and a review of the Transport Statement or, as a minimum, emailed responses in light of the comments below:
Neither the Framework Travel Plan nor the Transport Statement reflect that Houldsworth Street is a Key Walking Route and that Elizabeth Street and Harrogate Road are Aesthetic Walking Routes and connect to the Fred Perry Way. Indeed the northwards route up Harrogate Road should also be identified as a key pedestrian desire route since it provides a route on less busy and polluted roads to the library and Reddish North Station. There is also no recognition of the potential opportunities to link to the nearby Public Rights of Way network via the route across the Golf Course to Nelstrop Road – indeed this should be highlighted within the application including an intent to notify any new residents of this opportunity.
In responding to the above the applicant should be aware that Core Strategy Policy T-1 states: ‘3.481 New developments will be required to maintain and enhance the connectivity, accessibility, convenience, safety and aesthetic attractiveness of the walking and cycling networks and other public rights of way for all users, and where appropriate, create new routes to fill gaps in the existing network.’
The application focuses on Heaton Chapel Station but does not assess access to Reddish North station which is approximately 200m closer to the site, providing links in to Manchester City Centre (but not to Stockport). In particular the Travel Plan should include consideration of Reddish North Station access for walking and cycling. It should be noted that South Reddish Station cannot be described as providing excellent public transport links since only one train per week visits the station on its way to Stalybridge without visiting major centres such as Stockport and Manchester City Centre.
Whilst the Transport Statement at this Outline stage includes some limited consideration of the tactile pavement within the site it is critical that any further stages of application contain full, clear statements of where tactile paving and any other cues for the visually impaired will be undertaken, according to Core strategy Policy T-3.
Promoting active travel contributes to management of good public health in the Borough, Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 especially healthy weight. Achieving healthy weight reduces risks of other lifestyle diseases such as hypertension, coronary heart disease and stroke. Reducing risks of such diseases also reduces pressures on current and future public sector health budgets. New development should reflect the fact that the built environment can have major impacts on residents’ ability to be active.
Environmental Health (Contaminated Land): Please note that these conditions should be applied as a phased approach, depending upon the outcome of each subsequent condition i.e if the investigation carried out to satisfy CTM1 recommends further works then CTM2 should then be applied etc.
• CTM 1 • CTM 2 • CTM 3 • Con 1 Informative • LFG 1 • LFG 3
CTM1 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.
The report submitted with the application has identified potentially unacceptable risks from contamination and further investigation is required to ensure that these risks to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
CTM2 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:
(i) 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)).
Reason Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
To ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
CTM3 The development shall not be occupied until the approved remediation scheme required to be submitted by Condition [XXXX] has been carried out. Within [XXXX] 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.
Reason To ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
CON1 INFORMATIVE Any investigation or risk assessment which seeks to establish the presence or otherwise of contamination on or close to the site of a proposed development should be carried out in accordance with current legislation and guidance.
LFG1: 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.
LFG3: 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.
Reason: The adjoining land may contain landfill gas and it may be necessary to undertake remedial measures in order to comply with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
Estate Management: Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Awaiting comments on the addendum report.
Assessment of confidential Viability Appraisal You will be familiar with the approach we take when considering these submissions. Essentially we are seeking to establish whether the constituent elements to the appraisal are within a range of values which could be considered reasonable based on information and comparable evidence available.
The degree of accuracy within which the appraisal may be considered can depend on the nature of the development proposed and the supporting information made available.
The subject scheme is a combination of traditional new build dwellings and apartments combined with the conversion of a mill building to provide 71 one bed and 78 two bed apartments.
It is this element of the development which is difficult to analyse given the scale and nature of work which is required. To confirm with any degree of accuracy whether the cost rates submitted by the applicant are realistic would require a detailed investigation of the proposed scheme for which there would be a significant cost and time implication. We have therefore taken significant elements from the budget estimate and considered whether they are reasonable having had regard to costs from similar schemes and industry published data.
There are certain elements which ideally we would wish to have greater information on for example :-
• Piled foundations – their specification • The nature of the cladding to the 3rd-5th inc external walls • The specification for the M&E Services (target spend £ 18k per property) which in the circumstances we consider to be high. • The specification for the new build elements which are stated to be constructed of `high quality materials’ and to achieve `outstanding energy usage credentials and exceed the requirements of the Building Regulations’.
We have taken an overall approach in considering the appraisal having had regard to the potential for cost variance particularly with the conversion of the Mill. Based on the information available we are satisfied that the costs as submitted are within the range of values which could be considered reasonable in a project of this nature.
With regard to the new build units we feel it would be worthwhile obtaining information from the developer as to the specification of the units which results in a build rate at the upper end of what would be expected for dwellings at this location. I am not clear whether this is something which can be conditioned in the planning consent.
The predicted values for the completed units area in line with transaction evidence. Matters can become complex in that certain units within schemes of this nature can differ from the norm due to the layout of the building is apartments with accommodation arranged over two floors. This can make analysis of transactions problematic . The proposed units are modest in size and are smaller than in other mill conversions in the immediate locality however it is felt that their anticipated receipts are realistic in the current market.
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
The level of developer profit is below what would conventionally be expected in schemes of this nature. When looking at the scheme costs it is apparent that to reach what would be considered to be a normal level of developer profit a significant cost reduction would need to be secured and whilst this may be achievable in a competitive tendering environment a further reduction would be required to make provision for further planning obligations.
Strategic Housing: No comments received.
ANALYSIS The proposal seeks outline planning permission, with 'access', 'layout', 'scale' and 'appearance' to be considered. The following issues are material considerations to the current application:
Policy Principle The application lies within a predominantly residential area and within Houldsworth Conservation Area. The acceptability of principle of change of use of the site to residential and conversion of Elisabeth Mill to residential was established through the granting of extant consent DC012448 for the wider site area comprising Victoria & Elisabeth Mills, the Friedland building and land to the north of Victoria Mill. The extant consent however did not involve demolition of the Friedland building, and this issue will be considered in the section immediately below.
The general principle of housing, the reuse of land and buildings in this area for this purposes is acceptable due, in part, to its proximity to the nearby district centre. The proposal complies with Core Strategy Policies CS2 (Housing Provision), CS3 (Mix of Housing) and CS4 (Distribution of Housing). Consequently there is no objection to the proposal in term of the general principle and the provision of an updated scheme at the site is welcomed in order to bring forward the development of much needed housing units in the area.
The application includes community space (use class D2) at ground floor level in block 11 and five live/work units (use class B1(c)) in block 10. Saved UDP Review policies CDH1.9 (Community Facilities in Predominantly Residential Areas), CTF1.1 (Development of Community Services & Facilities and CDH1.2 Non Residential Development in Predominantly Residential Areas allow for the provision of such uses.
Impact on the Conservation Area & Setting of Listed Buildings The detailed comments of English Heritage and the Council's Conservation Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above.
The site forms an important component of the Houldsworth Conservation Area, and although they have been divided, it is intrinsically linked with the adjacent Victoria Mill, with which it shared a boiler house . It also forms part of the setting of and has group value with the other key buildings within the conservation area. Some of these are Listed in Grades 2* and 1, and are thus of the highest national significance, and potentially significant in an international context (including Houldsworth Mill (II*), the Working Men's Club (II*), St Elisabeth's Church (I), school & rectory (II*)). Although unlisted, Elisabeth Mill - which was built in 1874 by AH Stott - makes a positive contribution to the conservation area, and its retention and conversion is supported.
With regard to its extension at roof level, the extant consent (DC012448) sought to extend the mill by a further two floors, with the subsequent non-material amendment (DC045743) seeking removal of one of the floors. The principle of extending at roof level has therefore been Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 established. The current scheme seeks to extend at roof level by one storey, and - subject to conditions to control its finished appearance - the Conservation Officer raises no objection to this addition. The current proposals include a larger atrium within the mill than previously approved. However provision of this (internal) feature will not impact significantly on the external appearance of the mill, and thus the wider conservation area and setting of surrounding listed buildings. Both the English Heritage and the Council's Conservation Officer responses are clearly supportive of Elisabeth Mill's retention and conversion, which was threatened with demolition and urgently requires repair and conversion.
The Friedland building is identified as a key building in the Houldsworth Conservation Area's character appraisal. However the submitted Heritage Assessment has identified that the building does not relate to the 1960s and the last phase of textile production on site, but dates from the 1980s and was purpose built for storage and distribution. Thus it is of far less significance than was previously thought, so no objection is raised by either the Conservation Officer or English Heritage to its demolition.
The new build elements that would replace the 1980s Friedland Building are considered by English Heritage & the Conservation Officer to respond well to the character and appearance of the conservation area with an industrial aesthetic, and not have a harmful effect on the setting of Elisabeth Mill.
Overall the benefits for heritage are considered positive and that the scheme accords with paras. 137 and 140 of the NPPF and policies SIE-3 (Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment) of the Core Strategy DPD and HC1.3 (Special Control of Development in Conservation Areas), HC1.1 (Demolition & Tree Felling in Conservation Areas) and HC1.4 (New Uses for Buildings in Conservation Areas). Conditions will be required to control the finished appearance of the development. The phasing of the proposed development will be critical to achieving a successful planning outcome, and this can be dealt with through the s.106 process.
Design Elisabeth Mill will be converted to apartments over six levels (the 3rd and 4th storeys occupying the - subdivided - current 3rd floor of the building) with parking occupying the basement and the atrium at ground floor level. There will be a roof top extension of one storey, some minor alterations to the exterior, most notably the demolition of the existing predominantly single-storey structure attached to the southern elevation and the provision of an external stair, and alternations to the internal space to create a large atrium to allow natural light into the building. Most flats have a small sitting out space outside their flat and there is communal amenity space at 3rd floor level. Windows are proposed to be metal and the roof top extension clad in a grey cladding (to be determined).
The Friedland building and a temporary contractors/marketing building on site will be replaced with 49 dwellings (including 5 live/work units and community space occupying the ground floors of blocks 10 and 11) in a series of ten small scale blocks of between two and three storeys in height. Houses have gardens, with flats (including duplex) having gardens or communal amenity space. The blocks are different footprints, comprise of a variety of (modern) designs, and are broadly arranged in a series of courtyards. They have a distinctly industrial aesthetic reflecting the history of this site, and are clearly subservient to Elisabeth Mill, and materials are predominantly brick with dark grey tiled roof tiles and tile hanging, plus some timber including windows and cladding, which are sensitive to the setting.
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Along the western side of the site lies the historic line of a former canal. This area is given over to hardstanding currently (and also within the extant consent - DC012448) and the Friedland building is partially positioned within it. Within this application again hardstanding for parking will be positioned within this area, as will small parts of a number of blocks to the west. The scheme does however provide a communal garden within the canal alignment, which improves on the current situation.
Roads are pedestrian friendly, comprising of block paved, flagged and resin bound gravel surfaces that clearly do not prioritise vehicle movement (some being shared spaces), and street trees are carefully positioned to negate the visual impact of cars/ parking on street.
The proposals will bring a significant building back into use and so protect its future, and the proposals for development surrounding Elisabeth Mill proposed to facilitate this conversion are high quality and both sensitive and subservient to the mill building and the wider conservation area context. As such, the scheme accords with the provisions of SIE1 (Quality Places) and H1 (Design of Residential Development).
Amenity In terms of separation distances, the scheme does not comply with the Council's standards as set out in the Design of Residential Development (which supports Core Strategy DPD policies SIE1 (Quality Places) and H1 (Design of Residential Development)). These standards are however principally designed to protect the privacy and amenity of existing occupiers, and there is an element of 'buyer beware' within new developments. The SPD also allows for the relaxation of standards to take account of local character. In this case there is a strong argument that the proposal as designed is locally distinctive and clearly based on its industrial heritage, rather than being a typical housing estate, and if buildings were separated this character would not be maintained. It is however noted that the secondary windows in the gable of block 11 facing Victoria Mill could potentially impact on existing residents of Victoria Mill's privacy, so it is important that these are opaque glazed, and this will be dealt with by condition.
Although dwellings benefit from some private or communal amenity space, in the majority of cases the provision of amenity space - both private and communal - is below the Council's standards, as set out in the Design of the Residential Development SPD (which supports Core Strategy DPD policies SIE1 (Quality Places) and H1 (Design of Residential Development)). In accordance with the provisions of the SPD, there is some scope for reduction as the site is positioned in very close proximity to publicly accessible open space. There is also a case for a reduction in terms of creating a locally distinctive character for the development based on its industrial heritage, rather than creating an anywhere housing estate based on achieving standards.
There is both a strong design (as outlined above) and heritage case (in terms of safeguarding a locally listed building that makes a positive contribution to Houldsworth Conservation Area) case for non-compliance with standards. It is for Members to balance whether the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the normal requirements for private/communal amenity and separation distances.
Affordable Housing The detailed comments of the Council's Planning Policy Officer with responsibility for Housing are contained within the consultee responses above.
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
The proposal is for a total of 201 units split down as follows: 13 no. 2-bed houses, 19 no. 3-bed houses, 7 no. 4+bed houses, 72 no. 1-bed flats and 90 no. 2-bed flats. The requirement for affordable provision on this site would be 20-25%, and the split would normally be 75/25 for shared ownership/social rent. Core Strategy Policy H3 (Affordable Housing) however allows for viability assessments to be submitted in order to justify lower or lack of such provision in a proposed scheme. The Council has sought advice on the viability case which has been submitted in support of the proposal, and on the basis of the comments received it would appear that the requirement of any affordable housing provision would make the scheme unviable. It should be noted that this does not mean that the proposal is contrary to policy, because policy explicitly seeks provision “subject to viability”.
As such the proposal accords with the provisions of H3 (Affordable Housing), as well as CS2 (Housing Provision), CS3 (Mix of Housing), CS4 (Distribution of Housing) and H2 (Housing Phasing). However although assessment of the viability case indicates that the revenue figures may be low (although not unreasonable), given that there will be a lead in time before these units are on the market, the potential for 'clawback' is being considered by the Council in negotiating the detail of the s.106 agreement. Negotiations are ongoing.
Open Space The detailed comments of the Council's Planning Policy Officer with responsibility for Open Space are contained within the consultee responses above.
The population capacity of this development will be 560. The Borough as a whole has an undersupply of open space so the open space surrounding the proposed development cannot be off-set against the provision/ off-site contributions that would be triggered by the development. Core Strategy Policy SIE 2: (Provision of Recreation and Amenity Open Space) indicates that occupancy levels of 100 or more are expected to provide 1.7 ha per 1,000 population for formal recreation and 0.7 ha per 1,000 population for childrens’ play and casual recreation. This policy requires as much as possible of the open space to be provided within or adjacent the new development and play provision should incorporate facilities based on the following hierarchy: 1. Local Area of Play LAP; 2. Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP); 3. Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP).
The proposed development does not provide any on-site formal recreational space or children’s amenity space (other than a small area for play that is deficient in terms of LAP standards as it is not 100sqm in size within a 400sqm buffer). As such it fails to accord with Saved UDP Review policies L1.1 (Land for Active Recreation, L1.2 (Children's Play) and Core Strategy DPD policy SIE2 (Provision of Recreation & Amenity Open Space in New Developments) and the associated SPG. However a viability case has been submitted with this application and assessed by Carillion. This demonstrates that such provision/ contributions would unduly impact on the viability of the scheme and deliverability of development. However although assessment of the viability case indicates that the revenue figures may be low (although not unreasonable), given that there will be a lead in time before these units are on the market, the potential for 'clawback' is being considered by the Council in negotiating the detail of the s.106 agreement. Negotiations are ongoing.
Highways & Transportation The detailed comments of the Council's Highways Engineer are contained within the consultee responses section above. A summary of the Highways Engineers comments is as follows:
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
• Access to this site is from Houldsworth Street via a simple priority junction, positioned slightly to the north of the current access. • The layout incorporates shared surface streets/paths, some proposed to be offered for adoption as public highway. • 148 parking spaces are provided (including 21 disabled) in parking courts/ lay-bys/ undercroft/ and within the ground floor/ basement of Elisabeth Mill. • 219 cycle parking spaces are provided.
Accessibility As there are still deficiencies in pedestrian, cycle and public transport infrastructure/ services that prevent/ discourage the use of sustainable modes of transport, there is a need to carry out some improvement to transport infrastructure in the forms of: dropped kerbs with tactile paving at junctions on key pedestrian routes to the site; with the creation of a cycle link along the pedestrianised section of Leamington Road; pedestrian/ cycle wayfinding signage; and a robust Residential Travel Plan. These - along with cycle storage - will be dealt with by condition.
Traffic & Highway Impact There are 17 fewer dwellings within the proposed scheme than phases 2 & 3 (the site of the current application) of the extant consent (DC0124448). Given the mix of dwelling types (i.e. some houses) analysis concludes that the proposal would generate an additional 12 vehicles at peak time and nearly 100 each day compared to the extant consent. This is not considered to have a material impact on the local highway network, so no objection is raised subject to a Travel Plan being provided. However for this element of the extant consent its s.106 agreement made provision for funding for a comprehensive traffic calming scheme. As this scheme will generate a similar level of vehicle movements and there has been no change in circumstances a s.106 agreement requiring payment of £93,445 (the original sum increased by RPI inflation) prior to occupation of the 139th unit.
Parking Proposed parking equates to 74% (150% for 3 & 4 bed homes; 100% for 2 bed houses; 57% for flats), which is in line with adopted parking standards. However, Core Strategy DPD policy T2 (Parking in Developments) states that 'developers will need to demonstrate that developments will avoid resulting in inappropriate on street parking that has a detrimental impact upon the safety of the highway, and that they also avoid impacting negatively upon the availability of public car parking'. The extant consent provided for 127% and evidence - in the form of a parking survey - provided in relation to Victoria Mill (phase 1 of the extant consent) indicates demand is 82%. Having regard to this, some on-street parking is likely to occur in relation to the proposed flats where provision will be 57%. This is considered to be in the region on 30 cars, which should be able to be accommodated on Houldsworth St/ St Elisabeth's Way without adversely affecting the access or highway safety, and is unlikely to overspill onto residential streets due to their distance from the site. So no objection is raised subject to the payment of £5000 to fund TROs within and within the vicinity of the site (and conditions as noted already above).
With regard to the wider site (Victoria Mill and the site to the north), phase 4 cannot be implemented in its approved form as 82 fewer spaces will be provided than required by the extant consent (DC012448). The need to implement a Resident's Parking Scheme will need to be reviewed again if development proposals for phase 4 come forward in the future. Advice is being sought from Legal Services as to how this current application will impact on the obligations linked to DC012448, and this will be reported verbally at committee. Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Cycle parking complies with the adopted standards.
Detailed Design Main access roads are of suitable geometry; the layout prioritises pedestrians and encourages low vehicle speeds; street trees/ furniture are provided to prevent car parking on footways, however there is a need to provide parking restrictions in some locations, which is to be agreed as matters of detailed design or dealt with by condition/ s.106.
Servicing The layout will require refuse vehicles to reverse & bins to be wheeled slightly further than is desirable. This is similar to what occurs on many existing residential streets and an objection on highway safety grounds could not be sustained. However SMBC's Waste Recycling Department should be consulted for their views.
No objection is raised regarding access by fire appliances if a sprinkler system is installed in dwellings away from the main access roads, to the satisfaction of GM Fire Service, and this can be dealt with by condition.
Subject to conditions and the applicant entering a s.106 agreement in relation to the matters outlined above, the scheme is in compliance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS9 (Transport & Development), CS10 (An Effective & Sustainable Transport Network), T1 (Transport & Development), T2 (Parking in Development) and T3 (Safety & Capacity on the Highway Network). The figures outline above in respect of Highways contributions have recently been brought to the attention of the applicant. The applicant's response - once they have had the opportunity to consider the matters raised - will be provided to committee.
Trees & Landscaping The detailed comments of the Council's Arboricultural Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above.
A full tree survey has been supplied and the Arboricultural Officer views that the scheme could only be accepted in its current format with some alterations to the encroachment of the house and car parking spaces on the hedge trees positioned along the boundary with the golf course to the rear of the site, and an improved landscaping design, with an increased number of trees.
This is an outline application with 'landscape' reserved, so all landscape details submitted are indicative. An improved landscaping design can consequently by sought through any reserved matters application. The impact of development on the hedge along the boundary with the golf course is noted. A scheme for replanting will be required at reserved matters stage to mitigate for its damage/loss, to help alleviate this concern and address the requirements of Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 (Safeguarding & Improving the Environment), SIE1 (Quality Places) and SIE3 (Protecting, Safeguarding & Enhancing the Environment).
Ecology & Protected Species The detailed comments of the Council's Nature Development Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above.
An ecologial survey was undertaken as part of the application, and a further Bat Inspection Report was provided - at the request of the Nature Development Officer - to determine whether or Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 not the buildings subject to the survey offered potential to support roosting bats.
Following receipt and review of the further Bat Inspection Report, the Nature Development Officer raised no objection to the application, subject to the imposition of conditions. As such the proposals are considered to accord with the provisions of policies S8 (Safeguarding & Improving the Environment and SIE3 (Protecting, Safeguarding & Enhancing the Environment).
Land Contamination The detailed comments of Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) and the Environment Agency are contained within the consultee responses section above.
A Geo-Environmental Site Assessment Report was submitted with the application. The Environment Agency raised no objection in principle to the development and concurred with the report's recommendation of a site investigation, but suggested that further work needed to be undertaken and the site reassessed prior to the undertaking of site investigation. Given that the site has been subject to previous contaminative land uses, they recommended the imposition of a number of conditions.
No objection is raised by Environmental Health. It is considered that risks from contamination and landfill gas can be minimised by the imposition of phased planning conditions. As such, subject to compliance with the proposed conditions recommended, the proposal is not considered to be at risk from contamination, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policy SIE3 (Protecting, Safeguarding & Enhancing the Environment).
Archaeology The detailed comment of GMAAS are contained within the consultee responses section above.
The application has been submitted with an archaeological desk-based assessment that sets out the archaeological and historical background to the site, discusses the significance of the archaeological (below ground and standing structures), then considers mitigation of the development impact. GMAAS note that it is unclear if the full impact of the current proposals for converting Elisabeth Mill into apartments were fully appreciated when the desk-based assessment (dba) was being compiled as it indicates that works will involve 'the alteration of the interior' (7.2) and recommends that "further archaeological work would be required to record details of the surviving power systems within the mill", but does not acknowledge that the current proposals actually involve demolishing the central portion of the mill's eastern elevation along with the central core of the mill to form an open, elongated courtyard for vehicles. GMAAS state that "such significant, large scale demolition goes beyond "the alteration of the interior" and suggests a significant loss of historic fabric, both internally and externally" and "this raises a question as to whether the impact assessment should have been 'major' rather than 'moderate'".
Although GMAAS raise no objection and accept the dba as submitted as meeting the recommendations set-out in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 128, they do wish to secure a more detailed level of archaeological building survey for Elisabeth Mill than currently exists or is proposed in the dba, through the conditioning of a programme of archaeological work.
Other Issues An Energy Statement (and addendum) has been submitted with the application detailing the proposed energy efficiency measures. The statement indicates that this development will Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015 promote emissions reductions through a 'fabric-led' approach. The Planning Policy Officer with responsibility for such issues, raises no objection following production of the addendum report, as such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS1 (Overarching Principles: Sustainable Development - Addressing Inequalities & Climate Change), SD1 (Creating Sustainable Communities), SD3 (Delivering the Energy Opportunity Plan) and SD6 (Adapting to Climate Change).
The comments of the Director of Public Health contained within the consultee responses section are noted. The issues regarding accessibility, as well as those regarding the need to update the travel plan, have already been addressed by the Council's Highways Engineer who advises that the matters can be dealt with by condition.
Comments from United Utilities are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.
SUMMARY The - locally listed - Elisabeth Mill has been vacant and consequently at risk for a decade or so. The building makes a positive contribution to the Houldsworth Conservation Area and the setting of a number of statutory listed buildings. A consent was approved over a decade ago for the Mill's conversion as part of the redevelopment of the wider complex of buildings including Victoria and Elisabeth Mills. Only Victoria Mill was converted as development stalled following the collapse of the previous developer over five years ago. A viable use needs to be found for the building so that the building does not deteriorate further. The current proposal for the conversion of the Mill building with associated subsidising development is welcomed and supported by both English Heritage and the Council's Conservation Officer.
There are a number of other benefits to the scheme including: • The provision of a mix of different dwelling types (over and above that of the extant consent DC012448) that will contribute to the delivery of housing within the borough. • Regeneration of a vacant/ semi-derelict site, improving its contribution to the Houldsworth Conservation Area. • Economic benefits to the wider area including the District Centre. • Public transport infrastructure improvements (subject to the applicant's agreement - to be determined).
However the proposal has a number of shortfalls including: • A lack of affordable housing provision. • A lack of provision of recreation and amenity open space (including contributions towards offsite provision). • Reduced amenity for future residents due to the site layout and limited provision of private/communal amenity space.
A viability appraisal has been submitted with the planning application which demonstrates that the provision of affordable housing and contributions for open space would render the scheme unviable and thus undeliverable. As such the applicant has requested flexible consideration of these policies in order to bring about what - in principle - is a beneficial development.
The recommended Highways contributions (circa £100k) have only recently been brought to the attention of the applicant, so they have not as yet been agreed or otherwise these contributions. An update will be provided at committee.
Heatons & Reddish Area Committee – 13th April 2015
Further negotiation is also required regarding the detail of the s.106 agreement. Whilst acknowledging that the viability case demonstrates that the provision of affordable housing and contributions for open space would render the scheme unviable and thus undeliverable at this time, there is likely to be a lead in time before these units are put on the market, and it needs to be considered whether provisions should be made within the s.106 agreement to enable the Council to clawback any additional profit made by the developer, to help meet the policy shortfalls of the current proposal, should profit be higher than forecast in the viability appraisal. Providing negotiations relating to the s106 can be satisfactorily concluded, the application - although finely balanced - is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION Grant subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement (details of which are subject to further negotiation).