Item No. 5 CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESHIRE COUNCIL
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT - 10 February 2011
APPLICATION NUMBER: 10/02883/OUT
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: Residential-led development (Use Class C3) with public open space, allotments (Use Class sui-generis agriculture) and development ancillary thereto (including community building – Use Class D1).
SITE ADDRESS: Nestle UK Limited, The Creamery, Warrington Road, Cuddington, Northwich
APPLICANT: Ainscough Strategic Land
WARD: Eddisbury
WARD MEMBERS: Cllr John Grimshaw Cllr Andrew Needham Cllr Barbara Roberts
CASE OFFICER: Judith Gordon - Tel: 01244 402390
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to S106 Agreement and Referral to Secretary of State
Reason for being reported to Strategic Planning Committee: Size of application
Page 33
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 The site was first developed in 1849 as a creamery and then later as a dairy farm. It was subsequently adapted for industrial scale yoghurt production. The factory is no longer operational but the site is still occupied by several large, disused industrial buildings and other significant structures associated with the production of yoghurt, which ceased in 2007. In addition the site has extensive areas of hardstanding, utilized previously for vehicle parking, loading bays and site access. The site is located on the northern outskirts of Cuddington and within the North Cheshire Green Belt, as defined in the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
1.2 The boundary of the site is irregular in shape and is edged by the A49 Warrington Road to the east, Cuddington Lane to the north, agricultural farmland to the west and the private garden of a residential property to the south.
1.3 The area of the application site is 9.18 hectares (23.4 acres). The land and buildings are now owned by Ainscough Strategic Land (the applicant). The northern part of the former factory site is largely occupied by derelict factory buildings and extensive areas of hard standing. These buildings are of significant scale with the tallest building rising to five storeys (24 metres). The building can be viewed above the site’s perimeter screening, creating a prominent and visually intrusive feature in the landscape. To the west of this building is a significant loading bay, capable of accommodating up to six heavy goods vehicles at any one time, with further space available on an extensive area of adjacent hard standing, close to the access point on Cuddington Lane. A large former cold store building and electricity substation are also situated adjacent to the main production building, close to the stopped up access to the A49 to the east.
1.4 Moving south towards the centre of the site is a building previously used for engineering works, several office buildings and the former factory canteen. There is a distinct change in ground level at this point, with the land rising to the south. A large tarmac car park is located close to the office buildings. Beyond the middle of the site the land continues to gradually rise towards the south. A further, more extensive car park is located here, with vehicular access gained via a road running close to the western boundary. An open-sided barn is located to the west of the car park, with an area of uneven overgrown made ground to the east. This may previously have been used as a landfill area and now comprises earth piles and scrubland. The south west part of the site contains a substantial, major industrial scale concrete settlement tank/ lagoon, which formed part of the waste disposal system for the yoghurt factory. Numerous smaller tanks and other structures associated with the process of waste disposal are located adjacent to this lagoon.
1.5 The majority of the site boundary is landscaped with a screen of mature trees and hedges. Smaller parcels of land on the south and west edge of the site include land currently in agricultural use. These extend beyond the tree and hedge line.
Page 34
2.0 PROPOSAL
2.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide approximately 156 residential units, public open space, allotments and a community building. All matters other than access are reserved.
2.2 A draft Development Brief pertaining to the site was prepared by the applicant in June 2010. The Brief seeks to set out a framework to assist developers in the preparation of subsequent reserved matters applications. The Development Brief will not be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) within the Council’s Local Development Framework but will have the status of a material consideration in decision-making. The Brief seeks to ensure the creation of a mixed and inclusive, high quality, sustainable residential-led development which integrates the character of Cuddington and its surrounding area. The key objectives set out in the Brief are as follows:
• provide a mix of housing types, tenures and values; • provide affordable houses as part of an inclusive development; • secure high quality design and ensure that the layout and design reflect principles of sustainability and energy efficiency; • maximize connectivity and linkages between the site, the local area and wider services and facilities; • make the site easy to access by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, whilst reducing reliance on the private car; • provide high quality, safe and secure publicly accessible open space and community facilities; • protect and enhance the existing character of this part of Cuddington and its surrounding area given the location of the site in the Green Belt; • improve the vitality of the local area; and • regenerate a large derelict brownfield site.
Residential Development
2.3 A variety of house sizes and types are proposed with a range of 2-5 bedroom properties in the form of terraced, semi-detached and detached units. The Design and Access Statement, submitted in support of the application, establishes the parameters for the scale of residential properties. The Supporting Planning Statement states that the maximum height of any of the units would be 2.5 storeys. Building heights have been considered within the context of the varying site levels and the plan is to locate lower dwellings on areas of the site where the ground levels are highest.
2.4 Thirty percent (30%) of the dwellings would be affordable houses (approximately 47 units). These would be 2 and 3 bedroom units, detailed as being of greatest demand in the Council’s 2009 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The affordable houses would be pepper-potted throughout the site to ensure that they are integrated into the proposals and would be of such a quality that would ensure they would be indistinguishable from the remainder of the open market housing.
2.5 As a direct result of feedback received during the local community consultation exercise, and in line with the needs case identified in the SHMA, a number of
Page 35 bungalows (approximately 8 units) would be provided on the site in order to contribute to addressing the current shortfall of this type of property in the local area. These would be located towards the south of the site, as shown on the illustrative site layout plan.
2.6 The existing site curtilage, which is Brownfield land, extends to approximately 6.69 hectares (17.24 acres). Additional Greenfield land included in the Development Brief boundary extends to 2.49 hectares (6.15 acres). New buildings and associated infrastructure would be constructed only within the Brownfield land, with the additional Greenfield land used for Public Open Space, allotments, foot and cycle linkages and/ or other uses compliant with the guidance set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2).
2.7 In terms of the footprint area of development, the proposal represents 10.575 sq.m of built footprint. In removing the existing structures from the site there would be a loss of 13,972 sq.m. Therefore, the development would represent a net reduction of 3,397 sq.m.
2.8 The provision of approximately 156 residential units on the site would equate to a low/ medium density of development. Across the site, different housing densities ranging between 20-30 dwellings per hectare would be achieved, depending on proximity to the boundary of the site and site levels.
Public Open Space
2.9 Public open space is proposed throughout the site in order to provide residents with amenity space and to create a rural feel to the development. A large area of dedicated green space is proposed towards the northern end of the site as shown on the illustrative site masterplan. It is intended that this would create a focal point within the development where a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) would be provided. It is proposed that a Local Area for Play (LAP) would be provided towards the southern end of the site.
2.10 Several ponds are shown throughout the illustrative site plan. It is intended that these would add interest for residents and would potentially contribute to the creation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). In the north-western part of the site it is proposed that a wildflower meadow would be created on an existing agricultural field in order to enhance the biodiversity of the site and to ensure that a natural buffer would be retained between the proposed development and the existing residential properties to the north.
Allotments
2.11 The applicant has proposed the creation of an allotment colony on land at the south of the site. The area of land identified for this would be capable of accommodating approximately 24 full size (c. 250 sq.m) allotment plots. The location of this colony has been selected so as to provide ease of access to existing members of the local community as well as new residents of the development site. Access would be provided by way of a newly created pedestrian and cycle access in the south east corner of the site, connecting to the A49 leading to Cuddington. Alternative access would be possible from an existing Public Right of Way, running adjacent to the
Page 36 south western boundary. A small dedicated car parking area would be provided adjacent to the allotments for allotment holders to use.
2.12 A management company would be established to oversee the running of the allotments in order to ensure that they are actively maintained. At present there is a significant waiting list for allotments in the Cuddington area. Therefore, the allocation of the plots would require to be carefully and fairly managed.
2.13 It is proposed that a community building should also be provided adjacent to the allotments. It is intended that this would be a multi-purpose facility, which would be constructed using innovative sustainable materials.
Access
2.14 Primary access to the site would be taken from a new signalized junction located on the A49, approximately 100m to the south of Cuddington Lane. The existing access from the A49, which is currently stopped up, would be closed permanently.
2.15 The existing access taken from Cuddington Lane was intended to become a secondary pedestrian and vehicular access to the site. It was to become a shared surface, placing the needs of pedestrians and cyclists ahead of vehicles in order to encourage low traffic speeds and ensure that the signalized junction would be clearly considered by users as the preferred access.
2.16 A new dedicated shared pedestrian/cycleway is proposed at the southern end of the site onto the A49 at the closest point to Cuddington, linking to an existing footway which provides a direct route to the village. A link would be provided from the north of the site for cyclists onto Cuddington Lane, to facilitate access to National Cycle Route 70.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The planning history pertaining to this site is long and varied, a sample of which includes the following applications:
4/00/06181: Erection of a raw effluent balance tank (1979) 4/00/09977: Sugar storage silo/ electrical switch room (1981) 4/00/10717: Additional office and car parking (1982) 4/15771: Erection of security fencing and gates to perimeter of site (1986) 4/17848: New amenities building (1988) APP/2004/1185: Single storey extension to existing production facility (03/08/2004) 05/0616/FUL: Single storey link tunnel to existing production building (25/05/05)
4.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
4.1 National PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green Belt PPS3 Housing PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Page 37 PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 Transport PPS22 Renewable Energy PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPS24 Planning and Noise PPG25 Development and Flood Risk
Regional Spatial Strategy DP2 Promote Sustainable Communities DP7 Promote Environmental Quality RDF2 Rural Areas RDF4 Green Belts W3 Supply of Employment land W4 Release of Allocated Employment land L5 Affordable Housing RT4 Management of the Highway Network RT9 Walking and Cycling EM2 Remediating Contaminated Land LCR5 West Cheshire – North East Wales
Vale Royal Borough Local Plan GS3 North Cheshire Green Belt NE1 Protection of the Nature Conservation Resource NE5 Endangered Species NE7 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Features NE8 Provision and Enhancement of Landscape in New Development NE16 Surface Water Run-off NE17 Watercourses BE1 Safeguarding and Improving the Quality of the Environment BE2 Sewerage Infrastructure BE3 Water Supply BE4 Planning Obligations BE21 Renewable Energy H4 Housing Development Hierarchy H5 Windfall Sites H12 Density H13 Mixed Communities H14 Sites for Affordable Housing on Residential Developments E3 Redevelopment of Employment Land for Employment Purposes E4 Redevelopment of existing and proposed employment land for non-employment purpose E10 Employment uses in the Green Belt including washed over Green Belt Villages RT3 Recreation and Open Space in New Developments RT5 Allotments T1 General Transport Requirements T2 Transport Assessments T3 Public Transport T8 Pedestrians and Walking T9 Cycling T13 Car Parking T15 Provision of access for people with disabilities T19 Traffic Calming Measures
Page 38 P8 Contaminated and Derelict Land
Supplementary Planning Guidance 1: Outdoor Space Standards for New Dwellings Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Provision of Public Recreation Space for New Housing Development
5.0 CONSULTATIONS
5.1 The consultation responses to this application fall into two main categories, which can be described thus:
i. Responses from internal and external consultees; ii. Responses received from local residents, as a result of letters, site notices and the press advertisement;
5.2 Responses from internal and external consultees
The Environment Agency originally objected to the scheme but following revisions to the drainage proposals, has withdrawn its objection, subject to a number of conditions relating to surface water run-off and a scheme to manage the risk of flooding be imposed on any permission.
United Utilities has raised no objection, subject to the imposition of a condition relating to a scheme to manage surface water and the risk of flooding.
Natural England has raised no objection to the proposal but has requested further information regarding temporary bat roosting and mitigation proposals and the use of conditions to secure the incorporation of these provisions within the development.
Cheshire Fire and Rescue has raised no objection to the proposal.
The Cuddington Parish Council was of the view that the traffic survey carried out was inadequate but welcomed the idea of regeneration on the former factory site and welcomed the proposed public garden spaces and allotments. The Parish Council has resolved to support the planning application subject to consideration being given to: • highways and access on the A49 and Cuddington Lane; • sewerage; • density of development; • access to services; • the use of agricultural land; • cycle ways; • the extra volume of traffic at Cuddington Primary School; and • the footpath on the A49 towards Forest Road.
The Biodiversity Officer has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions on any approval.
The Spatial Planning Manager has raised no objection, but has stressed that the case for very special circumstances for development in the Green Belt will need to be carefully assessed.
Page 39 The Landscape Officer raised no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of further information. The additional information was submitted and the Landscape Officer was satisfied with the proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate landscape conditions on any approval.
The Tree Officer has raised no objection subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.
The Council’s PLAY Officer has requested the provision of the appropriate type and number of play areas on site. This should be secured by way of the imposition of an appropriate planning condition on any approval.
The Council’s Housing Strategy Manager has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions and/ or a Section 106 Agreement pertaining to the provision of Affordable Housing.
The Council’s Children and Young People’s Services Manager has identified a future shortfall on capacity in the local area for primary and secondary education to accommodate the growth in the current indigenous local population. Therefore, the expected local population growth that would result from the proposed development would further exacerbate this. As such, a financial contribution is sought for educational provision for the total sum of £676,404. This would need to be secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement.
The Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions on any approval, including a requirement for the developer to enter into a Section 278 Agreement under the Highways Act for off-site highway works and a Section 106 Agreement for contributions towards signal upgrading and speed limit alterations.
The Environmental Protection Unit has raised no objection to the proposal in relation to noise, subject to the imposition of conditions on any approval.
With regard to contaminated land, the Environmental Protection Unit has highlighted that the LPA should be in a position to satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising from such contamination can be properly assessed and that the proposed development would incorporate any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks, including those covered by Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, on and off the site. At this stage, site investigation sufficient to pin down every detail is not required but the "unacceptable risks" and corresponding "options for remediation" should be provided for to enable a decision to be made that the remedial solution would be viable with acceptable impacts on neighbouring land uses and the environment.
5.4 Responses received from local residents, as a result of letters, site notices and the press advertisement
A total of 16 letters were received as a result of the letter of consultation to local residents and a public meeting held in the local school. Many of these letters offer support to the application in principle, however, not at the scale/density proposed.
Page 40 The key issues and grounds of objection raised within the letters referred to above can be summarised as follows: i. support for the redevelopment of the site and acceptance that housing is the best solution; ii. the proposed housing would be on the wrong side of the A49 so as a result it would be separated from local facilities, shops, playing fields etc; iii. pedestrian safety would be at risk due to the requirement to cross the very busy A49 to use local services etc. Recommend the introduction of a pedestrian footbridge across the A49; iv. the increased use of public footpaths across fields would compromise the security of existing residential properties in the local vicinity; v. demolition of the factory buildings would potentially damage neighbouring dwellings due to vibrations; vi. Cuddington Lane would be used as a vehicular “rat run” so the secondary access from the site onto that road should be closed; vii. the vehicular traffic and pedestrians likely to use the secondary access at Cuddington Lane would adversely impact the residential amenity of existing residents on Cuddington Lane; viii the public sewage system requires a substantial upgrade so there is concern about there being insufficient capacity for c. 160 new dwellings; ix. the value of existing dwellings nearby would be adversely affected as a result of the development; x. the proposed density of the development is too high, fewer houses should be built; xi. the proposed increase in local population would place undue pressure on existing local services; xii. the site is allocated as an Employment site in the Local Plan. The site has not been adequately marketed and the re-use of the site for employment has not been fully explored; xiii. there is no proven need for provision of allotments in Cuddington; xiv. developing fewer houses and providing them with larger gardens would negate the need for allotments; xv. providing a “softer edge” on the Greenfield land would give the developer the opportunity to encroach by developing further housing in the future; xvi. the existing landscaped boundary should be protected and enhanced so as to protect the visual privacy of existing and new residents; xvii. an additional pub/restaurant is not needed in the local area; xviii. the speed limit of the road should be reduced to 30mph along the extent of the site and beyond to the north of Cuddington Lane; xix. there is currently no suitable public transport provision to serve the site; xx. the parking at Cuddington Railway Station should be increased/ improved; xxi. no HGV access should be permitted via Cuddington Lane; xxii. there is a life-long agricultural tenancy on part of the site, which should be protected; xxiii. complaints regarding the current lack of site security, which has resulted in an increase in crime in the local area; xxiv. this application is premature and should be delayed so that the local community may be the decision-makers under the new Localism Bill; xxv. concern regarding public access to the wild flower meadow and the possible compromise of security for existing neighbouring residents.
Page 41
6.0 ISSUES AND ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key issues in this case relate to the following:
i. The principle of the proposed development, with particular reference to the location of the site within the Green Belt, taking into account the case for very special circumstances presented by the applicants;
ii. The environmental impact of the development, with particular reference to:
a. Ground conditions, including contamination and ground gas; b. Ecology; c. Landscape and visual amenity; d. Noise; e. Traffic and transport; f. Drainage;
iii. Education;
iv. Affordable Housing;
v. Play and Public Open Space and Allotments;
vi The impact of the proposed development on the amenities of nearby residents;
vii. Other issues raised by objectors and other issues.
i. The principle
National and local planning policy and guidance
6.2 In general terms, national planning policy in PPS1 places sustainability at the centre of land use planning. In terms of social cohesion and inclusion, the Government is committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and to promoting community cohesion in both urban and rural areas. PPS1 states (at paragraph 16) that Development Plans should promote development that creates socially inclusive communities, including suitable mixes of housing. Plan policies should:
• Ensure that the impact of development on the social fabric of communities is considered and taken into account; • Seek to reduce social inequalities; • Address accessibility (both in terms of location and physical access) for all members of the community to jobs, health, housing, education, shops, leisure and community facilities; • Take into account the needs of all the community, including particular requirements relating to age, sex, ethnic background, religion, disability or income;
Page 42 • Deliver safe, healthy and attractive places to live; and, • Support the promotion of health and well being by making provision for physical activity.
6.3 The Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment, in both urban and rural areas. PPS1 recognises that the condition of our surroundings has a direct impact on the quality of life and the conservation and improvement of the natural and built environments brings social and economic benefit for local communities. It advises that planning should seek to maintain and improve the local environment and help to mitigate the effects of declining environmental quality through positive policies on issues such as design, conservation and the provision of public space.
6.4 In terms of design, PPS1 advises that:
“Planning authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted”.
6.4 The whole site area is within the boundaries of the North Cheshire Green Belt. The current operational area of the former Eden Vale Yoghurt Factory site is defined in the Local Plan as a Major Existing Developed Site in the Green Belt.
6.5 Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 states that the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt are as follows:
• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
6.6 In relation to any new development within the Green Belt, paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 states that:
“Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.
6.7 Paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 further states that the erection of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate except in a number of cases, namely: agriculture and forestry; essential sport and recreation facilities; limited extension, alteration or replacement of dwellings; limited infilling of settlements, in particular for low-cost housing; and limited infilling or redevelopment of major developed sites.
Page 43 6.8 Paragraph 1.6 of PPG2 described that once defined, the use of land within the Green Belt has a positive role to play in the following:
• to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population; • to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas; • to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live; • to improve damaged and derelict land around towns; • to secure nature conservation interest; and • to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.
6.9 In addition to this, Paragraph 1.7 adds that:
“The extent to which the use of land fulfils these objectives is however not itself a material factor in the inclusion of land within a Green Belt, or in its continued protection. For example, although Green Belts often contain areas of attractive landscape, the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a Green Belt or to its continued protection. The purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection, and should take precedence over the land use objectives.
6.10 In terms of Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt, paragraph C2 of PPG2 advises the following:
“These sites remain subject to development control policies for Green Belts, and the Green Belt notation should be carried across them. If a major developed site is specifically identified for the purposes of this Annex in an adopted local plan or UDP, infilling or redevelopment which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 is not inappropriate development. In this context, infilling means the filling of small gaps between built development”.
6.11 Paragraph C3 advises that infilling need not be inappropriate development providing the proposals:
(a) have no greater impact on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt than the existing development (outlined in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2); (b) do not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and (c) do not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site.
6.12 Paragraph C4 advises that the complete or partial redevelopment of Major Developed Sites may offer the opportunity for environmental improvement without adding to their impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. It is further advised that proposals for redevelopment should:
(a) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; (b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts (paragraph 1.6 of PPG2); (c) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and
Page 44 (d) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).
The relevant area for the purposes of (d) is the aggregate ground floor area of the existing buildings (the “footprint”), excluding temporary buildings, open spaces with direct external access between wings of a building, and areas of hardstanding.
6.13 Paragraph 9 of PPS3 (Housing) sets out the Government’s key housing policy goal, which is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. To achieve this, the Government is seeking:
• to achieve a wide choice of high quality homes, both affordable and market housing, to address the requirements of the community; • to widen opportunities for home ownership and ensure high quality housing for those who cannot afford market housing, in particular those who are vulnerable or in need; • to improve affordability across the housing market, including by increasing the supply of housing; and, • to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural.
6.14 Paragraph 40 of PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities should continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed. The national annual target is that at least 60 per cent of new housing should be provided on previously developed land. This includes land and buildings that are vacant or derelict as well as land that is currently in use but which has potential for re-development. There is no presumption, however, that land that is previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.
6.15 Using land efficiently is a key consideration in planning for housing, as set out in paragraph 45 of PPS3. Good design is fundamental to using land efficiently. More intensive development is not always appropriate, however, when well designed and built in the right location, it can enhance the character and quality of an area. Density is a measure of the number of dwellings which can be accommodated on a site or in an area. The density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. If done well, imaginative design and layout of new development can lead to a more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the local environment.
6.16 Drawing on information from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and other relevant evidence, Local Planning Authorities are guided to identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years of a Local Development Document. To be considered deliverable, sites should, at the point of adoption of the relevant LDD:
• be available – the site is available now • be suitable – the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities • be achievable – there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.
Page 45
6.17 PPS3, at paragraph 71, gives clear guidance as to how Local Planning Authorities should assess planning applications for housing if they cannot demonstrate an up- to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. For example, where there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites, LPAs should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in PPS3. Paragraph 72 clearly states that “Local Planning Authorities should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of prematurity”.
6.18 Paragraph 2 of PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) advises that: local planning authorities should facilitate and promote sustainable patterns of development and sustainable communities in rural areas. Away from larger urban areas, planning authorities should focus most new development in or near to local service centres where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together. Paragraph 4 states that Planning Authorities should “set out in the LDDS their policies for allowing some limited development in or next to, rural settlements that are not designated as local service centres, in order to maintain the vitality of these communities.
6.19 Paragraph 8 of PPS7 advises that the Government’s key aim is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home. The needs of all in the community should be recognised, including those in need of affordable and accessible, special needs housing in rural areas. It is essential that local authorities plan to meet housing requirements in rural areas, based on an up to date assessment of local need.
6.20 The above-outlined policy in PPG2 forms the basis for Policies GS3 and E10 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan, relating to the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Within the Green Belt, planning permission for the erection of new buildings will not be granted except in very special circumstances, unless it is for one of the purposes set out in the policy. Proposals that involve a material change of use of land will be allowed provided they maintain the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
6.21 Policy E10 is concerned with employment uses within the Green Belt, specifically this major developed site at Eden Vale Works, Cuddington. The policy allows for the change of use of an existing building and/or limited infilling or redevelopment at the site provided that:
• The proposals have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land in it; • Redevelopment would result in significant environmental improvement, contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt and comply with Policy E3 (redevelopment of employment land for employment purposes); • The buildings do not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and • Limited infilling does not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site and redevelopment does not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings.
6.22 Policy E4 of the Local Plan advises that proposals for residential development on existing or allocated business, industrial or warehousing sites or premises will not
Page 46 be allowed. The reasoning for this policy recognises that older employment sites can often make a valuable contribution to maintaining a valid portfolio of employment land. For this reason they should not be lost if they can continue in any way to play a role in the local economy.
6.23 In this case, the proposed development as detailed in section 2 would be considered as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, according to criteria in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2. Although the current extent of the former Yoghurt Factory site area is a Major Developed Site, as defined in the Local Plan, the red line of the proposed development would extend beyond the limits of the previously developed site so as to create a landscaped buffer between the proposed development and the surrounding uses/ properties. As such, in order to establish whether the principle of the development is acceptable, it is necessary to consider that case for very special circumstances presented by the applicants.
6.24 The purposes of including land in Green Belt, as defined by PPG2, are:
• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
When the planning application proposals are evaluated against these five criteria, the development proposals would not harm or prejudice the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
6.25 PPG2 defines at paragraph 3.2, that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.
6.26 The case for Very Special Circumstances presented by the applicants seeks to demonstrate that the proposed development would not harm or adversely impact the openness of the Green Belt or constitute inappropriate development in any other way. They have undertaken an assessment of the proposals against the criteria for redevelopment of major developed sites in the Green Belt, as set out in paragraph C4 of PPG2 and Policy E10 of the Local Plan. This is considered below:
(a) Have no greater impact than the existing development on the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less;
6.27 The proposed development has evolved through careful consideration of a range of issues through the framework provided by the Draft Development Brief for the site. The Brief is not a Supplementary Planning Document but should be a material consideration in determining any planning application relating to this site. Key view towards the site from the surrounding area have been identified to enable an assessment to be made of the visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt of the proposed development, when compared with the existing Yoghurt Factory on
Page 47 site. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was undertaken, which analyses the landscape and visual impact of the current and proposed developments.
6.28 That Assessment concludes that the impact of the proposed development on the landscape would be less harmful when compared with the existing site and that with appropriate and sensitive detailed design, the proposed development could be successfully achieved without causing harm to the existing landscape character. In numerous areas, it is believed that the proposed development would actually make a positive contribution to the landscape.
6.29 In terms of visual impact it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible visual impact on nearby primary receptors (that is houses on or close to the boundary of the site) and would have a positive impact in the case of more distant primary receptors.
6.30 Therefore, it is my view that it has been demonstrated that the proposal would comply with the objectives of criterion (a).
(b) Contribute to the achievement of the objective for the use of land in Green Belts
6.31 The proposed development, when considered as a whole, would improve damaged and derelict land around a town, would enhance the landscape near to residential areas in Cuddington and would provide better opportunities for access to the countryside and opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation through the creation of new areas of open space, provision of communal allotments and improved linkages to the existing public rights of way network. Therefore, in my view, the development proposal would show compliance with the objectives of criterion (b).
(c) Not exceed the height of the existing buildings
6.32 The topographical survey of existing structures on the site has revealed a range of building heights and types. Details of these are contained in Table 2 of HOW Planning’s Supporting Planning Statement. The tallest building has an eaves height of 22m, with a small section rising to 24m. This building is substantial in size and highly visible in the local area and has become a recognised local landmark on the northern approach to Cuddington along the A49. The general view of local residents that emerged from the public consultation exercise, prior to and during the course of the planning application, was that there was support for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and that this tallest building, in particular, was considered to be an eyesore.
6.33 The proposed development would comprise buildings that would be significantly reduced in height when compared with the structures that presently occupy the site. From visiting the application site it becomes immediately apparent that there are significant changes in ground levels within it. The highest area of the site is located to the south and the land then falls in terraced form towards the lowest ground level at the north of the site. Therefore, it is proposed that the lowest house types (e.g. bungalows) would be constructed on the highest ground with scope for taller two- storey dwellings to be constructed on the lower ground levels.
Page 48 (d) Not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity)
6.34 Paragraph C5 of PPG2 identifies that the relevant area for the purposes of (d) is the aggregate ground floor area of the existing buildings (the “footprint”), excluding all temporary buildings, open spaces with direct external access between wings of a buildings, and areas of hardstanding.
6.35 Table 2 shows a comparison of footprints and volumes of the existing and proposed buildings on the site. The total existing footprint of buildings on the site amounts to 13,972sq.m. The total proposed footprint of buildings on the site would amount to 10,575sq.m. This would equate to a reduction in footprint across the presently developed site of 3,397sq.m (24%). This would serve to significantly improve and increase the openness of the site.
6.36 Additionally, Table 2 shows clearly that the volume of buildings on the site would be reduced by approximately 43,406 m 3 (40%), which would also serve to greatly increase the openness of the site in PPG2 terms.
6.37 In addition to the buildings, there are a number of other structures present on the site, such as settlement tanks and large concrete slabs. These structures have an additional footprint of 3,498sq.m. Hardstanding across the site, which includes car parks, access roads and footways, amounts to an area of 20,265sq.m. The area of comparable hardstanding proposed for the residential scheme would amount to approximately 7,566sq.m. This would include 4,545sq.m of hardstanding within the curtilage of properties, 2,841sq.m of roads and 180sq.m of car parking associated with the proposed community building. Therefore, the proposed development, when compared with the existing site, would see a reduction in the amount of hardstanding to just 37% of the existing area.
6.38 When the reduction in building footprint, volume and hardstanding of the proposed development are considered together it would result in a very significant impact that would greatly improve the openness of the site within the Green Belt.
6.39 In the light of the above, it is my view that the proposed development would satisfy the criteria set out in Annex C of PPG2 for major developed sites in the Green Belt. It follows, therefore, that the criteria contained under Policy E10 of the Local Plan, which largely replicates PPG2, have also been satisfied, with the exception of the final element of criterion (ii) of Policy E10, which seeks compliance with Policy E3. By virtue of the application proposals, which are not employment uses, this could not be achieved. However, it is important to note that there is a clear conflict with this reference and the specific Green Belt Policy GS3 (which finds support from paragraph 3.12 of PPG2) in that the making of a material change in the land is not inappropriate development if it maintains the openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
6.40 Whilst the Local Plan also contains Policy E4, the context to the formulation of Policy E4 when the Local Plan was adopted in June 2006 has changed significantly. At that time, a housing moratorium policy existed and the policy emphasis was on protecting employment land. Since that time the policy context has changed considerably through updated national planning guidance. Accordingly, the weight
Page 49 to be accorded to Policy E4 must be considered in the light of the newer Government guidance as well as other material considerations.
Very special circumstances
6.41 As detailed above, national and local planning policy and guidance requires developments representing inappropriate development in the Green Belt to demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly outweigh harm by reasons of inappropriateness and any other harm. Strictly in terms of whether very special circumstances exist, it is important to consider whether they are site specific, in other words not capable of replication anywhere else in the Green Belt and whether the benefits described are compelling and clearly outweigh the harm that the development will cause to the openness of the Green Belt.
Housing Land Supply
6.42 The Council’s Housing Land Monitoring Report 2009-2010 was published in June 2010. This identifies that the Council currently has a 3.8 year land supply against the RSS housing requirement as at 1 April 2010. In view of paragraph 71 of PPS3 (see above), the Council should consider applications for housing favourably.
6.43 Local Plan Policy H5 (Windfall Sites) is also of relevance as it states that windfall sites will be permitted where there is less than a five year supply of housing available.
6.44 In July 2008, the Government announced that 20 new Growth Points in England had been identified, 6 of which would be in the North West. The Borough of Cheshire West and Chester is one of those Growth Points. Although the Growth Point status does not have any planning weight in itself and needs to be tested and confirmed through the Development Plan process, it is expected that these Growth Points will deliver a much higher level of housing growth than has been achieved in the past and the redevelopment of a high proportion of Brownfield sites in sustainable locations together with high levels of affordable housing.
6.45 The Cheshire West and Chester Growth Point proposals include:
• Accelerate the provision of homes within the Borough; • Ensure that 30-40% of these homes are delivered as affordable housing; • Bring back into use derelict and neglected sites in sustainable locations; • Create a network of open spaces across the Borough to bring social, economic and environmental benefits to local people and communities and to deliver high quality open spaces, strategic environmental enhancements and contribute to high quality development; • Deliver high quality development, which compliments local character and which is sustainably constructed and energy efficient; • Improve transport links, particularly sustainable transport, between areas of housing and employment growth; and, • Deliver major environmental improvements across the sub-region in a co- ordinated way.
6.46 This development proposal would provide 156 residential properties, 30% of which would be affordable. It would also secure the remediation of a derelict factory site
Page 50 in a sustainable location and create high quality sustainable development offering new open space and improved linkages. The local area would also benefit from the removal of an unsightly factory site on this key approach to the village of Cuddington.
6.47 Openness of the site would be improved and hence, the objectives of including the land within the Green Belt would be met. The maximum building height would be greatly reduced and the extent of the footprint would decrease by almost 25%. This would comply with the criteria requirements of PPG2 (paragraph C4) in terms of redeveloping major developed sites in the Green Belt.
Housing Mix and Tenure
6.48 Paragraph 69 of PPS3 sets out clear objectives that Local Planning Authorities should have regard to in deciding planning applications. These are:
• Achieving high quality housing; • Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families and older people; • The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability; • Using land effectively and efficiently; and • Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives e.g. addressing housing market renewal issues.
6.49 The proposed development would deliver 30% affordable housing on the site, i.e. 47 affordable residential units. This would comply with the requirements of Local Plan Policy H14 (Sites for Affordable Housing on Residential Developments).
6.50 The former Vale Royal Borough adopted Supplementary Planning Document 1: Affordable Housing (2007) states at paragraph 5.2 that, “the mix of affordable housing provided on sites will need to reflect local housing needs and the Council will have regard to the current Housing Needs Survey, Housing Register and any other local housing market information, including income levels and house prices in considering the level and type of affordable housing that will be considered appropriate” .
6.51 Vale Royal’s “Housing Needs Survey – Update 2003” revealed an overall annual need for 127 new units per annum over the 5 year period 2003-2008 (635 units in total). In each of these years there was a significant under-provision of affordable housing (new build) across the former Vale Royal Borough area, as well as an increasing loss of affordable housing stock through right-to-buy schemes, increasing house prices and a decreasing turn over of existing social housing (re- lets).
6.52 Cheshire West and Chester Council has updated its housing needs information via a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in 2009. This newly adopted and published SHMA identifies a borough-wide annual requirement for 1314 affordable dwellings, of which 64% need to be delivered as social rented accommodation and 36% intermediate affordable housing. The SHMA also suggests (subject to viability)
Page 51 a potentially higher provision of affordable housing of up to 35% (where tenure split is 75:25 social rent to intermediate) and up to 40% (where the tenure split is 50:50 social rent to intermediate).
6.53 The Council’s Housing Land Monitoring Report 2009-2010 identifies that for the monitoring period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, the level of provision has been 283 affordable dwellings compared with an annual total requirement of 744 affordable dwellings per year across the Borough. This is clearly a significant shortfall.
6.54 The SHMA identifies a need for a mix of affordable properties within enabling developments, particularly for 2 and 3 bedroom houses. There remains some outstanding need for smaller housing units but this would also be determined and influenced by the proposed tenure. The proposed development would provide a range of house sizes encompassing 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties. Furthermore, bungalows are proposed to be constructed towards the south of the site. As the planning application is in outline, detail is limited and subject to revision at the Reserved Matters stage, however, the indicative layout providing 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom accommodation would satisfy some of the need identified in the SHMA. The Draft Development Brief and the Design and Access Statement seek to establish Design Principles that would ensure that the proposed development would be of a very high quality.
6.55 Paragraph 5.6 of the Council’s adopted SPD seeks “broad targets of 50% socially rented units (through a regulated provider such as a Registered Social Landlord) and 50% Intermediate units” . The SHMA indicates need by tenure for 64% social rented accommodation and 36% intermediate affordable housing. Details of the affordable housing tenure mix is yet to be confirmed but affordable rent and intermediate affordable housing would be expected to be delivered as part of this development.
6.56 The supporting documentation accompanying the planning application makes it clear that the site is proposed to be developed at a density that would balance the need to use land effectively and efficiently, whilst respecting the need to preserve and enhance the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, it is my view that the proposal would fully accord with the various objectives set out in PPG2 and PPS3.
Viability
6.57 The application site has been marketed for alternative employment use whilst it was still operational and following the factory’s closure. A Marketing Report was submitted in support of the application, which details the extent of the marketing undertaken. This has been prepared in the context of Local Plan Policy E4, which identifies that changes of use from employment to non-employment uses will only be acceptable where reasonable attempts have been made to let or sell the premises for employment purposes and no tenant/ purchaser has been found.
6.58 As described above, the national policy context surrounding Local Plan Policy E4 has changed over the past two years. The marketing of the site for a period of at least 12 months still remains entirely relevant in order to demonstrate that there is no demand for continued employment use of this site. However, the subsequent change in housing targets and the lack of 5-year housing land supply is, in my view,
Page 52 a material consideration that outweighs that element of Policy E4 that prohibits residential re-use of the site.
6.59 Vale Royal Borough Council undertook an Employment Land Availability Monitor on an annual basis in order to provide an overview of allocated and non-allocated (windfall) employment sites within the Borough. As identified in the adopted Vale Royal Borough Local Plan First Review Alteration, the employment land requirement for the period up to 2016 was for 203.2 hectares (10.16 hectares per year). It showed that taking into account all completions, commitments (allocations) and other commitments (windfalls), the total employment land supply would have been 237.29 hectares, which would have been an oversupply of 34.09 hectares.
6.60 The Marketing Report identifies that in the first instance, whilst Nestle was still operating from the site, the office buildings were offered to the market on a leasehold basis. This marketing continued for a period of 10 months, from April to December 2004 without attracting any significant interest. The offices were then marketed for a further 11 months, from October 2006 to September 2007, again with no suitable offer forthcoming. Following Nestlé’s withdrawal from the site, marketing of the premises took place from January 2008 until February 2009, when Ainscough Strategic Land (ASL) (the applicant) purchased the entire site. Further details of the main methods of marketing may be viewed in the Marketing Report. The Report demonstrates that prior to the site being purchased by ASL, no offers were received from parties interested in utilising the site for employment uses.
6.61 It should be noted that the Cheshire West and Chester Employment Land Study (2009) by BE Group, recommended that this site be retained for employment purposes or mixed use with residential uses to subsidise employment elements. There is a need for industrial workshop accommodation in the immediate area, as recommended within the BE Group Employment Study. Therefore, information detailing the effect, if any, of the loss of this employment site on the surrounding employment land supply should be reviewed to ensure that there is no significant impact on local employment land if this site was to be released for non-employment purposes. Given that the site has been extensively marketed, the office element from 2004 and the entire site during 2008/2009, with no employment user being found it suggests that the characteristics and location of this particular site are not desirable to the employment market. Instead, employment development of such a scale would likely look to locate in more suitable employment sites within the nearby towns of Northwich and Winsford.
6.62 The extent of the marketing undertaken was considered to be acceptable by Council Officers at that time. The Marketing Report then informed the preparation of the Draft Development Brief, which identifies that residential use on the site would be acceptable.
6.63 It is also clear that the specialised nature of the majority of the buildings on the site would render them unsuitable for use by alternative users. Furthermore, the poor condition that the buildings have now degenerated to would require significant expenditure to restore them to a usable condition. Other structures on the site, such as the former aerated water concrete tank, are substantial in height and size and require complete demolition as these could not be re-used for an alternative use. Deposits of contamination across the site would also require remediation.
Page 53 6.64 In the light of the above, it is my view that an alterative employment use for the site would not be likely to be viable. Given the latest employment land information, it is not felt that the release of this particular site for non-employment purposes would have a significant impact on the local employment land supply. Therefore, residential development would be likely to be the only feasible and viable use for this major previously developed site.
6.65 It is clear that if a viable development proposal is not brought forward, the site would remain contaminated and in an ever-worsening derelict state. Current problems with anti-social behaviour and vandalism would be likely to continue and the site in its current form would represent a potential risk to those who may choose to enter the site without authority or supervision.
6.66 The applicant has drawn attention to the Local Plan Major Objectives 2 and 3. These seek to create a vibrant community and a cleaner and more attractive living environment. The proposed development would be capable of meeting many of the policy objectives of these Major Objectives and this should, in my view, weigh in favour of the development.
6.67 Therefore, considering together the improved openness of the Green Belt that would result from the proposed development, the Council’s shortage of housing land supply, the level of affordable housing proposed to be provided and the viability aspects of redeveloping the site, it is my view that although the proposal would be a departure from the Local Plan and would result in the loss of an employment site, the package of benefits is highly compelling, would be highly beneficial in a number of different ways, and realistically incapable of being replicated on any other site in the Green Belt. As such, it is considered that the case presented by the applicant represents very special circumstances and the principle of the proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable.
6.68 Notwithstanding the above, whilst the principle of such a development in the Green Belt has been accepted, it is necessary to consider the other impacts of the development, particularly in relation to environmental impact, to ascertain whether the case presented also overcomes any other such harm that the development may cause.
ii. Environmental Impact
6.69 Paragraph 15 of PPS23 advises that Local Planning Authorities must be satisfied that planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts. This requires close co-operation with the Environment Agency and/or the pollution control authority, and other relevant bodies such as English Nature, Drainage Boards, and water and sewerage undertakers, to ensure that in the case of potentially polluting developments:
• the relevant pollution control authority is satisfied that potential releases can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework; and • the effects of existing sources of pollution in and around the site are not such that the cumulative effects of pollution when the proposed development is added would make that development unacceptable. Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out principles and policies to deal with cumulative impacts when drawing up their Local Development Documents. Decisions
Page 54 on individual cases must always be justified on the facts applying to those cases.
6.70 Annex A to PPS23 provides details on matters for consideration when decisions are taken on planning applications. These can include the impact of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, the sensitivity of the area, potential environmental benefits, the economic and wider social need for the development, air quality, the need for compliance with any statutory environmental quality standards or objectives, contamination, the limitation or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, drainage and sewerage, emissions of smoke, fumes, gases, dust, steam, smell, vibration or noise, general risks to health and safety and light.
6.71 Major Objective 3 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan seeks to create a cleaner and more attractive living environment in the Borough where resources are used wisely, pollution is minimized and climate change is addressed. Policy BE1 seeks protection of the nature conservation resource and Policy BE1 states that proposals for all new development will be expected to safeguard and improve the quality of the built environment. Policies BE2 and BE3 advise that development will not be permitted unless access to suitable water and drainage facilities can be achieved.
6.72 A number of key environmental impacts that need to be considered are listed below. These are:
a. Ground conditions, including contamination and ground gas; b. Ecology; c. Landscape and visual amenity; d. Noise; e. Traffic and transport; f. Drainage;
6.73 In order to assess the supporting documentation for the proposed development submitted by the applicant, each impact will be discussed in the subsequent sections below.
a. Ground conditions
6.74 Paragraph 23 of Annex 1 to PPS23 advises that in considering individual planning applications, the potential for contamination to be present must be considered in relation to the existing use and circumstances of the land, the proposed new use and the possibility of encountering contamination during development. It is advised that the Local Planning Authority should satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising are properly assessed and that the development incorporates any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks”.
6.75 Paragraph 24 continues and advises that Local Planning Authorities should pay particular attention to development proposals for sites where there is a reason to suspect contamination, such as the existence of former industrial uses, or other indications of potential contamination, and to those for particularly sensitive use such as a day nursery or housing likely to be used by families with children. In such cases, it should normally require at least a desk study of the readily-available
Page 55 records assessing the previous uses of the site and their potential for contamination in relation to the proposed development. If the potential for contamination is confirmed, further studies by the intending developer to assess the risks and identify and appraise the options for remediation should be required.
6.76 Finally, Paragraph 25 advises that the remediation of land affected by contamination through the granting of planning permission (with the attachment of the necessary conditions) should secure the removal of unacceptable risk and make the site suitable for its new use. As a minimum, after carrying out the development and commencement of its use, the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.
6.77 In this case, a Phase 1 Environmental Audit has been undertaken in order to assess the potential ground contamination on the site stemming from its former use as a yoghurt factory with associated effluent works. The audit report has identified a limited number of potential contamination sources, as follows:
• the diesel pump and former above ground tank location; • former plant buildings that may contain electrical equipment such as switchgear, transformers and capacitors containing Polychlorinated biphenyls; • ammonia from cooling vessels and other unknown treatment chemicals and detergents; • air conditioning units which could contain ozone depleting substances; • the potential for the fabric of the buildings to contain asbestos.
6.78 The level of investigation carried out initially did not reveal sufficient information about the potential ground contamination to allow for the principle of development in the affected areas to be considered acceptable. Initial results from subsequent investigations carried out at the request of the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer have revealed that the potential for contamination may allow for any harmful impacts to be controlled through the imposition of conditions on any permission. These conditions are detailed at the end of this report. A further verbal update on this matter will be provided for Members at the Strategic Planning Committee meeting.
6.79 As such, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to unacceptable environmental harm in terms of ground conditions.
b. Ecology
6.80 In this case, there are no statutory European or nationally designated sites within the application site or close enough to be directly affected by the proposed development. In general terms, there are numerous habitat types and existing species in the site and surrounding area, including a number that are protected by law.
Protected Species
6.81 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires local planning authorities to give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site. Planning permission will be granted provided that there is no
Page 56 detriment to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation status in their natural range.
6.82 The Regulations advise that if any detriment would be caused by the proposed development, planning permission should only be granted provided;
• there is no satisfactory alternative; and • the development is in the interests of public health and public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.
6.83 Policy NE5 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan advises that proposals should minimise any adverse impact on endangered species and take steps to secure the protection of flora and fauna. Policy NE4 advises that proposals affecting wildlife habitats will only be permitted where there would be no harm to the habitat features or they could be recreated elsewhere or the importance of the development outweighs the value of the features. The conservation and management of threatened habitats is encouraged.
6.84 Developments for which development works would contravene the protection afforded to European protected species (e.g. bats, Great crested newts and otters) require derogation (in the form of a licence) from the provisions of the Habitats Directive. Licence applications arising from new developments are considered by Natural England on behalf of the Secretary of State. Before such a licence can be granted, several tests, specified in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive and in regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (outlined below), must be satisfied.
6.85 Local Planning Authorities must also consider these three tests prior to determination of the application. LPAs would risk breaching the requirements of the Directive and Regulation 9 (5) if the three tests were not considered during the determination of a planning application. The three tests are as follows:
Test 1: “that there is no satisfactory alternative”
6.86 In this instance, it has been demonstrated that an alterative employment use for the site would not be likely to be viable. Given the latest employment land information, it is not considered that the release of this particular site for non-employment purposes would have a significant impact on the local employment land supply. Therefore, as set out above, the identified need for residential development in the Borough would render residential development as the only feasible and viable alternative use for this major previously developed site. Thus, the principle of housing development on this site has been justified. As the site is within the Green Belt, it is my view that the Council is justified in not requiring the housing to be located elsewhere within the Green Belt.
6.87 The Ecological Consultant’s Scoping Survey identified that one building (building 9) has previously been used as a temporary roost for a solitary Bat. Natural England has commented on the development proposals and suggested that the suggested three year monitoring of that building would be unlikely to occur as the demolition of that building is likely to be sooner given the submission of the planning application.
Page 57 There would be the option of retaining the building for the interim period whilst development may, if permitted, progress around the building. However, this would not be a pragmatic way forward and it is the view of the Council’s Ecologist that sufficient mitigation for the Bats would be provided to more than compensate for the loss of this building. Indeed, a planning condition could be attached to any planning permission requiring that the tree-mounted Bat Boxes be installed prior to demolition of the building. In the event that Bats start to use the building again, it would be necessary for the developer to obtain a development licence from Natural England before the building could be demolished.
6.88 Therefore, in my view, the first Test has been satisfied.
Test 2: “the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range”
6.89 Penny Anderson Associates Ltd is the firm of Consultant Ecologists who have undertaken survey work and prepared a Supplementary Surveys Report in respect of protected species on the application site. No Great Crested Newts were found on the site, however, three species of bat were recorded using the habitats on site for foraging, mainly on the western side and around the former large lagoon. One of the small buildings was identified as being used by brown long eared Bats as a feeding perch/night roost for a short period in May 2009.
6.90 Bat roosting features are proposed to be provided in new buildings and existing trees through the use of bat tubes and bat boxes respectively. Bat tubes/bricks would be built into all residential properties that would be located around the edges of the development site, adjacent to established foraging and commuting habitat. This would equate to approximately 75 units (50%) of properties supporting roosting features. In addition, it has been recommended by the Ecological Consultant that 20 Schwegler bat boxes should be erected on mature trees around the periphery of the site. It is the view of the Ecologist that these measures would not only serve as compensation for the loss of the brown long-eared bat feeding perch in the current building no. 9 but would significantly enhance the number of roost sites in the locality, benefiting the local bat population as a whole.
6.91 The Council’s Ecologist has visited the site and reviewed the documents submitted. He is of the view that the proposed measures described above would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the Bats concerned at a favourable conservation status in the natural range and that the measures could be secured by way of appropriately worded planning conditions should planning permission be granted.
6.92 In terms of the trees with potential as bat roosts, only one (identified in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey as tree T2) is likely to be felled. The Council’s Ecologist has recommended that this tree should be retained for use by Bats by reducing the crown of the tree. This could be secured by way of a planning condition.
6.93 Given the outline nature of the planning application and the transitory nature of the species it would be appropriate for a further inspection to be undertaken of those identified trees and buildings prior to any tree felling/ surgery and demolition works. This could also be secured by way of a suitably worded planning condition.
Page 58
Test 3: “preserving public heath or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”
6.94 In this case, the proposed development would affect some identified features of nature conservation value, as outlined above. However, as described within the supporting Ecological Report, enhancements within the site area would not only serve as compensation but would significantly enhance habitat and landscaping features in the locality, benefiting the local protected species as a whole, in particular the Bat population. Therefore, since the principle of development has been demonstrated, I am of the view that although the construction periods may harm habitats and species, any such harm could be managed and that the long- term landscaping strategy would result in acceptable enhanced and replacement habitats.
6.95 The assessments carried out by the applicant submitted with the planning application have been carefully assessed by Natural England and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and it has been concluded that the development will not cause unacceptable harm to any statutory or non-statutory designated nature conservation sites. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of the Conservation Regulations 2010 and Policies NE5 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
Badgers
6.96 From the Ecological reports provided in support of the planning application, it is clear that Badgers are present in the vicinity of the site but it has been concluded that the proposed development would have no direct impact or effect on the protected species. However, a mitigation scheme (including method statement) would need to be submitted detailing appropriate working practices to avoid any damage or disturbance, which could be secured by way of an appropriately worded planning condition.
Wild Flower Meadow
6.97 A wildflower meadow is proposed to be created at the northwest edge of the site to compensate for the loss of semi-improved grassland on the development site. An indicative species list has been submitted and this would be refined in light of soil analysis. The proposed mix is considered by the Council’s Biodiversity officer to be acceptable but it would be preferable for the incorporation of low intensity grazing rather than repeated cutting in terms of management. Details associated with the creation and management of the meadow could be agreed as part of an overall long term (25 years) habitat and landscaping management plan, secured by way of a planning condition or legal agreement. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer recommends that a wildlife pond should be created in the wildflower meadow, immediately adjacent to the proposed ecology look-out/ hide. This would provide a focal point during the winter months and would be in accordance with Policy NE7 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
Page 59
c. Landscape and visual impact
6.98 As described above, the proposal would involve the creation of public open space throughout the site in order to provide residents with amenity space and to provide a rural feel to the development. A large area of dedicated green space is proposed towards the northern end of the site as shown on the illustrative site masterplan. The site is located within the Green Belt and between two Areas of Significant Environmental value. It is well enclosed by well developed trees and hedgerows, which provide good screening.
6.99 The applicant has indicated on the masterplan the proposed layout of the development, although all the details of such buildings would need to be fully assessed within a subsequent Reserved Matters application. A detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment report has been submitted (following discussions with the Council) of key viewpoints. The Council’s Landscape Architect has considered the details and is satisfied that the report has adequately assessed the existing impact and proposed impact during construction and when complete. The removal of the existing buildings would have a positive benefit and the mitigation measures proposed should be effective provided the buffers to the site boundaries could be adequately reinforced to include some evergreen species such as Holly. The impact of the development on landscape character would be slightly beneficial should the site become operational. The visual impact from the closer viewpoints would be generally low and very low to negligible from the further viewpoints. The significance of effects would be generally negligible to slightly negligible apart from the very close properties, where the significance would be slightly adverse.
6.100 The indicative layout is organic in form and it is considered that it would be appropriate to the semi-rural nature of the site and to respond well to the topography and landscape features of the site, given the considerable land rise sloping upwards from north to south. The type of development proposed would respond to the site’s topography by siting single storey housing at the highest point and the 2-3 storey properties on the lower parts of the site, so as to minimise potential visual impact. The existing changes of level are proposed to be broadly retained so as to minimise cut and fill and retain some of the internal tree planting but sections through the site have been required by the Council’s Landscape Architect to clarify this.
6.101 Although the proposed pedestrian and cycle links are shown in the Design and Access Statement, they are not clearly shown on either the Illustrative Masterplan or the Landscape Strategy Plan. A footpath is proposed to be created along the eastern boundary of the proposed allotments to link into the public footpath from Cuddington Lane to the A49. However, this has not been shown on the plans. This is a key link and the existing public footpath to Warrington Road would require some improvement by surfacing to cope with the likely increase in usage and ensure a safe, attractive and sustainable route. This would also encourage any local residents with allotments to walk to the site.
6.102 The proposed footpath/cycle link at the south east corner of the site would link to Warrington Road and some grading would be required within the highway verge to meet DDA requirements. Care would need to be taken to avoid any undue tree loss here. The existing footway adjacent to the A49 is very narrow and potential exists
Page 60 to widen this to cater for the likely increase in usage that would arise from the proposed development.
6.103 The existing substation is proposed to be removed and it is understood that a smaller substation would be required to service the development but this has not been indicated on the layout. Consideration should be given to the siting, design and materials of any such substation and other utility structures to ensure that they could be integrated into the proposed development.
6.104 Policy NE7 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan advises that proposals for development should recognise features of landscape quality, such as walls, trees, hedgerows, streams and ponds on or in the immediate vicinity of the development site. In the design and arrangement of buildings, structures, landscaping and other works, all proposals should maintain or improve the quality and variety of the landscape in which the development would take place. The existing trees and hedgerows to the north and eastern boundaries have been identified as valuable habitats and existing screening is proposed to be reinforced by additional planting, although no details of species were included with the application. It is important that these be excluded from the garden plots to avoid future tree removal as this could result in erosion of the boundaries by future residents and potential replacement by fencing which would alter the character of the boundaries, reduce the effectiveness of the screening and affect the views from the proposed public realm. Of particular concern is the northern boundary where considerable tree removal and management works have been identified in the tree report. Although identified as being necessary for health and safety reasons this would reduce the effective screening from Cuddington Lane, particularly in the winter. These buffers should be viewed as a key part of the landscape infrastructure to be maintained with the open spaces by the proposed management company. Section drawings through these boundaries have now been provided to clarify the proposed treatment and the Council’s Landscape Architect is satisfied that the proposals would be acceptable, subject to the imposition of appropriately worded planning conditions.
6.105 Any boundary treatment to the proposed allotments has not been indicated on the plans and it is assumed that some security would be required adjacent to the public footpath and from potential stock in the field to the north. Hedgerows would be desirable with some trees in conjunction with any proposed fencing to soften the boundaries. The western boundary to the woodland/bund landscape area crosses an existing field and it is not clear what the proposed boundary is here and again a hedgerow in association with any stock fencing would be preferable in order to maintain a soft boundary and also create wildlife corridor. This could be secured through the imposition of a suitable planning condition on any approval.
6.106 Policy GS3 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan is concerned with development in the Green Belt, as set out above. Policy NE12 advises that Areas of Significant Local Environment Value are areas having a special value to the Borough because of the contribution they make to the character of the District and the towns and villages within it. Within these areas development will only be permitted where there is no unacceptable harm to the value of the area.
6.107 Two areas of public open space are proposed to be provided within the housing development and would include ponds as part of the proposed SUDS scheme, which is also proposed to include swales and permeable paving. An existing field to
Page 61 the north west of the site is proposed to be seeded so as to form a wildflower meadow to act as a buffer between the existing houses to Cuddington Lane and the proposed development. This would improve the biodiversity of the site and create an opportunity for educational usage. This is shown as public open space on the Landscape Strategy Plan but the application states that formal public access to this area would be prohibited. A further area of landscape/open space is also proposed to the western boundary based on an existing woodland area and bund. This would provide a more natural edge to the development but it is unclear what level of access would be proposed here, if any. A clear distinction needs to be indicated between the areas available for public access and play and areas with no public access as this is not clear at the moment. This could be secured by way of a planning condition attached to any permission.
6.108 No details have been included with the application of tree species proposed to be planted, except a general proposal to incorporate some native species to the boundaries and some traditional fruit trees throughout the development. The Council’s Landscape Architect is of the view that it would be a good opportunity to plant Fruit trees within the allotment area, perhaps creating a small community orchard. This could be secured by way of a planning condition.
6.109 A tree survey has been submitted with the application which provides a good reflection of the existing trees on site and their condition. It identifies those requiring removal due to their poor condition and also indicates the trees proposed to be retained and the required root protection areas in accordance with BS 5837, Trees in relation to construction. A summary of this is provided in sections 8.21 – 8.25 in the Design and Access Statement. It would appear that the majority of the existing trees on site which are identified to be retained are indicated on the layout plan as being outside private gardens, which has been supported by the Council’s Tree Officer as this would enable those trees to be managed properly and offer a more consistent approach to future tree management around the site.
6.110 In the south west corner of the site are 3 embankments with mixed conifers and broadleaves which would originally have been planted as screening to the adjacent works. These trees are now well established although are in need of thinning to improve future growth and maintain amenity. The main section to the west is the most prominent from outside the site and is mainly retained with much of the other 2 sections being reduced to accommodate the site layout. Provided those that are retained are managed well, with appropriate thinning and replacement planting carried out, the Council’s Tree Officer is of the view that the most important elements of these areas would be maintained.
6.111 There are a number of groups of trees particularly in the central and north-western part of the site that are generally to be retained, except for those identified for removal due to their condition and a few smaller trees to be removed due to the indicative layout of the development. The Council’s Tree Officer is concerned that the group of trees around T 133 in the centre of the site has been indicated to be retained but that new footpaths would be designed to go right to the base of tree T133, clearly well within the required root protection area (RPA). This is a Corsican pine and probably the most prominent individual tree within the site. It is important that all trees to be retained have the recommended root protection area unaffected by any adjacent development works and some minor alterations to the indicative
Page 62 site layout would be required to achieve this. This could be dealt with when determining any reserved matters application relating to layout of the site.
6.112 One larger area of tree removal is proposed in the south east corner of the site. These are primarily smaller self-set trees and although their loss would be unfortunate, the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officers would not consider that it would have any significant impact on the wider amenity of the area.
6.113 As described above in the Ecology section, it is proposed that tree T42 be removed. This is an over-mature ash tree that has been identified for removal due to its condition. Although not wishing to disagree with the problems identified in the tree survey, the Council’s Tree Officer is of the view that because of the decay and cavities it has it would have considerable ecological value. I consider that if it could be significantly reduced and the larger side branches removed any immediate danger could be removed and the ecological value could be retained. The tree is also away from the main housing areas and if this management is continued into the future any risk would be minimal. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer supports this view and the retention of the tree could be secured by way of a suitably worded condition being applied to any planning permission.
6.114 To protect the retained trees during the development process would require tree protection measures to be in place. Therefore a condition would be attached to any planning permission requiring the submission of a tree protection plan in accordance with BS 5837 Trees for approval in relation to construction prior to all working commencing on site. A tree pruning and felling specification would also require to be submitted and agreed prior to work commencing to confirm what work would be carried out and in particular how the selection for the thinning on the embankments would be undertaken. Finally an Arboricultural Method Statement would need to be agreed to include the following: implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Tree protection Scheme; Implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Treework Specification; Implementation, supervision and monitoring of all approved construction works within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the approved Tree Protection Scheme; Timing and phasing of arboricultural works in relation to the approved development.
6.115 As a large proportion of the retained trees would be within public areas they would require ongoing management following the initial agreed works. A long term (25 year) management plan for the maintenance of the trees should be submitted, as described above, for the future site management. This could be secured by way of a planning condition.
6.116 The proposed tree planting both within the housing areas and on adjacent land is welcomed although very little detail is provided at the present time. A condition requiring tree planting and landscape details to be submitted for approval as part of a Reserved Matters application would be attached to any planning permission.
6.117 No information has been included in the application of any public art although the design brief (5.34) stated that opportunities would be sought for the inclusion of appropriate public art. Such provision could be incorporated as part of the site infrastructure such as seating or railings to encourage local distinctiveness and an
Page 63 opportunity exists for some community involvement in this. This could be secured by way of a planning condition.
6.118 In relation to general design policy, PPS1 advises that the high quality design should be encouraged and that development proposals which fail to take the opportunities available to improve the character and quality of the area should be rejected (paragraph 34). Policy BE1 of the Local Plan echoes national policy and advises that particular reference should be made to factors such as appearance, siting, scale, layout, density, use of materials and landscape treatment. It should also be compatible with the local character and encourage local distinctiveness through the use of appropriate and high-quality building materials, architectural detailing, floorscape and boundary treatment. Within the Outline area, the use of suitably high-quality design to minimise impact and use of appropriate materials could be secured at the Reserved Matters stage by way of a planning condition.
6.119 As such, it is not considered that the proposed development as a whole would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the surrounding landscape. Therefore, it is my view that the indicative details of the landscaping elements of the proposed development, as set out in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application, would accord with the provisions of PPS1 and Policies GS3, NE7, NE8, NE12 and BE1 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.
d. Noise
6.120 In respect of noise, paragraph 8 of PPG24 introduces the concept of Noise Exposure Categories (NEC’s), ranging from A-D, to help local planning authorities in their consideration of applications for residential development near transport- related noise sources. Category A represents the circumstances in which noise is unlikely to be a determining factor, while Category D relates to the situation in which development should normally be refused. Category B and C deal with situations where noise mitigation measures may make development acceptable. Annex 1 of PPG24 contains a table defining a recommended range of noise levels for each NEC covering day and night-time periods.
6.121 The NEC procedure is only applicable where consideration is being given to introducing residential development into an area with an existing noise source, rather than the reverse situation where new noise sources are to be introduced into an existing residential area. This is because the planning system can be used to impose conditions to protect incoming residential development from an existing noise source but, in general, developers are under no statutory obligation to offer noise protection measures to existing dwellings which will be affected by a proposed new noise source.
6.122 In this case, the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has carefully considered the proposed development against the guidance set out in PPG24 and in Policy BE1 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan and has raised no objection to the proposal. However, it has been recommended that a planning condition should be attached to any planning permission pertaining to the internal noise levels that should be achieved within the proposed new dwellings, for the benefit of future occupiers.
Page 64 6.123 It is considered that one of the elements that could generate significantly increased levels of noise relates to the construction of the proposed development. It is not considered that any such noise likely to be generated by construction would exceed acceptable limits and this could be controlled through the imposition of a construction method statement condition on any planning permission.
6.124 As such, it is not considered that the proposed development would generate or be adversely affected by unacceptable levels noise and the proposal would accord with the provisions of PPG24 and Policy BE1 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
e. Traffic and transport
6.125 PPG13 (re-issued January 2011) provides the Government’s planning guidance relating to Transport. The objectives of this guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to:
• promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; • promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and, • reduce the need to travel, especially by car.
6.126 Paragraph 5 of PPG13 sets out the circumstances where it is appropriate to change the emphasis and priorities in provision between different transport modes, in pursuit of wider Government objectives. It states that the car will continue to have an important part to play and for some journeys, particularly in rural areas, it will remain the only real option for travel.
6.127 Paragraph 51 of PPG13 states that policies in development plans should set levels of parking for broad classes of development. Standards should be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices and the efficient use of land, enable schemes to fit into central urban sites, promote linked-trips and access to development for those without use of a car and to tackle congestion. There is a need for a consistent approach to maximum parking standards for a range of major developments, above the relevant thresholds.
6.128 The planning application site is a former yogurt factory, which generated significant volumes of both car-borne and Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) trips. Whilst the site is not currently in use, the previous use provides a starting position that must be taken into account when considering any alternative redevelopment proposals for the site.
6.129 In terms of the site’s physical location; although some likely travelling destinations for future residents of the site such as the centre of Cuddington village and the facilities there (including schools, shops and the railway station) would be at the upper end of comfortable walking distance, it is considered that they would still be within a reasonable walking distance, given the proposed pedestrian highway improvements.
Traffic Generation
6.130 The Transport Assessment (TA) that accompanied the application sets out the likely traffic generation scenario that would result from the proposal. It is considered that
Page 65 the detail in the TA is suitable for assessment and reflects the typical methodology used for arriving at and then assessing the volume and subsequent impact of the traffic that the site will generate.
Impact on Traffic Flows
6.131 The proposed redevelopment of the site for residential use would generate a significant and noticeable volume of traffic, particularly when measured against the present scenario of the site not being in use.
6.132 The Council’s Highway Engineer has considered the details of the proposed development and is of the view that the volume of traffic that would be likely to be generated could be accommodated by the local highway network (the A49) as it has sufficient capacity to be capable of absorbing the increase in vehicle movements without resulting in additional over-riding detriment to the safety or operation of the highway.
New Signalised Junction
6.133 As part of the development a new signalised junction is proposed to serve the access into the site from the A49. This new junction would provide a controlled access into the site which would remove uncertainty for drivers undertaking turning movements or those faced with traffic turning in front of them.
6.134 The Council’s Highway Engineer considers that this would be the most suitable and safest method of controlling the access to the site. The signalisation would also bring other tangible benefits to this length of highway:
6.135 Given the nature of signals and their phasing this would help to ‘platoon’ traffic along the A49 which would enable the creation of gaps in the general flow of traffic that would, in turn, assist vehicles to pull out onto the A49. Additionally, the presence of the signals would have a ‘throttling back’ effect on some vehicle speeds, particularly when compared to the existing local highway layout with its open aspect and uncontrolled stretch of vehicular highway.
6.136 Whilst the forecasted traffic and the introduction of the new signalised junction would introduce breaks in the traffic flow, it is the view of the Council’s Highway Engineer that this impact would not significantly adversely affect congestion or lead to an unacceptable increase in journey times along the route. As such, it would not be detrimental to highway safety.
6.137 The new junction provision would be subject to the developer entering into a s278 agreement with the Highway Authority that would be required by way of a planning condition.
Other Offsite Highway Works/S278 Agreement
6.138 As part of the new signalised junction, pedestrian facilities would be included to establish a link across the A49 to the opposite side of the road. From there a new length of footway would be created to connect from the signalled crossing to the existing footway to the north along the A49 Weaverham by-pass. This would result
Page 66 in a continuous footway from the site into Weaverham and its associated schools and facilities.
6.139 The existing footway across the application site frontage and south towards Cuddington village centre would be widened to a more consistent typical width of 1.8m. This would be an improvement on the existing footway and would make that journey on foot more attractive.
6.140 The current pedestrian crossing facility at the signalised crossroads at the Norley Road/ A49 junction would also be improved to better cater for pedestrians and vehicular flows through the junction. The Council’s Highway Engineer has carefully considered the proposed details and has requested that the developer contribute a financial sum so that the Highway Authority may undertake the upgrading of this signalised junction. This contribution would require to be collected via a Section 106 Agreement attached to any planning permission.
6.141 The proposed improved pedestrian links would be key to integrating the site into the local area and establishing walking, as a preferred mode of travel for short journeys, for existing and potential new residents.
6.142 All of the above works would be controlled via a Section 278 Agreement (under the Highways Act) or a financial contribution via a Section 106 Agreement.
6.143 The Council’s Highway Engineer has also sought that the new signalised access onto the A49 should be formed to a suitable useable level prior to any works commencing on site so that it may be used as the only construction access for the site. This would avoid the existing access into the site from Cuddington Lane being used by any of the construction traffic, which would have constituted a hazard to the safety and operation of Cuddington Lane and be of detriment of the condition of its carriageway. This would be secured by way of an appropriately worded condition attached to any planning permission.
Speed Limit
6.144 There has been considerable discussion between the developer, the Council’s Highway Engineer and local residents about the A49 speed limit issue. The developer is willing to provide a financial contribution to the assessment of the existing speed limit, in the vicinity of the site, and towards any subsequent alterations or speed management measures required to be implemented following the assessment.
6.145 The setting of speed limits is founded on a criteria based approach that takes into account many factors such as; type of road, quantum of development along it, personal injury accidents records, numbers of junctions/vehicle accesses onto the road and pedestrian generators such as schools, shops and churches.
6.146 Whilst there may be an undertaking by the developer to fund such a review and/or contribute to any required changes, there would still be a requirement for the Highway Authority to undertake a separate and independent assessment process. This separate assessment is necessary to ensure a consistent approach to the setting of speed limits across the Borough.
Page 67 6.147 The offer of the contribution has been welcomed by the Highway Engineer and would need to form part of a legal agreement between the Developer and the Council. It is envisaged that this financial contribution (a sum of £12,000) would be collected and controlled via a Section 106 Agreement attached to any planning permission.
Cuddington Lane Access
6.148 Following concerns raised by local residents and discussions held between the Council Officers and the applicant, it has now been agreed that the proposed re-use of the existing factory access from Cuddington Lane should be abandoned except for access for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles only.
6.149 This change has been welcomed by local residents and the Council’s Highway Engineer as it would go quite some way to alleviating the traffic impact of the development on Cuddington Lane and its junction with the A49. Details of the layout for this closed access would be required to be submitted and agreed at any subsequent reserved matters application stage, which would be secured by way of a suitably worded planning condition.
Construction Traffic
6.150 Given the size of the site and the extensive demolition and construction traffic that would result, a planning condition would be attached to any planning permission requiring the submission for approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Such a Management Plan would be required to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of redevelopment works on the site.
6.151 In such a Management Plan, details of how the construction traffic to/from the site would be controlled would be set out clearly, particularly in relation to large vehicles/plant and delivery vehicles avoiding peak traffic times and accessing the site via the most suitable routes.
6.152 Vehicle cleaning facilities would also be required on site together with provisions to avoid debris being deposited on the highway and to ensure that any unexpected deposits that may arise are dealt with swiftly and efficiently.
6.153 The Council’s Highway Engineer would also expect the Construction Traffic Management Plan to ensure that no contractors vehicles would be parked on the highway and that any construction/delivery traffic on Cuddington Lane would be avoided or kept to an absolute minimum.
Internal Road Layout/Parking
6.154 Whilst the application is for outline planning permission, access to the site is considered as part of this submission. It is the view of the Council’s Highway Engineer that there would be sufficient space within the site to provide a suitable internal road layout and an acceptable level of parking. The indicative site layout plan submitted as part of the application gives comfort that this could be achieved. Suitably worded conditions would be attached to any planning permission to cover these elements.
Page 68
6.155 In conclusion, it is accepted that there will be a material impact on the local highway network in terms of numbers of vehicles accessing and leaving the site, however there is a significant package of mitigation measures proposed that will go some great distance to mitigating this impact to within acceptable limits and bringing improvement to the network. This improvement will also have a positive impact on the operation of the network at all other times. As such, it is the view of the Council’s Highway Engineer that the proposals would not be detrimental to highway or pedestrian safety and that it would accord with the provisions of PPG13 and Policies T1, T2, T3, T8, T9, T13, T15 and T19 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
f. Drainage
6.156 PPS25 clearly states that the aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Flood risk assessment should be carried out to the appropriate degree at all levels of the planning process, to assess the risks of all forms of flooding to and from development taking climate change into account and to inform the application of the sequential approach. Annex E of PPS25 sets out the minimum requirements for all levels of flood risk assessment.
6.157 Paragraph 26 of PPS25 states that local planning authorities should consult the Environment Agency on all applications for development in flood risk areas, including those in areas with critical drainage problems and for any development on land exceeding one hectare outside flood risk areas. Local planning authorities, advised by the Environment Agency and other relevant organizations, should determine applications for planning permission taking account of all material considerations, including the issue of flood risk, the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by the developer and proposals for reducing or managing that risk.
6.158 A Proposed Drainage Strategy Document (dated 17 October 2010) has been prepared by TRP Consulting and submitted in support of the planning application. This report identifies that the surface water from the existing buildings and hardstanding on the site is thought to drain to Cuddington Brook. Correspondence from United Utilities has confirmed that there is a combined public sewer connection that currently accepts discharge from the site to the mains drainage network. Foul water drainage is discharged to the on-site effluent works and treated on site. The final outfall from the treatment works has not been established.
6.159 The flood risk assessment prepared by RoC in September 2010 confirms that the site is located within Environment Agency Indicative Flood Zone 1, with a minimal risk of flooding from rivers and the seas. There is no known occurrence of flooding from groundwater levels increasing above existing ground level. There is no significant likelihood of flooding from surrounding land. The Flood Risk Assessment proposes that the foul drainage from the new development should be connected to the mains sewer network.
6.160 Previous correspondence with United Utilities has indicated that the public sewer along Warrington Road is prone to flooding due to capacity issues on the carrier drains, leading to the surcharge of manholes and gullies during storm events. In
Page 69 addition, the receiving waste water treatment works at Cuddington does not have sufficient capacity to take the anticipated loads of foul water from a proposed development of 156 houses. United Utilities has confirmed that they would have no objection in principle to receiving foul water flows not exceeding 3 litres/second from a development on this site.
6.161 The previous correspondence also states that no surface water flows generated by the proposed development would be permitted to discharge to the public sewer system. All such surface water flows should preferably be treated by sustainable techniques where possible or be directed to the nearest available water course, namely Cuddington Brook.
6.162 The current Foul Drainage Proposal is for the proposed development of 156 dwellings to be connected to the mains sewer network, however, there is insufficient capacity to accept all of the anticipated flow from the proposed development. United Utilities have confirmed that there is some spare capacity in the Cuddington Works and have agreed that a discharge from the site in the order of 3 litres/second would be acceptable. In accordance with Sewers for Adoption 6, clause 2.12.1, new sewers should be designed at a flow rate of 4000 litres/dwelling/24 hours.
6.163 United Utilities, as statutory undertaker, has obligations to provide drainage connections to allow development under the Water Industry Act 1991 and confers rights for developers to connect to public sewers. On the basis of this criteria, a foul drainage system has been designed to adoptable standards for connection to the Public Network. An agreement to adopt the sewer system should be entered into between the developer and statutory undertaker prior to finalizing the connection to the Public Network.
6.164 The current Surface Water Drainage Proposals promote the use of appropriate SUDS techniques to treat all surface water flow, wherever possible. Investigation into ground conditions would need to be undertaken to establish the most appropriate type of SUDS for the site. The Proposed Drainage Strategy Document identifies that flow from the adopted highway into a SUDS system may be more difficult to achieve and would require further consultation with the adopting authority during the detailed design stage. Should conditions at the site preclude the use of sustainable techniques, it is proposed that surface water would be discharged to Cuddington Brook at an agreed discharge rate based on the unreduced pre- demolition run off rates for the site. This may require the use of attenuation systems.
6.165 The Environment Agency has considered the details of the Proposed Drainage Strategy. On the basis that the foul drainage is proposed to discharge to the mains sewer, the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed scheme of development, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and informative on any planning permission.
6.166 United Utilities has also considered the details of the Proposed Drainage Strategy. Likewise, on the basis of the foul drainage proposals submitted, United Utilities has no objection to the proposed development, subject to the imposition of an appropriately worded planning condition on any planning permission, relating to the discharge of surface water from the site.
Page 70
6.167 The Council’s Environmental Protection Team has reviewed the details of the proposed development. With regard to contaminated land, the Environmental Protection Officer has highlighted that the LPA should be in a position to satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising from such contamination can be properly assessed and that the proposed development would incorporate any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks, including those covered by Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, on and off the site. At this stage, site investigation sufficient to pin down every detail is not required but the "unacceptable risks" and corresponding "options for remediation" should be provided for to enable a decision to be made that the remedial solution would be viable with acceptable impacts on neighbouring land uses and the environment. Further investigations are currently ongoing and laboratory results should become available in the next few days. A verbal update will be provided to Members at the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee. It is anticipated that an appropriately worded planning condition would be sufficient to secure the appropriate remediation and mitigation measures required for the redevelopment of the site.
iii. Education
6.168 On 9 December 2010 the Department for Education published a paper, National Pupil Projections: Future Trends in Pupil Numbers (OSR 31/2010). This Government Paper confirms a national pattern of peaks and troughs of school pupil numbers, which is mirrored in Cheshire West. The Paper also shows that it is necessary to retain 15% surplus school pupil places to effectively manage the changes in numbers in the indigenous population. That 15% surplus does not take into account additional children moving into an area from a new housing development. At the present time, both nationally and locally, pupil numbers are at the bottom of a trough, which is likely to peak in 2020/21. Presently, Cheshire West and Chester Council does not have 15% surplus places available and the Authority will therefore be under pressure to comply with it’s statutory duty to provide places for the existing population.
6.169 The primary school catchment area for the proposed development is Sandiway Primary School. As at January 2010 the school only had 6 surplus places (2.9%). The next nearest school, Cuddington Primary School had 24 surplus places as at January 2010 (13.3%). At the present time we are at the bottom of a trough, with numbers in reception classes starting to increase. The 5 year forecast for Sandiway and Cuddington is a reduction in the number of surplus places to accommodate the growth in the current indigenous population as follows:
Sandiway Primary School January 2013 - 4 surplus places (1.9%) January 2016 - 0 surplus places (0%)
Cuddington Primary School January 2013 – 14 surplus places (7.8%) January 2016 – 12 surplus places (6.7%)
Page 71
6.170 This natural reduction in the number of surplus places is expected to continue for several years before reaching a peak in approximately 2020/2021. There are therefore insufficient primary places in the locality of the proposed development to accommodate the children that the development would be likely to generate.
6.171 The number of children on roll changes frequently. The numbers of surplus places quoted are based on sufficiency and suitability assessments carried out over the last two months, and are therefore more up to date than information on Edudatabase.
6.172 Experience has shown that parents moving into a new development would prefer to send their children to the catchment school, indeed this is often cited as an important factor in their choice of property. Therefore, if there are insufficient places in the catchment school this is likely to be off-putting for potential purchasers.
6.173 The Council’s Education Department applies a standard formula based on the DCSF guidance for developer contributions. The calculation applied for these is:-
Number of Dwellings x Pupil Yield Factor x Cost Multiplier x Regional Weighting = Developer Contribution
6.174 The pupil yield factor of 0.182 gives a potential primary pupil yield of 29 for this development. Using the School Extension cost multiplier of £12,257 and the Regional Weighting of 0.91, this would equate to an expected developer contribution of approximately £323,462.
6.175 Experience has shown that the child yield from new developments is actually much higher than the formula suggests, and that parents are not happy to send their children to schools outside the catchment.
6.176 The catchment high school is Weaverham High School. As at January 2010 that school had only 21 surplus places (2.0%), which is insufficient to accommodate the historical trend and this proposed development. A similar formula is applied to high schools, i.e. pupil yield factor of 0.13 which gives a potential high school pupil yield of 21 for this development. Using the school extension cost multiplier of £18,469 and the regional weighting of 0.91, this would equate to a developer contribution of approximately £352,942.
6.177 Therefore, taking the primary and secondary figures together, the total contribution sought for educational provision for this development is £676,404.
6.178 Although the Council is endeavouring to adopt a uniform approach, akin to an educational levy on each new dwelling, each planning application development scheme must be judged on its own particular merits and circumstances.
6.179 In the light of the large financial contribution sought by the Council, the developer has expressed great concern regarding the viability of the redevelopment. The Council’s Children’s Services Liaison Manager has considered the developer’s response and has identified that in this case, the greatest need is for a financial contribution to primary education in the local area. In particular, the sum that would be levied in respect of primary education would be spent on facilities for the local
Page 72 Sandiway Primary School. Currently the school has 2 temporary mobile classrooms. The contribution would, therefore, be spent on constructing 3 new permanent classrooms and improvements to/ enlargement of the assembly hall.
6.180 Provided that the primary education contribution is secured, the Council’s Children’s Services Liaison Manager has agreed that the developer may forego payment of the secondary education contribution. The financial contribution would be secured by way of a section 106 Agreement that would be attached to any planning permission.
iv. Affordable Housing
6.181 The Government’s key housing policy goal, as set out in PPS3, is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. To help achieve this goal the promotion of a variety of housing types within a community is welcomed, particularly in terms of tenure, price and dwelling size. In turn these elements directly influence and inform future household composition where a mix of single person households, older people and families will help achieve a balanced and more sustainable community.
6.182 Para 22 of PPS3 states that, “ Local Planning Authorities should set out in Local Development Documents:
The likely overall proportions of households that require market for affordable housing; The likely profile of household types requiring market housing e.g. multi- person, single persons, couples; The size and type of affordable housing required”
Para 23 further states that “ Proposals for affordable housing should reflect the size and type of affordable housing required ”.
6.183 Para 5.2 of the Council’s adopted SPD1 (Affordable Housing) states that “ the mix of affordable housing provided on sites will need to reflect local housing needs and the Council will have regard to the current Housing Needs Survey, Housing Register and any other local housing market information, including local income levels and house prices in considering the level and type of affordable housing that will be considered appropriate ”.
6.184 Subject to the principal of accepting residential development on the application site, then policy H14 of former Adopted Vale Royal Borough Local Plan: First review Alteration (June 2006) requires that such windfall residential development will (subject to negotiation) deliver up to 30% affordable housing.
6.185 The detail, nature and mix of affordable housing should take into account and reflect the latest housing market information including housing need, economic viability of the development and the availability (or not) or public subsidy to support such development. In this case the applicant is proposing to deliver 156 dwelling units, 30% (or 47) of which would be affordable housing units on site, which would in part be provided via a Registered Provider (Housing Association).
Page 73 6.186 The SHMA identifies a need for a mix of affordable properties within enabling developments particularly for 2 & 3 bed houses. There remains some outstanding need for smaller housing units but this would also be determined and influenced by the proposed tenure. As the application is in outline, detail is limited and subject to revision at the Reserve Matters application stage. However, the indicative layout providing 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed accommodation meets with the SHMA findings.
6.187 In view of the reductions to public subsidy to support affordable housing delivery, the affordable housing tenure mix proposed within this scheme is subject to negotiation with the Council’s Strategic Housing Team. Whilst the proposed site tenure mix may vary from the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, this has been agreed with the Council’s Strategic Housing Manager and the scheme would continue to deliver 30% affordable housing, with the involvement, in part, of a Registered Provider. In line with Planning Policy Statement 3 (Annex B) the applicant would provide a mix of affordable housing tenures including (i) affordable rent and (ii) intermediate affordable. This detail would be covered and contained within any detailed / reserve matters planning application and associated Section 106 Agreement or planning conditions.
v. Play and Public Open Space and Allotments
6.188 The Fields in Trust publication ' Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play' provides guidance on master planning, play and leisure provision for new developments. This includes detailed design principles and criteria for Local Areas for Play (LAP), Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAP) and Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAP). The Play England “Design for Play” Guide discusses the benefits of natural play for children. Both of these documents should be referred to when preparing designs for new housing developments.
6.189 “Design for Play” identifies Play as being essential to children and young people’s physical, social and cognitive development. Outdoor play is particularly valuable as it provides unique opportunities to experience the elements and because of the sense of well-being and enjoyment that being outdoors can bring. Access to the outdoors also gives children more space to move freely and run around. Today’s children and young people generally have fewer opportunities for outdoor play than previous generations. Increasing traffic levels, concerns about risk, and negative attitudes towards young people are amongst the many factors that have led to children and young people having fewer opportunities to play out.
6.190 Play England, established in 2006 to promote strategies for free play and support local authorities in developing play strategies, aims to create a lasting support structure for play providers in England. Almost all unitary and district local authorities across England have now developed play strategies to enhance knowledge and understanding of play, to raise its profile, and to ensure that a consideration of children’s need to play becomes part of the strategic policy framework for all decisions that affect children’s lives. The challenge for play providers is to provide the best possible play opportunities, and to create play spaces which will attract children, capture their imagination and give them scope to play in new, more exciting, and more creative ways.
6.191 Vale Royal Borough Council produced a Supplementary Planning Document 3 relating to the Provision of Outdoor Play Space in April 2007. The guidance states
Page 74 that where housing development proposals would be in excess of ten residential units, a play area or commuted sum in lieu of on-site provision should be provided. The formulae for calculating the scale of play provision is set out in the document.
6.192 The National Playing Field Association (NPFA) recommends that 0.8 hectares of equipped play space should be provided per 1,000 head of population. Based on the number of occupants for each household being 2.6, this would equate to 8m 2 per dwelling. Therefore, for example, a proposal for development of 50 dwellings should provide 400m 2 of equipped play, namely a LEAP.
6.193 The number of dwellings proposed for the redevelopment of this site (156 units) would require the Play provision of 1248m 2, comprising:
• 1 NEAP at a minimum size of approximately 1000m 2 and minimum distance from “activity zone” to nearest boundary at 30m; • 1 LEAP at a minimum size of 400m 2 with a minimum distance from the “activity zone” to the nearest boundary at 10m.
6.194 The Council’s Senior Play Development Officer has suggested that the most suitable location for the NEAP would be in the central area of the site and that the LEAP should be provided at the North Eastern corner. The applicant is currently in discussions with the Council’s Officers regarding the nature of the Play provision. These matters may be addressed in detail at the Reserved Matters Planning Application stage and would be subject to an appropriately worded planning condition attached to any outline planning permission.
6.195 The SPD also provides calculations for Informal Amenity Open Space and Play Provision, where combined together. The given standard calculation would indicate a requirement for 1950m 2 of Amenity Open Space and Play Provision. If the calculated play requirement of 1248m 2 were deducted from the requirement for 1950m 2 of combined space, then there would be an outstanding requirement for provision of a further 702m 2 of Amenity Open Space. It has been accepted that due to the constraints of the site this could not be provided on site. Therefore, a commuted sum in lieu of the outstanding area would be required. At a price of £19.92 per square metre, this would equate to a commuted sum of £13,983.84. Such a payment would be secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement attached to any planning permission. Any such payment would be index-linked.
6.196 The SPD also identifies that large scale developments, such as this, should provide a playing pitch with an area of 6,825m 2. Where it is not possible to accommodate a new Playing Pitch on site, it will be acceptable for a developer to pay a commuted sum. A Playing Pitch Strategy is currently being prepared by the Council, which will set out how commuted sums collected in lieu of playing pitch provision would be directed. Such commuted sums would be invested into:
• Improving existing playing pitch facilities; or • Creating new playing pitch facilities.
6.197 In this instance, it would not be practical to provide a playing pitch within the development site. Therefore, the Council’s Greenspace Officer is satisfied that it would be appropriate to levy a commuted sum at a rate of £16.08 per square metre,
Page 75 equating to a payment of £109,746. Such a payment would be index-linked and would be secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement attached to any permission.
Allotments
6.198 Following the public consultation events undertaken by the Developer, prior to submitting the planning application, it became clear that there was a local desire for the creation of community allotments. This suggestion has been taken forward by the applicant and a small allotment colony is proposed to be introduced at the south west of the development together with a small parking area and community building. These would be managed by the proposed management company. Few details have been included with the application but some provision should be made for disabled users and details of proposed sheds should be provided to minimise visual impact from the surrounding area and encourage consistency.
6.199 The applicant has indicated that there would be sufficient land made available to provide 25 full sized allotment plots, each an approximate size of 250m 2. A suggestion has been made that each of the plots could be subdivided into 4 parts to enable 100 people to utilise the land. However, the Council’s Greenspace Officer is of the view that the full sized plots should not be subdivided to more than 2 parts, i.e. up to 50 people would be able to utilise the land. This would be dealt with by way of the overall Management Plan for Play, public Open Space and Allotments, which would be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.
6.200 In summary, the environmental impact of the proposed development has been described in detail within the supporting documents submitted with the application. Each likely impact has been given careful consideration and it is not considered that the proposed development would be likely to give rise to any impact likely to cause unacceptable harm to the environment, subject to any necessary restrictions contained within conditions imposed on any permission, which are detailed in section 7 below.
vi. Impact on residential amenity
6.201 The existing dwellings in the local area that would be likely to be directly affected by the proposed development are located on Cuddington Lane. In this location, the most likely impact would relate to noise, vibration and pollution from demolition and construction works that may be undertaken on the site and any increased traffic accessing the site.
6.202 As described above, the Council’s Highway Engineer has recommended the imposition of a condition on any planning permission requiring that the access to the site for demolition and construction purposes and for the vehicles of potential future residents of the site be limited to a single access from Warrington Road (A49). This new signalised junction would enable the existing site access from Cuddington Lane to be permanently closed (except for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles), which should alleviate any adverse impact on the residents of Cuddington Lane from increased vehicular traffic. This would be secured by way of an appropriately worded planning condition. Therefore, it is my view that the potential noise and pollution arising from traffic associated with the proposed development would not unacceptably undermine the current amenities enjoyed by adjacent
Page 76 residents. The improvement and creation (in part) of suitable landscaping to reduce the impact of the development would also help to ease the impact on residents living adjacent to the site. As such, it is considered that the proposals would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of residents living adjacent to the site, on Cuddington Lane.
6.203 With regard to the issue of vibration, it should be noted that the local area sits on a clay pan over sand and vibration is transmitted very easily. Therefore, it is likely that the vibration that would be likely to arise from the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of new dwellings on the site could unintentionally give rise to damage of neighbouring dwellings. The developer has been made aware of this issue and has offered to undertake building condition surveys of the local dwellings likely to be affected by vibration both before and after the proposed works and to put right any damage that may result from the development. This would be a private undertaking between the developer and the local residents. However, it would be appropriate to impose a condition on any planning permission requiring the submission of a demolition method statement for approval prior to any demolition taking place on the site. Light and noise pollution during the demolition and construction periods on the site could be controlled through the imposition of suitable conditions on any permission.
6.204 In relation to the proposed Wild Flower Meadow, local residents have raised concerns regarding the potential harm to the residential amenities that they currently enjoy that could arise if members of the public were to be granted access to the meadow. In this case, it would be appropriate to impose a condition on any planning permission requiring that details of boundary treatment relating to the wild flower meadow be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of the development. This would enable appropriate screening to be planting that would inhibit access to that area of land and prevent any overlooking of those properties.
6.205 As such, it is not considered that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of local residents and therefore would accord with Policy BE1 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
vii. Other issues raised by objectors and other issues
6.206 In addition to issues relating to the main considerations as outlined and discussed above, objectors have referred to a number of other issues, some of which are not strictly planning related, but require acknowledgement and consideration.
Site Security and associated crime
6.207 Objectors have raised concerns regarding the increased incidence of crime that has occurred in the local area, particularly theft from local dwellings, following the closure of the Yoghurt Factory and the sale of the site to the developer. Local residents are dissatisfied with the perceived lack of investment into securing the site and the theft from the site that has resulted in the site becoming a derelict eyesore.
6.208 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (section 17), it is the Council’s duty to seek to reasonably reduce crime and disorder locally and improve people’s quality of life as a result. In this case, it would be appropriate for suitably worded conditions to be attached to any planning permission requiring that details of proposed secure
Page 77 boundary treatment, lighting and a scheme of further security measures be provided for approval and implemented prior to commencement of the development. Additionally, the proposed site layout would be dealt with at the reserved matters application stage, which would be forwarded to the Police’s Secure by Design Officer for consultation.
Impact of demolition and building works
6.209 Objectors have referred to the potential physical impact of development works on their properties due to vibration.
6.210 In general terms, the impact of the physical development of a scheme is not strictly a planning matter, however it is accepted that local planning authorities can justify placing controls on development works through planning conditions particularly in respect of larger schemes likely to give rise to significant harm to local amenities as a result of those development works. It is accepted that the development of the scheme, owing to the local ground make-up could cause a significant physical impact on the neighbouring dwellings due to vibration during demolition works. This could be dealt with by way of appropriate planning conditions, as described above. In terms of the construction period, most development proposals cause negative impacts locally for a specific and relatively short period of time and details of working hours, nuisance generation and traffic movements could be controlled through the imposition of suitable conditions on any permission and also through Environmental Protection legislation, which is a separate matter to planning.
Links to Footpaths
6.211 Objectors have expressed concerns about the future increased number of residents in the local area giving rise to a greater use of existing footpaths for the purpose of dog-walking. Given that the local footpaths are adjacent to or cross actively farmed land, local landowners are aware of the potential conflict that could potentially result in injury to animals and/ or humans.
6.212 The local footpaths have been long established and restriction to their usage is not something that would be supported by the Council. It would be possible to apply for the diversion of a footpath but that would be both a lengthy and costly process, which the developer is unwilling to pursue. This is something that would fall outwith the scope of the development proposals for this planning application.
Property values
6.213 Objectors have referred to the impact of the proposed development on local property values. Such matters are not material planning considerations and it is therefore not necessary to consider any further.
Agricultural Tenancy
6.214 Mr Kinsey is the tenant farmer of three parcels of land included in the application site for Public Open Space, landscaping and allotments. Mr Kinsey enjoys the full protection and security of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. He also has a right of way at all times pending the duration of his Tenancy Agreement for pedestrian and vehicular access to and egress from the land. Representations have been made on
Page 78 his behalf against the proposed development. In particular, Mr Kinsey has made clear in his representations that as an agricultural tenant he would not be willing to be a signatory to any Section 106 Agreement that would not retain his right of way onto the land.
6.215 The legal advice provided to the developer has clearly stated that this issue is a private matter between the landowner and the tenant rather than a planning matter. The advice states that a planning obligation is enforceable by the LPA against the person entering into the obligation and against any person deriving title from that person. It is for this reason that the LPA will verify the legal title to ensure that all landowners, mortgagees and other relevant interests are included within the planning obligation to ensure that no party is able to take benefit of the planning permission without complying with the terms of the planning obligation. The beneficiary of a private right of way would not ordinarily be regarded as a relevant interest that a LPA would seek to bind with a planning permission.
6.216 The title information for the site does not identify Mr Kinsey by name and the agricultural tenancy is not an interest that is registered against the title. The LPA would normally expect the tenant farmer's interest to be extinguished before development commences. It is therefore considered unnecessary for the farmer to be a party to the planning obligation by virtue of his tenancy.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that where regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As the determination of this planning application is a determination to be made under the Planning Acts the starting point must be the Development Plan and then other material considerations must be considered.
7.2 The proposed development is large in scale, comprising the erection of 156 residential units with associated public open space, allotments and ancillary development. Having carefully considered the proposal against adopted planning policy and guidance, taking into account all other material considerations, on balance it is considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the wider environment and that any negative impacts identified could be overcome by the imposition of appropriately worded planning conditions and legal obligations. It is considered that very special circumstances exist for the proposed development and that these are compelling for this site in the Green Belt.
7.3 APPROVAL is therefore recommended for the following reasons:
1. In considering together the improved openness of the Green Belt that would result from the proposed development, the Council’s shortage of housing land supply, the level of affordable housing proposed to be provided and the viability aspects of redeveloping the site, it is considered that although the proposal would be a departure from the Local Plan and would result in the loss of an employment site, the package of benefits is highly compelling, would be highly beneficial in a number of ways, and realistically incapable of being replicated on any other site in the
Page 79 Green Belt. It is considered that the case presented by the applicant represents very special circumstances and the principle of the proposed development is, therefore, considered to be acceptable. As such, the proposal accords with the provisions of PPS1, PPG2, PPS3, PPS7 and Policies GS3, NE7, NE8, H5, H12, H13, H14, E4, RT3, RT5 and P8 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
2. It is considered that the supporting information submitted with the application demonstrates that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment in terms of the following identified impact areas:
a. Ground conditions, including contamination and ground gas; b. Ecology; c. Landscape and visual amenity; d. Noise; e. Traffic and transport; f. Drainage.
As such, the proposal accords with the provisions of PPS1, PPS23, PPS24, PPS25 and Policies NE1, NE5, NE7, NE8, NE16, NE17, BE1, BE2, BE3, BE21, T1, T2, T3, T8, T9, T13, T15, T19 and P8 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
3. It is not considered that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of local residents. As such, the proposal accords with Policy BE1 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan.
Conditions:
1. Outline works to commence within 3 years; 2. 3 Years to submit Reserved Matters applications; 3. Reserved Matters to include layout, scale, appearance and landscaping; 4. Reserved Matters application to be made within 3 years; 5. Approved plans; 6. Habitat and Landscape Management Plan to be submitted and agreed; 7. Tree T2 to be retained for Bat roost/ resting place; 8. Tree-mounted Bat boxes to be installed prior to demolition of existing Building no.9; 9. Further on-site inspection of trees/ buildings for Bats to be undertaken prior to any tree felling/ surgery or any demolition works; 10. Protection for Trees to be retained – details to be submitted; 11. Phased programme for tree surgery – details to be submitted and agreed; 12. Hard and soft landscaping details to be submitted and agreed; 13. Details of existing and proposed ground levels to be submitted and agreed; 14. Sustainable Drainage Systems; 15. Open Space – Details not approved; 16. Laying out of land allocated as amenity land – details to be submitted and agreed; 17. Boundary Treatment details for construction and permanent arrangements to be submitted and agreed; 18. Sample materials – specific details to be submitted and agreed; 19. Sample panels to be submitted and agreed; 20. Plan to be submitted indicating distinction between areas for public access and areas for no public access to be submitted and agreed;
Page 80 21. Details of proposed tree planting to be submitted and agreed; 22. Noise Insulation to achieve agreed internal noise levels; 23. Parking – Car, Cycle and Motorcycle – details to be submitted and agreed; 24. All highways, footways and cycleways within the development to be designed and constructed to LHA specification; 25. Access – details of Emergency Vehicular/ Cycle/ Pedestrian access from Cuddington Lane to be submitted and agreed; 26. Demolition and construction traffic routing details to be submitted and agreed; 27. Off-site highway improvement works to be implemented; 28. Construction traffic access to be provided from A49 prior to demolition/ construction to be submitted and agreed; 29. EA – scheme to limit surface water run-off to be submitted and agreed; 30. EA – scheme to manage risk of flooding from overland flow of surface water to be submitted and agreed; 31. United Utilities drainage restrictions; 32. Play – details not approved; 33. Hours of construction/ demolition; 34. Demolition Method Statement and Management Scheme to be submitted and agreed; 35. Construction Method Statement and Management Scheme to be submitted and agreed; 36. External lighting details to be submitted and agreed; 37. Contamination report to be submitted and agreed; 38. Remediation Verification Report to be submitted and agreed; 39. Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance Plan to be submitted and agreed; 40. Discovery of contamination during works; 41. Code for sustainable homes; 42. Site Security management scheme to be submitted and agreed; 43. Removal of permitted development rights.
Informatives:
1. Reasons for approval; 2. Planning permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement; 3. Licence for Bats may be required; 4. Section 278 Agreement required; 5. EA informative.
Section 106 Agreement:
1. Affordable Housing – provision/ method of disposal/ cascading 2. Highways – Pedestrian phasing upgrade on lights at Norley Road/ A49 junction (£26,000); 3. Highways – Speed Assessment contribution (£12,000); 4. Primary Education contribution (£323,462); 5. PLAY – Playing Pitch off-site contribution (£109,746) – index-linked; 6. Amenity Open Space on-site short-fall contribution (£13,983.84) – index- linked.
Page 81
Page 82