ITEM

Application DC/074708 Reference Location: Former Hulme Hall School 75 Hulme Hall Road Cheadle Hulme Cheadle Stockport SK8 6LA

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing structures and construction of 37 residential dwellings (24 houses, 13 apartments in Use Class C3), access improvements, car parking and associated landscaping.

Type Of Full Application Application: Registration 23.09.2019 Date: Expiry Date: 23.12.2019 Case Officer: Jane Chase Applicant: Seddon Developments Ltd and PH Property Holdings Ltd Agent: P4 Planning Limited

DELEGATION/COMMITTEE STATUS Departure – Planning & Highways followed by referral to the Secretary of State

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application proposes the demolition of all the buildings and structures on the site and its redevelopment to provide residential dwellings in a mix of apartments and single family dwellings (13no. 2 and 3 bed apartments and 24no. 3, 4 and 5 bed houses). Associated with this development is an improved access from Hulme Hall Road and Hill Top Avenue together with car parking and landscaping.

To Hulme Hall Road it is proposed to reduce the width of the existing access to 5.5m positioned to the northern extent of that existing to allow 2 way access into and out of the site together with the extension of the existing footways into the site. To either side of this access would be 2 apartment buildings with the larger being to the north of the access and the smaller to the south.

The apartment building to the north of this access would contain 9 apartments arranged over 3 full floors of accommodation with a roof above (3 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed, plots HJ11 to HJ13, HK14 to HK16, HL17 to HL19). This building would be of a traditional design with articulated gabled bays, recessed balconies and a pitched roof with projecting gables. As originally proposed this building would have measured 8.4m to eaves and 11.8m to the ridge. Following negotiations with Officers, the ridge height has been reduced to 11.1m. The eaves line now proposed is varied to Hulme Hall Road but uniform to the rear. At the front this would measure between 7.8m and 8.4m high and to the rear, it would remain at 8.4m high. This building would be positioned to align with the orientation of 73 Hulme Hall Road to the north of the site, albeit positioned further back from the frontage than this neighbouring property, and as such would be at an angle to Hulme Hall Road with communal gardens in front measuring between 12m and 19m deep. Parking for 18 cars including 1 disabled space is proposed to the rear accessed from Hulme Hall Road together with refuse storage and cycle stores.

The apartment building to the south of the access would contain 4 apartments arranged over 2 full floors of accommodation with a roof above (2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed, plots HL20, HL21, HK22, HK23). This building would be of the same design as that to the north, albeit of a smaller footprint and height. As originally proposed this building would have measured 5.4m to eaves and 8.7m to the ridge, however, following discussions with Officers amended plans have been submitted reducing the ridge height to 8.2m. The eaves line now proposed is varied to Hulme Hall Road but uniform to the rear. At the front this would measure between 4.9m and 5.4m and to the rear 5.4m. This building would be positioned parallel to Hulme Hall Road to reflect the building line of the houses to the south of the site. Small communal gardens are proposed in front of the building measuring 8m deep with parking for 8 cars including 1 disabled space to the side together with refuse storage and cycle stores, adjacent to the boundary with 77a Hulme Hall Road.

To the rear of this smaller apartment building it is proposed to erect 2 pairs of 3 bed semi detached houses (HH24 to HH27). These houses would have 2 full floors of accommodation rising 5.5m to eaves and 9.5m to the ridge as originally proposed, 5.3m and 9.35m as amended. Bedroom accommodation is proposed in the roofspace served by a small flat roofed dormer to the front elevation. To the rear are private gardens providing circa 42m2 to 56m2 of amenity space per dwelling with gated access from the gardens to 8 parking spaces at the rear.

In front of the 2 pairs of semi detached houses it is proposed to create an area of landscaped public open space circa 500m2 in area. Adjacent to this open space, pedestrian and cycle access is proposed through to the remainder of the site which would be accessed via the existing vehicle access off Hill Top Avenue. There is no vehicle access through the site from Hulme Hall Road to Hill Top Avenue.

The portion of the site accessed from Hill Top Avenue would be redeveloped to provide a mix of 20, 4 and 5 bed semi detached and detached houses arranged around 3 cul de sacs. The existing access would be improved to provide a continuation of the footway into the site and the existing gates removed. The proposed houses would have a mix of integral, attached and detached garages and would be of a traditional design with articulated projecting bays, pitched roofs and projecting gables. 12 of the houses would be 2 storeys high and these would be located in the 2 cul de sacs closest to Hill Top Avenue (house types HE1, HB2, HD3, HD4, HB5, HA6, HC32, HB33, HC44, HA35, HB36 and HA37). The remaining 8 houses in the centre of the site would be 2 storeys high together with accommodation in the roof served either by windows in the gable ends (HA+28 and HA++29), rooflights in the rear elevation (HF+30 and HF+31) or a small dormer to the front and rooflights to the rear elevation (HG7, HG8, HG9 and HG10).

The heights of these differing house types is set out below noting that some have been reduced following negotiations with Officers:

HA6, HA35 and HA37 – 5.5m to eaves and 10.2m to ridge as originally proposed, 5.3m and 9.5m as amended. As originally proposed this house type had a detached double garage rising 2.7m to eaves and 7.2m to ridge; 6.55m to ridge as amended.

HA+28 and HA++29 – 5.5m to eaves and 10.2m to ridge as originally proposed, 5.3m and 9.5m as amended. This house type would have a detached double garage rising 2.7m to eaves and 7.2m to ridge as originally proposed, 6.55m to ridge as amended

HB2, HB5, HB33 and HB36 – 5.5m to eaves and 10.2m to ridge as originally proposed, 5.3m and 9.5m as amended. This house type has an integral double garage.

HC32 and HC34 – 5.3m to eaves and 9.1m to ridge. This house type would have an attached double garage rising 2.7m to eaves and 7.2m to the ridge.

HD3 and HD4 – 5.5m to eaves and 9m to ridge as originally proposed, 5.3m to eaves as amended. This house type would have an attached double garage rising 2.7m to eaves and 7.2m to ridge with accommodation in the roofspace served by a front facing dormer.

HE1 – 5.5m to eaves and 10.2m to ridge, 5.3m and 9.5m to ridge as amended. This house type would have an integral double garage.

HF+30 and HF+31 – 5.5m to eaves and 10.2m to ridge, 5.3m and 9.6m as amended. This house type would have an attached single garage as originally proposed rising 2.8m to eaves and 6.1m to ridge, 5.7m to ridge as amended.

HG7, HG8, HG9 and HG10 – 5.5m to eaves and 10.2m to ridge, 5.3m and 9.6m as amended. This house type would have a single integral garage.

The application is supported by the following documents: Planning Statement Design & Access Statement Statement of Community Involvement Transport Statement (inc Road Safety Audit) Heritage Statement Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Bat Survey Phase 1 Geo Environmental Site Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Drainage Strategy Arboriculture Survey and Method Statement Noise Impact Assessment Energy Statement Crime Impact Statement

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site comprising some 1.61ha of previously developed land is positioned between Hulme Hall Road and Hill Top Avenue. To the north the site adjoins the rear gardens of houses on Barrington Avenue and apartments at Hollybank Court, to the east the rear gardens of houses on Hill Top Avenue and to the south, the rear gardens of houses on Upton Avenue.

The site is located within a Predominantly Residential Area and the Hulme Hall/Swann Lane Conservation Area. The rear half of the site is designated as Local Open Space. Opposite the site is a listed building, 1 Higham Street (but identified on the OS based site plans submitted with this application as 64 Hulme Hall Road and The Cottage).

The site currently accommodates the buildings and infrastructure associated with the former Hulme Hall Grammar School. The school vacated the site in 2017 when it moved to its new premises in Davenport (the site of the former Hillcrest Grammar School) and the buildings have remained vacant since, becoming more dilapidated and prone to vandalism as time progresses. Fronting Hulme Hall Road the boundary is formed by a low wall above which there are railings. Two gated access points provide vehicular and pedestrian access into a car parking area to the north of the site and a playground to the south. The buildings are set back from the frontage behind a landscaped area, car park and playground with this set back increasing from north to south. The buildings facing Hulme Hall Road are a mix of architectural styles and ages; that to the north is a 2 storey Victorian villa, attached to which and extending to the south, are a collection of fairly unattractive 2 storey buildings with monopitched roofs at differing angles constructed from a mix of red brick and timber cladding. Closest to the rear garden boundary of houses on Upton Avenue and the rear gardens of houses on the south side of the site access on Hill Top Avenue, these buildings reduce in height to single storey.

The buildings fronting Hulme Hall Road extend to the rear to form two enclosed quadrangles as well as extending partway along the boundary to the north with Barrington Avenue in single storey form and partway along the boundary to the south with Upton Avenue in 2 storey form. To the rear of this main group of buildings is a hardsurfaced sports pitch measuring approx. 42m x 57m which is marked out for various sports. To the south of this is a large grassed area enclosed by single storey buildings extending along the rear garden boundaries of houses on Upton Avenue and the southern part of that to Hill Top Avenue. To the north and east of the sports pitch are mainly hardsurfaced areas forming an extension of the vehicle access from Hill Top Avenue which have been used for car parking.

With the exception of a single tree in one of the quadrangles and 2 trees adjacent to the sport pitch, tree planting within the site comprises a small treed area to the front of the Victorian villa fronting Hulme Hall Road and along the north, south and east boundaries with Barrington Avenue, Upton Avenue and Hill Top Avenue. This planting is generally mature and forms an effective screen to the site.

Opposite the site on Hulme Hall Road is Higham Street accommodating the 2 storey listed building to the front behind which are a small group of later Victorian houses. To the south of this is Beechwood, a large detached chalet bungalow dating from the mid 20th century set in spacious grounds. Beyond this to the south extending the junction with Claremont Road are 3no. 2 storey smaller detached houses of a similar age to Beechwood.

Immediately to the north of and adjoining the site on Hulme Hall Road are a collection of 2 storey commercial buildings with residential above. Behind these premises and extending along the northern boundary of the site are the rear gardens of the 4no. 2 storey houses on the south side of Barrington Avenue. Beyond these houses are flats arranged in a part single, part 2 storey building accessed from Hill Top Avenue (Hollybank Court).

To the east of the site are the rear gardens of detached and semi detached houses on the west side of Hill Top Avenue. These houses are fairly substantial in size generally dating from the early 20th century, 2 storeys high and benefitting from generous, deep rear gardens. Some of these houses have accommodation in the roofspace served by dormer windows and rooflights.

To the south of the site are the rear gardens of the houses on the north side of Upton Avenue. These houses like those on Barrington Avenue are smaller in size and scale than those found on Hill Top Avenue, generally dating from the inter war period. They do however benefit from generous sized, deep rear gardens.

Opposite the junction of Upton Avenue and Hulme Hall Road, at the junction with Claremont Road is a substantial 3 storey block of flats.

Materials in the locality generally comprise red brick, render and red or grey tiles. There is evidence of timber detailing, projecting gables and bays, hipped and pitched roofs. Front gardens are generally well landscaped with a mature, verdant character to the locality.

POLICY BACKGROUND Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“PCPA 2004”) requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan includes-

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

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

Saved policies of the SUDP Review NE1.2 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance HC1.1 Demolition and Tree Felling in Conservation Areas HC1.3 Special Control of Development in Conservation Areas EP1.7 Development and Flood Risk UOS1.3 Protection of Local Open Space L1.1 Land for Active Recreation L1.2 Children’s Play CTF1.1 Development of Community Services and Facilities CTF1.4 Redundant Community Land MW1.5 Control of Waste from Development

LDF Core Strategy/Development Management policies CS1 Overarching Principles: Sustainable Development – Addressing Inequalities and Climate Change SD-3 Delivering the Energy Opportunities Plans – New Development SD-6 Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change CS2 Housing Provision CS3 Mix of Housing CS4 Distribution of Housing H-1 Design of Residential Development H-2 Housing Phasing H-3 Affordable Housing CS8 Safeguarding and Improving the Environment SIE-1 Quality Places SIE-2 Provision of Recreation and Amenity Open Space in New Developments SIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment CS9 Transport and Development T-1 Transport and Development T-2 Parking in Development T-3 Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network

Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance does not form part of the Statutory Development Plan; nevertheless it does provide non-statutory Council approved guidance that is a material consideration when determining planning applications.

Design of Residential Development Open Space Provision and Commuted Sum Payments Transport & Planning in Residential Area

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

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

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

Para.1 “The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied”.

Para.2 “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

Para.7 “The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.

Para.8 “Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives): a) an economic objective b) a social objective c) an environmental objective”

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

For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole”.

Para.12 “……..Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed”.

Para.38 “Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way…... Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible”.

Para.47 “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Decisions on applications should be made as quickly as possible, and within statutory timescales unless a longer period has been agreed by the applicant in writing”.

Para.59 “To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”

Para.63 “To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.”

Para.97 “Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by Equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.”

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

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

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

Para.117 “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.”

Para. 118 “Planning policies and decisions should: a) encourage multiple benefits from both urban and rural land, including through mixed use schemes and taking opportunities to achieve net environmental gains – such as developments that would enable new habitat creation or improve public access to the countryside; b) recognise that some undeveloped land can perform many functions, such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbon storage or food production; c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land; d) promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively (for example converting space above shops, and building on or above service yards, car parks, lock-ups and railway infrastructure).”

Para.122 “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; b) local market conditions and viability; c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.”

Para.123 “Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances: a) plans should contain policies to optimise the use of land in their area and meet as much of the identified need for housing as possible. This will be tested robustly at examination, and should include the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport. These standards should seek a significant uplift in the average density of residential development within these areas, unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate; b) the use of minimum density standards should also be considered for other parts of the plan area. It may be appropriate to set out a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas, rather than one broad density range; and c) local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).”

Para.124 “The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities”.

Para.127 “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users46; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.”

Para.130 “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development”.

Para.148 “The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”

Para.153 “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: a) comply with any development plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and b) take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption”.

Para.163 “When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that: a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient; c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.”

Para.165 “Major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate. The systems used should: a) take account of advice from the lead local flood authority; b) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards; c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development; and d) where possible, provide multifunctional benefits.”

Para.170 “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.”

Para.175 “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.”

Para.178 “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that: a) a site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation (as well as potential impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation); b) after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and c) adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is available to inform these assessments.”

Para.179 “Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.”

Para.180 “Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life; b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”

Para.184: “Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance………these assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.”

Para.190 “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

Para.192 “In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation and b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

Para.193 “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”

Para.194 “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.”

Para.195 “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.”

Para.196 “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

Para.213 “Existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.

Planning Practice Guidance The Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is a web-based resource which brings together planning guidance on various topics into one place (launched in March 2014) and coincided with the cancelling of the majority of Government Circulars which had previously given guidance on many aspects of planning.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Extensive planning history however none is relevant to the consideration of this application.

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Submitted with this application is a Statement of Community Involvement which details the public consultation that was carried out by Seddon Developments and PH Property Holdings Ltd ahead of submitting a full application for residential development on land to the east of Hulme Hall Road in Cheadle Hume. This exercise is an important element of the planning process and the determination of this application. Early public engagement is not only encouraged by this Planning Authority but also by the Government noting that para 40 of the NPPF advises that LPA’s should “encourage any applicants who are not already required to do so by law to engage with the local community and where relevant, with statutory and non statutory consultees before submitting their applications.”

This report advises that:

Pre-application discussions have been ongoing with Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and other stake holders including Sport England for circa 18 months in respect of the redevelopment of this vacant site.

The initial proposal was for a mixed-use development incorporating a four-storey care home and housing but, after pre-application meetings with Council officers and local councillors, the decision was taken to amend the scheme and to bring forward a lower density residential scheme with a mix of family houses and apartments. The input from the Council regarding, amongst other matters, that this proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area therefore informed the emerging proposal, for a more appropriate development in this relatively sensitive location.

The site has been vacant since July 2017 when the school relocated to another site within the Borough and, in recent months, had become an increasing focus of anti- social behaviour which is concerning for local residents and the site owner. For this reason, an accelerated timetable was introduced and a local exhibition held on 13 August, informed by the local resident’s established group, ‘Hulme Hall Area Neighbourhood Voice’.

The public consultation process was designed to ensure that the local community had the opportunity to provide comments and raise any concerns. It enabled them to discuss the proposals with the development team which has reviewed the feedback and used it to help finalise the submitted application.

The local Councillors also kept the wider community informed of progress through their own newsletter and the applicant has been in regular contact with representatives from the Hulme Hall Area Neighbourhood Voice which has, in turn, kept the local community informed about the development proposals and around ongoing security concerns at the site.

The local community was also informed of the exhibition through the Hulme Hall Area Voice publication. Leaflets were dropped by local residents to all properties surrounding the site inviting them to the exhibition and including the amended August layout for a purely residential development, a feedback form and contact details should it not be possible to attend.

The exhibition was held at the Cheadle Hulme United Reformed Church hall and comprised exhibition boards. The exhibition attracted more than 200 local residents and was also attended by locally elected Councillors, planning and highways Officers from Stockport MBC.

The exhibition was well attended with over 200 people attending, the majority being residents in the immediate vicinity of the application site. 30% of attendees filled out a feedback form (61 responses) from which the following key headlines were derived: • 93% agreed that the site should be redeveloped • 79% agreed it should be redeveloped for housing • 75% agreed it should accommodate a variety of housing types • 60% agreed that it should incorporate a pedestrian link between Hill Top and Hulme Hall Road • 69% agreed that the development should incorporate a new area of public open space • 75% supported the proposal presented at the exhibition

Only 17% were against the proposal and only four responses noted strong opposition. The applicant advises that this clearly demonstrates that the proposal has significant local support. Furthermore, 16 responses (26%) recorded that they would be interested in purchasing a property at the site.

The applicant advises that from the minority of comments received against the proposals (six comments), the main concerns raised related to disruption during the construction period and highway safety around the Hulme Hall Road access. Five residents thought that 37 dwellings were too many, but agreed that a lower number would be acceptable, with one person suggesting about 20 would be acceptable. Three responses considered that a three-storey house would be too high. Two responses raised a concern about the loss of existing trees and two more wanted to ensure that adequate visibility splays would be introduced at the access points. A further two people were keen to see more detail to gain a better understanding of the proposed boundary treatments backing onto individual houses and two more commented that there were incidents of localised flooding on Hulme Hall Road.

Other points raised by individuals objecting to elements of the proposal comprised: - Concern about the affordability of new homes - Concern about the pedestrian link attracting crime - Concern about security during construction - Concern about any access from Hill Top Avenue - Concern about layout, suggesting apartments be re sited into the site

Many of the concerns related to points of detail and were not against the principle of the proposed development. Furthermore, many people at the exhibition commented that they were particularly keen for the demolition of the former school buildings to be undertaken as soon as practicable given the antisocial behaviour they attract, despite the significant security measures in place.

The applicant advises that various supporting comments were received orally throughout the exhibition and some of these were added to the feedback forms. These generally comments that there was full support for the development which was considered exciting and attractive. Others were impressed with the homes which they considered in keeping with the area, the applicants who are well regarded and several were interested in purchasing a property for themselves (including families, down sizers and young professionals).

The applicant concludes that the community consultation was well coordinated and supported by the local residents’ community group, Hulme Hall Area Neighbourhood Voice, and demonstrated overwhelming support for the proposal by the community. This reflects that the former School has been vacant and has become dilapidated and derelict over the last two years. It is a rare brownfield development opportunity in a local authority area where significant Green Belt land is being proposed for release to meet future housing need. As such, the community recognises the importance of building houses in sustainable locations close to existing facilities and public transport, and for revitalising previously developed land. The overall support and number of people actually requesting to register their interest in purchasing a new home on the development demonstrates and reiterates that there really is a critical need for more housing in Stockport and that Cheadle Hulme is a very popular and attractive residential neighbourhood.

NEIGHBOUR'S VIEWS The receipt of this application has been advertised by way of site and press notice. The occupiers of 101 properties surrounding the site have been notified in writing. In response to the plans as originally submitted 23 letters in total have been received

3 letters have been received supporting the application, 13 letters have been received objecting to the application and 7 letters have been received from those with a neutral stance on the application but making comments nonetheless. As the amendments secured to the application in relation to the height of the development were not significant, in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, those neighbours who had commented on the application were not renotified.

Summary of Letters of Support - The proposal offers a good use of this land for much needed housing. - There will be minimal traffic impact arising from the proposed development.

Summary of Letters of Objection - It is clear that the developer has attempted to propose a varied mix of properties; however all the focus has been given to the 20 properties which will use the Hill Top Ave entrance. These houses which take up the bulk of the site are of a substantial size and will create a community feel. The development to Hulme Hall Road entrance has a completely different ‘poor relation’ look and contains a similar number of dwellings on a significantly smaller proportion of the site. None of them have garages nor is there much consideration to landscaping on this part of the site. This part of the site should be redesigned. - The density of the properties does not fit with this Conservation Area, which is characterised by homes with large gardens and hedges. - The proposed site is within the Article 4(1) conservation area which, by my understanding, applies equally to the front and rear of the existing site. The red brick main school building which dates from the 19th Century, is to be demolished. I would have expected that this facade be retained and at least sensitively incorporated into any replacement scheme. I believe the building is as significant Butterworth's Bakery on Mellor Road, which was recently added to the local list despite not being in the Conservation area itself. - A 3 storey apartment building is out of keeping with the character of the area where most development is 2 storeys high. - Information on materials is vague and insufficient. Failure to enforce appropriate conditions would make a mockery of the Conservation arrangements and the extent to which those who already live in the area have had to incur huge expense to contribute to its maintenance and enhancement via their own improvement and maintenance schemes. - The development in its current form would be hugely detrimental to the area. The change to the street scene when viewed from Hill Top Avenue itself, within the main part of the Conservation Area would be severely impacted. The "open space" being proposed just seems to be a tiny corner where it is uneconomical to ram in another unit. - Apartments are out of keeping with the character of the locality where most dwellings are houses. - Loss of trees. - Overlooking and a loss of privacy. - Concerns about noise from the houses. - Noise from the traffic using the access road into the site will cause harm to the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. - Acoustic fencing should be erected along the access from Hill Top Avenue to reduce noise pollution in the rear gardens. - The Noise Report is deficient and does not address engines running or car doors slamming. - The siting of a bin store adjacent to an existing residential property will cause noise, disruption and harm to the occupiers of that property. - The pedestrian link through the site is unnecessary and will create an added disturbance to the tranquillity of existing rear gardens. There are already ample pedestrian links in the area. - The siting of the communal parking areas will pose a security risk for the occupiers of the adjacent properties through the potential creation of access to the rear gardens of these houses. - The communal parking area will cause noise, light and exhaust pollution impacting on adjacent gardens and their use. - Noise from the use and servicing of the refuse stores will impact on residential amenity. There will also be a likely increase in vermin. - Measures must be put in place to reduce pollution from the traffic associated with this development. - This section of Hulme Hall Road has been the site of a number of accidents as well as the junction of Upton Avenue and Claremont further along Hulme Hall Road. Without any traffic calming measures to stop motorist speeding along this stretch of Hulme Hall Road, I can only imagine the proposed turning into and particularly out of the redevelopment will lead to further problems for local residents and pedestrians using this stretch of Hulme Hall Road. - The Road Safety Audit is misleading as it does not include data relating to unreported accidents. The building to the south of entrance to Hulme Hall Road should be moved back to afford more visibility. - Whilst there was traffic entering and leaving the site via Hill Top Avenue when it was a school, this was limited to the start and end of the school day, weekdays and term time only. - The proposed entrance/exit onto Hill Top Avenue is very narrow and would impact particularly negatively on those residents whose properties border directly onto it; the traffic would be passing in close proximity along the full length of their properties and gardens. - There would be a significant increase in traffic during the morning rush hour, leading to queues exiting from Swann Lane/Upton Avenue onto Hulme Hall Road and from Hill Top Avenue onto Church Road. These roads are already congested with school traffic to and from Cheadle Hulme School. This could also pose a hazard to pedestrians, many of whom are schoolchildren. - There will also be traffic entering and leaving from the Hulme Hall Road entrance to the Development, creating further congestion, especially at peak times. - The access onto Hill Top Avenue has little regard to the safety of pedestrians. The visibility is poor due to established vegetation and the proposed entrance does not appear to meet the required minimum width for its entire length. This access would be better suited to a pedestrian only thoroughfare. - The site would be best used for parkland. - The site should be redeveloped as a new school. - The application proposes the dwellings would fall within Use Class C3. This is not sufficiently specific and should be amended to C3 (a). This will remove any uncertainty that these are family homes and cannot be used for other activities. - If apartments are necessary then they should be restricted to the over 55’s to provide downsizing opportunities. - There is no need for smaller units as those already on the market in the area are not selling. - The development is aimed at families. Schools in the area are oversubscribed. Surely a better use of the plot would be provision of more adequate state school capacity or to provide swing space for the redevelopment of schools that are no longer physically fit for purpose, such as Thorn Grove whose premises are visibly crumbling. - The immediate local area has been flooded recently on a frequent basis, including the streets around Hulme Hall Road and Swann Grove. I am not convinced that the review of additional pressure on local infrastructure has sufficiently taken into account the current trend of extreme weather, a risk that has materialised in other recent schemes supported by Stockport Council.

Summary of Neutral Comments - Given the variety of buildings in the Conservation area, an opportunity to contribute to the character of the area by introducing some diversity in style (as, for example, was taken in relation to the modern house allowed at the northern end of Swann Lane) has not been grasped. - The School House is a 2 storey building with additional accommodation formed within the roof space. The proposal seeks to demolish this building and replace it with a 3 storey block of flats which is higher and greatly exceeds the footprint of the original old School House. - The flats would be totally out of character. There is no requirement for further flats in the Cheadle Hulme area as there is already an oversupply and saturation. - The apartments should be replaced with houses. - 2.5 storey houses is out of keeping with the character of the area. - I understand the existing School House has historical significance for the Cheadle Hulme area. In assessing the plans, I urge the council to validate that it is permitted to demolish the School House at the Hulme Hall entrance. - I would not like to be overlooked. - Concerns about noise from the communal bin stores, cars and occupation of the site for residential - Our request to resolve the problem of noise and exhaust fumes would be to explore the use of acoustic fencing and hedging materials to absorb sound and pollution, whilst leaving the siting of buildings unchanged from the current plan. - The pedestrian link is unnecessary and will spoil the tranquillity of existing rear gardens. - Concerns about loss of privacy to Barrington Avenue from the windows in the rear of the flats and the proposed houses. - There are protected species that live in this area, namely the hedgehog, which is at the moment, a welcome visitor. - If more large trees are going to be planted, the impact of their roots on the proposed development needs to be considered. - We welcome the statement that the trees at the rear of our garden (G13 and in particular T22) are in a tree protection area. However although there appear to be no proposals to remove T22; it should be noted that it forms a significant element of our back boundary. - Further details of pruning should be provided as there would be concerns if the height of the trees were so reduced (proposed to be 5m) to allow visual access from the rear windows of the proposed new houses to our garden, which has hitherto been free from surveillance - a height of 8m would better guard against obtrusiveness and unneighbourliness. - The Black Pine trees (g14) should not be removed as they make a positive contribution to the amenities of the area. - Drainage concerns need to be addressed so that neighbouring properties at a lower level are not flooded. - It appears that, as a result of the positioning of the barrier between the east and west of the site, significantly more cars will be encouraged to use the Hill Top Avenue access than that onto Hulme Hall Road. This should not be allowed, as there is already a serious traffic and parking problem on Hill Top Avenue, which should be maintained as a quiet residential road. Hulme Hall Road is the main through-route and should be kept as such. To achieve this, the barrier between the two halves of the development should be moved to around houses HG7/8. Additionally, no parking should be allowed on the access route onto Hill Top Avenue. - Although there is a mention in the planning application that the roads will be regarded as 'private', and presumably therefore not 'adopted', provision should be made for them being managed and maintained to a satisfactory standard. It would be helpful to know how the Council will ensure that this happens. - The Transport Statement is wrong in assuming that there is a speed limit of 30mph on Hilltop Avenue when assessing the impact on traffic and safety of access points. This is incorrect as Hilltop Avenue is supposed to represent a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians and has a 20mph speed limit for some time along it full length. It is signposted as such. Therefore, the average speed recorded by the traffic survey is in excess of the speed limit on that road. - Concerns about overspill parking due to insufficient provision. - Impact on pedestrian safety from increased traffic and pollution. - The Crime Impact Statement does not cover the increased likely risk of crime to property adjoining the site that is made more accessible as a result of this development. Removing the gate to the access onto Hill Top Avenue will effectively open it up rear gardens areas to criminal elements. We should like to know what measures the developers will take to help us protect our property. - The Statement of Community Involvement submitted with the application does not record the opposition to the demolition of some of the buildings. - Impact of construction works from contractors vehicles. A suitable route should be agreed to avoid low railway bridges. Only in exceptional circumstances should traffic use the entrance from Hulme Hall Road, all other construction traffic should use the access in Hill Top Avenue. Hours of construction work should also be agreed. - There should be agreement of where the boundary line should be (this is confused by the existing double fence and 'no man’s land area' between the existing fences) - There should be agreement over which trees/ shrubs should remain and who has responsibility for their ongoing maintenance (greenery within the existing 'no man's land has been neglected, is overgrown and causing the fences to collapse). As the trees form an important screen this needs to be done with sensitivity. - There needs to be agreement on what material the boundary is made of (ie wall/ fence/ hedge) and who it belongs to. The existing boundary fence actually belongs to the school but they have been failing to maintain it despite a legal agreement to do so (we have a copy). - Loss of access from Hill Top Avenue to caravan storage in the rear garden. We should like it to be reinstated, and hope this can be by agreement, recognising the previous and longstanding arrangement (which can be corroborated by our neighbours) without the need to seek a formal easement.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES Planning Policy Housing - The proposed scheme is on a brownfield site within 800m of Cheadle Hulme District Centre. In terms of the broad principle of housing development, notwithstanding issues relating to the open space that currently exists within the site, the scheme represents an excellent opportunity to develop new housing on a vacant site in a sustainable location in accordance with Policies CS2 and CS4 of the Core Strategy. It is acknowledged that the Council is in a position of not having 5 years’ worth of housing land supply and consequently, in principle, residential development is welcomed in this location.

The requirement for affordable housing is set out in Core Strategy Policy H3 ‘Affordable Housing’. Given the location and type of land to be developed, provision of between 40-50% affordable housing would ordinarily be required. The applicant, in paragraphs 6.10-12 of their planning statement, notes the provision for the application of Vacant Building Credit (VBC), as set out in paragraphs 26-28 of the Government’s Planning practice guidance (PPG) relating to Planning Obligations and also referred to in paragraph 63 of the NPPF. The figures quoted by the applicant (paragraph 6.13 of their statement) clearly indicate that the proposed scheme will result in a net loss of floorspace compared to the current position. This means that the Council is not in a position to seek affordable provision.

The applicant refers to the smaller types of housing to be developed in relation to affordable housing, although it should be noted that the majority (20 of the 37 units) of the development will consist of units of at least 4 bedrooms. However, whilst the Council is not in a position to require affordable housing due to VBC, in the consideration of affordable housing the provision of the smaller units referred to will not go towards meeting that need in the borough, given the prices that such units could be expected to command in this area. Nor should the provision of general housing be given significant weight with specific regard to affordable provision either, as the applicant implies. Notwithstanding that, the provisions of the PPG and the NPPF supersede Policy H3 in this regard and therefore there is no requirement for any affordable housing provision.

With regards to the density of housing, Core Strategy Policy CS3 (Para 3.101) states: “Sites in the most central locations, such as the Town Centre areas and within District and Local Centres, are the most suitable for flats. Here housing densities of 70 dwellings per hectare (dph) and above are commonplace. Moving away from these central locations densities should gradually decrease, first to around 50 dph then to around 40 dph, as the proportion of houses increases. Developments in accessible suburban locations may be expected to provide the full range of houses, from low-cost 2 bed terraces to executive 5+ bed detached, and contain few flats. However, they should still achieve a density of 30 dph.”

Extremely limited weight can be given to Revised Draft GMSF Policy GM-H 4, which sets out minimum residential density for new housing. However it is provided here for context with regards to the matter of density on the site. Policy GM-H 4 expects that local plans will define town and ‘other designated’ centres. However it is reasonable to assume that Cheadle Hulme will form part of the latter. The application site is within 400m walking distance of Cheadle Hulme District Centre and therefore developments would need to seek to deliver 50 dph under that policy.

The site has been included within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), with an estimated supply of 48 units. It should be noted that the inclusion of a site within the SHLAA does not imply it should be granted, nor should the estimated supply figure be taken as either a maximum or minimum that should be delivered. However, in respect of the contribution this site will make to the overall Stockport housing position, the SHLAA figure of 48 units represents part of the supply against which Stockport will need to deliver in order to minimise the loss of Green Belt through allocations in the GMSF. Consequently the proposed scheme represents 11 fewer units than were expected at the time of the SHLAA assessment. The applicant indicates that the development will achieve around 23 dph. For reference, this represents a lower density than that achieved across the development at the former Woodford Aerodrome (26dph). Flexibility should be shown in applying a density figure, taking into account the individual circumstances of any scheme. Nevertheless, whilst acknowledging that the site is located within a Conservation Area, 23 dph represents a very low density at what the applicant acknowledges is a priority location and brownfield site. This is a scheme which fails to meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS3 and therefore careful consideration will need to be given as to whether the conservation matters outweigh the housing land supply position.

Planning Policy Open Space - The majority of the site is mainly designated as ‘Local Open Space’ according to the UDP proposals map. The drawings submitted indicate a potential loss of approximately 0.46ha of Local Open Space. The site is therefore protected by ‘saved’ UDP Review Policies L1.1 (Land for Active Recreation use), UOS1.3 (Protection of Local Open Space), Core Strategy Policy CS8 (Safeguarding and Improving the Environment) and Paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

Local Open Space is defined in the NPPF as ‘All open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water (such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs) which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can act as a visual amenity’. National planning guidance states that open space can take many forms, from formal sports pitches to open areas within a development, linear corridors and country parks. It can provide health and recreation benefits to people living and working nearby; have an ecological value and contribute to green infrastructure.’

The LOS appears to be marked out as a playing pitch and has a number of mature trees/shrubs around the boundary margins. Sport England’s remit with regard to play fields is set out below along with legislation surrounding educational land. The Development Plan adopts the Fields in Trust/ NPFA 6 acre minimum standard; 1.7 ha per 1000 pop for formal recreation and 0.7 ha for children’s play. Against that standard, Stockport has some 1.3ha per 1000 pop, this is a borough wide shortfall of some 105 ha in formal recreational space. The 2017 Open Space Assessment identifies deficiencies in opens space in this locality for typologies. One of the recommendations is for; ‘sites helping or with the potential to serve areas identified as having gaps in catchment mapping should be recognised through protection and enhancement’

Paragraph 97 of the NPPF indicates: 'Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: - an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or - the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or - the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.'

At a local level, paragraph 97 of the NPPF is mirrored by UDP Review Policy UOS 1.3 ‘Protection of Local Open Space’ which goes on to state that development within ‘Local Open Space’ will only be permitted where it would be replaced by open space of equivalent or better quantity, quality, usefulness and attractiveness or it can be demonstrated that there is an adequate provision of open space in the local area and that the loss of the site would not be detrimental to the well-being of the local community or the amenities of the area .

The overall aim of Core Strategy Policy CS8 ‘Safeguarding and Improving the Environment’ is to safeguard the permanence and integrity of Local Open Space. Paragraph 7.16 under the UDP Policy UOS1.3 also emphasises that open space can fall within the category of ‘school playing fields’.

According to the policy position, to meet the test of UDP Policy UOS1.3, it would need to be demonstrated that there is an adequate provision of open space in the local area and that the loss of the site would not be detrimental to the wellbeing of the local community or the amenities of the area. Further to this, attention should be given to the fact that there is unmet demand for various sporting uses across the borough.

UDP Policy L1.1 ‘Land for Active Recreation’ deals with public and private sports grounds and sets out that proposals which involve the loss of existing public or private sports grounds or other land currently or last used for active recreation will not be permitted. The policy gives a number of exceptions, however none of them apply in this case. Although paragraph 6.41 of the Planning Statement outlines how the relocation of the school has secured improvements to the site at Hillcrest school Davenport, this does not account for the satisfactory compensation needed according to UDP Policy L1.1 and the NPPF because the site at Hillcrest School is already in the sports provision supply. The proposal will therefore result in an outdoor sports asset being lost with no compensation.

The site’s designation as Local Open Space therefore adds a significant level of protection from development. In conclusion the proposals conflicts with paragraph 97 of the NPPF, UDP Policy L1.1, UDP Review Policy UOS 1.3 and Core Strategy Policy CS8.

With regard to the use of part of the site as a playing field, Sport England are required to be consulted if development is likely to prejudice the use of or lead to the loss of land being used as a playing field or is on land which has been used as a playing field at any time in the 5 years before the making of the relevant application and which remains undeveloped or it is; • Allocated as playing pitch in the development plan • Involved the replacement of the grass surface of a playing pitch on a playing field with an artificial, man-made or composite surface

Sport England’s policy on playing fields is quoted below; ‘Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of: • all or any part of a playing field, or • land which has been used as a playing field and remains undeveloped, or • land allocated for use as a playing field unless, in the judgement of Sport England, the development as a whole meets with one or more of five specific exceptions’.

For Sport England purposes, a playing pitch is defined as being at least 0.2 ha. The greenfield area combined with the marked out hard surfaced area measures approximately 0.37 ha. Sport England advice in their playing field guidance that a lack of use of a playing field, or part of, should not be taken as necessarily indicating an absence of need in an area. Such land can retain the potential to provide playing pitches to meet current or future needs.

In terms of demonstrating ‘adequate provision of open space in the area and that the loss of the site would not be detrimental to wellbeing/amenity’, it would be difficult to achieve owing to the deficiency in open space and playing pitches in the borough. I have not advised they address the issue of unmet demand for various sporting uses across the borough, I have stated that attention be given to the fact there is unmet demand for sports use in the borough, therefore considerable weight should be given to the fact that the open space to be lost is a playing pitch and there is an undersupply of sport provision in the borough.

In terms of the proposed public open space, this is amenity grassland serving the residents of the borough it is not replacement for what is to be lost. I have not addressed the requirement for the development to provide for children’s play and formal recreation in accordance with Core Strategy policy SIE 2 given the main implications of the application in relating to the loss of open space.

Sport England – It is understood that the proposal prejudices the use, or leads to the loss of use, of land being used as a playing field or that has been used as a playing field in the last five years, as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595). The consultation with Sport England is therefore a statutory requirement.

Sport England has considered the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (particularly Paragraph 97) and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy, which is presented within its ‘Playing Fields Policy and Guidance Document’.

Sport England’s policy is to oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of, all/part of a playing field, unless one or more of the five exceptions stated in its policy apply.

The application is for residential redevelopment of the entire site, which is currently occupied by school buildings and playing field land, including an artificial grass pitch (AGP) and court provision. All existing sports facilities/playing field land at the site would therefore be lost.

The Planning Statement submitted with the application cites Sport England Policy Exceptions 1 and 4 as being of relevance in this case. However, there is no evidence presented within the submission or otherwise known to be available that demonstrates a surplus of playing field provision in the area and so Policy Exception 1, and the corresponding bullet point within NPPF paragraph 97 are not judged to be met in this case.

Turning to Policy Exception 4 and its corresponding bullet point in NPPF Paragraph 97, the Planning Statement makes reference to there having been investment in sports facilities at the site of the former Hillcrest School in Davenport, to which the Hulme Hall Grammar School relocated in 2017. However, the points itemised within paragraph 6.41 of the Planning Statement do not constitute replacement provision in the context of these policy requirements, and so again the policy criteria are not considered to be met.

In light of the above, Sport England objects to the application because it is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions to Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy or with Paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

Sport England would be willing to review this position should further/amended proposals be submitted to address the above concerns. It is understood that work on the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is continuing to progress. In due course this may assist with identifying potential new off-site opportunities to mitigate loss arising from re-development of the current application site for residential use.

Should, in the meantime, the local planning authority be minded to grant planning permission for the proposal, contrary to Sport England’s objection then in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the application should be referred to the Secretary of State, via the National Planning Casework Unit.

Planning Policy Energy – the statement submitted with the application addresses the requirements of policy SD-3

Conservation Officer – The application site is located wholly within the Swann Lane / Hulme Hall Road / Hill Top Avenue Conservation Area, which is a designated heritage asset for the purposes of the NPPF. Additionally the site forms part of the immediate setting of the GII listing No.1 Higham Road (fronting Hulme Hall Road) and part of the wider setting for ‘Birch House’ at No.62 Hulme Hall Road (a non- designated heritage asset) and the GII listed Hulme Hall.

The approved Swann Lane / Hulme Hall Road / Hill Top Avenue Conservation Area Character Appraisal sets out the special interest of the area stating that ‘the conservation area is defined by two ancient routes, Hulme Hall Road and Swann Lane, by the later Hill Top Avenue and by two converging railway lines of the former London and North Western Railway. The old settlement of Hulme Hall and the fields of Swan Meadow and Swan Acre share their names with the ancient routes. Hill Top Avenue, taking its name from the now demolished Hill Top Farm, was laid out end of the nineteenth century as part of the growing suburban development that took place in response to the opening of the passenger railway systems. The conservation area thus contains a continuity of building types ranging from 16th / 17th century timber- framed houses, scattered cottages, former farmsteads, Victorian villas, churches and terraced and later detached and semi-detached dwellings.’

The application site as existing comprises a collection of school buildings of varying scale and height though predominately of two storeys to the Hulme Hall frontage. An existing Victorian villa at the north end of the site represents the tallest building of the group, and at the furthest south end the building height drops to single storey. The form of the buildings is as a string of individual buildings with varying roof heights that step down with changing levels of the site. The buildings are well set back from the road, with the spaciousness to the front of the site increasing southwards (approximately 10m behind back of pavement at the north end increasing to approximately 25m behind back of pavement at the south end), with the front elevation of the buildings at the far south end being positioned behind the rear elevations of the dwelling houses fronting Hulme Hall Road, at 77a and 77 Hulme Hall Road. At the south end of the site, the height of the school buildings drops to single storey. Whilst the existing buildings are not considered to contribute positively to the conservation area these factors assist greatly in reducing the impact that the buildings have on the character and appearance of the conservation area, on progressive and static views of the site, and the impact on neighbouring buildings.

Impact of the Development on Heritage Significance: The approved Conservation Area Appraisal defines the special interest of the Conservation Area as a rural suburb, which has a spacious quality with buildings set in generous plots with space between adjacent dwellings. The form and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the low-density urban grain of the conservation area and the open space value of private gardens. The generous plot sizes which arise from the low density form of the proposed development allows for a sense of openness and spaciousness between adjacent dwellings, qualities that are identified in the Council’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal as a key feature in defining the special interest of the conservation area.

The approved Conservation Area Management Plan makes clear that ‘the scale, massing, architectural detailing and pattern of development of any new development within the conservation area or affecting the setting of the conservation area will be expected to respect that of the existing built environment of the conservation area’.

The heights of the proposed buildings have been reduced during the course of the application in response to comments made on the scheme as originally proposed, and in the context of the requirements of the approved Character Appraisal and Management Plan.

The majority of existing two storey buildings situated along Hulme Hall Road typically measure from approximately 8m to 9m in height, with the GII listed 1 Higham Street and Hulme Hall being at the lower end of this range. The existing Victorian villa at the north end of the application site (as a 2.5 storey building) represents the tallest building of the group at 11.2m. Similarly, properties on Hill Top Avenue typically measure between approximately 8m to 9m in height.

Proposed development fronting Hulme Hall Road: The northerly 3-storey apartment block (HJ 11-13, HK14-16, HL17-19) fronting Hulme Hall Road, and directly opposite the GII listed 1 Higham Street has been reduced in height from 11.9m to 11.1m. As such, this block will now not exceed the maximum height of any existing building at the site. The impact of the 3-storey building with a height of 11.1m spread across its 39m width will arguably be greater than that of the existing collections of individual buildings, which are of various heights. However I am satisfied that the greater set back from Hulme Hall Road (ranging from approximately 12m – 20m), the angled orientation of the building, and the frontage with gardens and significant tree and hedge planting, along with its design and materials will mitigate this increase in scale and mass and will result in an improved form of development at this location. The 3- storey building would be sited a minimum of 22m from the GII listed No.1 Higham Street on the opposite side of Hulme Hall Road. This degree of separation along with the proposed enhancement to the landscaping and screening quality of the site frontage and the proposed design and materials of the building results in a form of development that would have an acceptable impact on the setting of the listed building.

The southerly 2-storey apartment block (HL20-21, HK22-23) fronting Hulme Hall Road would have a height of 8.2m which is consistent with the prevailing scale of properties in this location. The building would be positioned further forward in the site than the existing single storey building. This new building alignment follows, and therefore reinforces, the existing building line of the dwellings along Hulme Hall Road to its immediate south, which is supported, whilst maintaining sufficient setback (8m) from back of pavement to allow for greenspace, tree, and hedge planting to Hulme Hall Road.

The new hedge and wall boundary and tree planting along the western frontage to Hulme Hall Road would serve as an enhancement to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent listed building. The site layout, with the pedestrian route from Hulme Hall Road, would afford views into and through the site, towards tree lined streets and green space. This is considered an enhancement that will contribute positively to the Conservation Area in a way that is consistent with its character and appearance.

Proposed dwelllinghouses: 24 (no.) single dwellings are proposed as part of the development, with a group of 4 houses located behind the 2-storey apartment block, and 20 houses on the portion of the site accessed from Hill Top Avenue. The houses as originally proposed had a range of heights ranging from 9m (to ridge) to 10.2m (to ridge). These heights have now been revised to ensure that no dwelling will exceed 9.6m in height. The revised heights are as follows:

6 dwellings would have a maximum height of 9.6m (HF+ and HG) reduced from 10.2m 10 dwellings will have a maximum height of 9.5m (HA, HA+, HA++, HB and HE) reduced from 10.2m 4 dwellings would have a maximum height of 9.35m (HH) reduced from 9.5m 2 dwellings would have a maximum height of 9.1m (HC) height unchanged 2 dwellings would have a maximum height of 9m (HD) height unchanged

The heights as amended are now considered broadly comparable to the prevailing scale of properties on Hill Top Avenue. Whilst slightly exceeding 9m in height, which is at the upper end of house heights on Hill Top Avenue, the siting of the houses and the surrounding landscaping affords mitigation for this, and I therefore raise no further objection to these houses.

The access into the site from Hill Top Avenue would measure approximately 75m in length, with existing and additional tree and hedge planting. Substantial tree planting is proposed within the site and along its perimeters. As such, public views into this part of the application site, and therefore of the houses, would be of a limited nature largely consisting of glimpses of buildings through massed foliage. The approved Character Appraisal notes glimpsed views of this nature, through massed foliage, as a characteristic of the Conservation Area.

The approved Swann Lane / Hulme Hall Road / Hill Top Avenue Conservation Area Character Appraisal sets out that that the area is characterised by various but harmonious architecture and identifies the key architectural elements and building materials that provide the context for the special character and appearance of the conservation area. The Conservation Area Management Plan states that ‘new development within the Conservation Area and its setting should aspire to the quality of design and execution related to its context. This neither implies nor precludes working in traditional or new ways, but will involve respecting values established through the assessment of the form and significance of the area’.

The development comprises a range of individually designed buildings (totalling 12 differing building styles). These are unified by the use of architectural features that are representative of those found in the Conservation Area, such as steeply pitched roofs, gables, ridge cresting and projecting bays, and a shared palette of traditional materials, fenestration (with vertical emphasis), proportions and constructional detailing.

The construction of the development in high quality traditional materials, which are compatible with and comparable to the wider character and appearance of the Conservation Area is considered essential to the acceptability of the development and its impact on heritage significance. As such, the proposed employment of slate roofs, brick elevations with stone and brick window head and sill detailing, and timber windows and doors, is supported.

In conclusion, I consider that the revised scheme overcomes my previous objections to the development. The development as proposed would enhance the condition and appearance of the application site and would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of designated and non- designated heritage assets. As such, I find the development in its revised form to be in accordance with the requirements of policy SIE3 of the CS DPD, saved policy HC1.3 of the UDP and policies contained within chapter 16 of the NPPF, and the duty under S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area.

In light of the above I raise no objection to the development subject to conditional control of the following should the application be granted planning permission: - Materials of external construction (including boundary treatments and gates, and hard landscaping / surfacing materials) - Detailed design of architectural features inc. windows and doors, windows and door surrounds, ridge tiles and crests, rainwater goods, railings etc. - Detailed design and materials of cycle and refuse stores - Removal of Permitted Development rights to ensure consistency with the Conservation Area’s Article 4 Direction

Highway Engineer - The application is for redevelopment of the former Hulme Hall Grammar School with a residential development comprising 37 units. The site is split with 20 dwellings proposed off a new access road from Hill Top Avenue and 4 dwellings and two blocks containing 13 apartments accessed from a new access road from Hulme Hall Road. The submission includes a Transport Statement (TS), Road Safety Audit with Designers Response and site layout drawings.

The determinant factors from a highway perspective are site accessibility and the sustainability of the development; traffic generation and highway impact and the detailed site layout.

In terms of accessibility it is Council and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Policy that residential development is located such that it is accessible and that levels of accessibility will enable and encourage prospective residents to make sustainable travel choices and reduce the overall dependence on private car travel. The site is relatively close to Cheadle Hulme Centre and a secondary shopping area where there are extensive ranges of services and amenities such as employment opportunities, schools, health facilities, retail services and leisure facilities within a relatively short walking distance and convenient cycling distance. The nearest bus stops in the District Centre are within a reasonable walking distance of 600m and these service two bus routes. These stops provide 2 buses per hour through the village and onward to destinations such as Woodford, Bramhall, Manchester city centre, Stockport and Hazel Grove. I therefore consider that residents will have appropriate and convenient access to these services from the development site. Cheadle Hulme railway station is also within a 600m walk distance from the site with frequent rail services over a longer distance to various destinations.

In conclusion I am satisfied that the site is shown to be in a sustainable location, is located within an existing urban settlement and is within walking and cycling distances of a range of local facilities. This residential proposal is therefore considered to be in line with Council Policy and the requirements of the NPPF.

Traffic surveys commissioned by the applicant (7 day traffic counter 18th to 24th May 2019) show that in both the AM and PM peak periods Hulme Hall Road accommodates a weekday average of 804 and 894 vehicles for each respective peak period. This equates to circa 15 vehicles a minute when averaged over the busiest 60-minute period time periods and shows this is a relatively well used section of the adopted highway in the peak periods. Hill Top Avenue accommodated 112 and 107 two-way vehicle movements in the respective peak periods and this shows the link is a lightly trafficked street.

The submission also includes accident data which confirms that there is no recorded pattern of collisions on the frontages to the site or at the development access points onto Hulme Hall Road or Hill Top Avenue. Whilst there is some evidence of a pattern of collisions between cyclists and private cars at the Claremont Road/Upton Avenue/Hulme Hall Road junction, these do not relate to the proposed site entrances or any deficiencies relating to the site under consideration.

Prior to the school relocating in 2017 it provided for Early Years Foundation Stage, junior school education and secondary school education and in 2014 peaked with 322 pupils on the roll. The school typically employed circa 60 members of staff in a range of teaching and administration. By its very nature as an independent fee- paying school it had a wide catchment area drawing pupils from about a 20-mile radius of the site. Historic travel information for staff and pupils indicated that about 80% travelled to and from the school each day by private car, suggesting the site typically generated about 96 staff vehicle movements and in the region of 300 pupil related car trips during the school day. The school provided 68 parking spaces on site, for staff, parent and visitor use. It is fair to conclude that the use of the site as a school generated a considerable volume of traffic and consequent vehicle movements during the day and this is the lawful and base position against which any redevelopment proposal and comparative traffic generation exercise must be considered.

The TS includes interrogation of the TRICS database for sites comparable in size and location and predicts that the proposed residential development will generate 24 two-way vehicle movements in the AM and PM peak periods respectively. Apportioned to the separate site entrances it is shown that the Hulme Hall road entrance will experience 11 two way vehicle movements and the Hill Top Avenue entrance will see 13 two way vehicle movements within the respective peak periods.

Comparison of the estimated 24 two-way vehicle movements in the AM and PM peak periods for the proposed residential use to the volume of traffic generated by the former school on the site shows that the proposed development will generate significantly less vehicle movements during the critical peak periods and generally across the course of any day. The predicted development traffic flows are likely to be less than 10% of the previous traffic flows associated with the school and when averaged over a 60 minute peak period equate to an additional traffic movement every 5 to 6 minutes for each access point. Such traffic movements are well within the day to day variation of flow on the highway network and are shown to be significantly and materially lower than the historic traffic flows from the former school.

I therefore accept that the proposed residential development will generate significantly less traffic movements than the historic school use on the site and that this will have no material effect on the performance of the highway network in the vicinity of the site. Notwithstanding the recorded collision pattern not too far from the site I accept that the inclusion of development traffic is not expected to exacerbate risk to highway safety in the area. I conclude that the development proposal will not have a severe impact on highway capacity or an unacceptable impact on highway safety and I am satisfied that the proposal is in accordance with Council Policy and the tests within the NPPF.

With respect to the proposed internal site layout, the development is in two parts with separate access roads from Hulme Hall Road and Hill Top Avenue. The frontage element from Hulme Hall Road comprises an acceptable design of access road with adequate carriageway and footway facilities and turning and standing space for the likely size of vehicles which will visit the site. The site entrance will be formed as a simple priority junction with acceptable radii, pedestrian crossing facilities and visibility to and for emerging drivers. The applicant has advised that there is no intention to offer the frontage road for adoption and will be providing a private estate infrastructure. Highway adoption is not obligatory however it is essential that development infrastructure is provided to a standard that is fit for purpose, is suitable and safe for users, can accommodate safe public movement and has longevity in terms of management and maintenance. To ensure this the developer is required and has agreed to provision of a legally binding maintenance and management strategy to protect the interests of residents and the public and this will traditionally be secured under the terms of a S106 agreement or a unilateral undertaking. Whether it is a matter capable of condition control I am unsure but I would entertain a discussion post a decision on the planning application being made.

The entrance road from Hill Top Avenue is designed as a formal carriageway and footway to acceptable standard for the initial 85m or so and thereafter transitions to a shared surface modular constructed arrangement and cul-de-sac format. I am satisfied that the layout is standard compliant and would not give rise to operational or safety concerns for users and there is sufficient manoeuvring space for all likely vehicles to visit the site. The entrance will be formed as a simple priority junction with acceptable radii, pedestrian crossing facilities and visibility to and for emerging drivers. I note it is again the case that the development infrastructure would not be offered for adoption so a legally binding maintenance and management strategy will be necessary.

The two aspects of the overall development will be connected with a link that can be utilised by pedestrian and cycle traffic. This will benefit the accessibility of the site by providing shortened travel distances for pedestrians and cyclists accessing facilities and services in the area. The link will not be suitable, available or constructed for vehicular use.

With respect to refuse and recycling facilities, individual dwellings with have standalone receptacles that can be collected from the kerbsides within the development. The apartment blocks will have shared facilities that are appropriately located for convenient collection by refuse operatives.

Car parking provision across the site as a whole satisfies Council standards. Individual dwellings will have a minimum of two spaces each plus garages where provided. The apartment blocks will also have two spaces each and within these communal areas minimum provision will be made for disabled parking. I note that the disabled bay proposed for the southerly apartment block needs some design revision to ensure suitability for bay users and this can be addressed under conditional control when the detail of construction, drainage, surfacing, marking and lighting of parking areas will be finalised. Individual dwellings each require electric vehicle charging facilities and the two apartment block courtyard parking areas each require a minimum of two of the spaces to have electric vehicle charging facilities. This is a matter capable of conditional control.

Finally, individual dwellings must have a covered and secure cycle parking facility and the apartment blocks will have communal facilities with 100% provision. The final details of these facilities is a matter capable of conditional control.

In conclusion I see no reason or justification to express concern with the proposal, noting it is of a suitable design, is appropriately located and it will not give rise to unacceptable highway operational or safety conditions. I require an appropriate legal agreement to address the longevity of the infrastructure and assurance that there will be no public safety, management or maintenance concerns and this will need resolution prior to any permission being granted. I will also provide a list of relevant conditions in the event that permission is to be granted.

Recommendation: No objections subject to conditions and legal agreement.

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

Ecology survey work has been carried out and submitted with the application. Habitats on site were mapped and evidence of /potential for protected species and habitats was assessed. The extended phase 1 habitat survey (Rachel Hacking Ecology Ltd, 2019 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey) and bat assessment were carried out in March 2019 by suitably experienced ecologists and in accordance with best practice guidance.

Many buildings and trees offer the potential to support roosting bats. The site is located amid suitable bat foraging habitat. All species of bats and their roosts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The latter implements the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Bats are included in Schedule 2 of the Regulations as ‘European protected species of animals’ (EPS). Under the Regulations it is an offence to: 1) Deliberately capture or kill a wild EPS 2) Deliberately disturb a wild EPS in such a way that significantly affects: a) the ability of a significant group to survive, breed, rear or nurture young, or to hibernate or migrate. b) the local distribution of that species. 3) Damage or destroy a breeding place or resting site of such an animal.

The bat survey (Rachel Hacking Ecology Ltd, 2019 Bat Survey) included an internal and external inspection survey to search for evidence of roosting bats and to assess the potential for bats to be present on site. No evidence of roosting bats was recorded but roosting opportunities were observed through the presence of slipped tiles, gaps behind cladding, behind barge boards and under eaves, missing window panes. Three dusk emergence surveys were subsequently carried out in July and August 2019. No bats were recorded emerging from the buildings. Low levels bat foraging and commuting activity was recorded (from common and soprano pipistrelle and noctule bats). No potential roosting features were observed in the trees on site.

Suitable habitat for nesting birds is provided on site through the presence of buildings, trees, hedge, scrub and mature shrubs. All breeding birds and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

No evidence of or significant potential for any other protected species such as great crested newts or badgers was recorded on site. Evidence of fox (including a fox den) was recorded towards the north of the site and so although fox is not a protected species, appropriate measures will need to be implemented to ensure no harm occurs to this species during works

Japanese knotweed was recorded along the west boundary of the site within a shrub bed. This species is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which makes it an offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow this species in the wild.

No evidence of bats was recorded during the survey and the risk to roosting bats is considered to below. Bats are however notoriously cryptic in their roosting behaviour and can regularly switch roost sites. As a precautionary measure I would therefore advise that the recommendations in the bat report (Rachel Hacking Ecology, 2019) section 4.5 relating to sensitive working measures should be followed. It is also advised that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential (albeit low) for bats to be present on site. It should state that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to abide by the legislation in place to protect biodiversity, and should any evidence of bats, or any other protected species be discovered on site during works, works must cease and a suitably experienced ecologist contacted for advice.

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

A mitigation strategy for bat and bird boxes has been submitted as part of the application. It is proposed that a minimum of 10 bird boxes and 10 integrated bat boxes will be placed within the site/within the new houses. This will mitigate for the loss of potential roosting/nesting opportunities and also enhance the site for biodiversity. These measures should be secured by condition.

Ecological conditions can change over time. In the event that works have not commenced within two years of the March 2019 survey then update surveys (including bat activity surveys) will be required. A suitably worded condition can be used to ensure update surveys are carried out as appropriate.

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

The following condition should be attached to any planning permission granted: [BS42020: D.3.10] Prior to the commencement of development, an invasive non- native species protocol shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA, detailing the containment, control and removal of Japanese knotweed on site. The measures shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.

Evidence of fox was recorded on site and whilst not a protected species as such, fox are protected from harm under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Excavation of the fox den should therefore be carried out with care.

Biodiversity enhancements are expected as part of developments in line with local (paragraph 3.345 of the LDF) and national planning policy (NPPF). Plans submitted with the application show proposed tree and hedge planting. ‘Native beech’ hedgerow is proposed, however it should be noted that beech is not locally native to Stockport. I would ask that a mix of locally native species (such as hawthorn, holly, hazel, guelder rose, dog rose) is considered as an alternative. Proposed landscape planting can also be further enhanced through the creation of wildflower areas. Occasional gaps should also be provided at the base of any proposed fencing (13cm x 13cm) to retain habitat connectivity and allow species such as hedgehog to move through the site.

Tree Officer - The proposed development is within or affected by a conservation Area (Swann Lane/Hulme Hall Road/Hill Top Avenue). There are legally protected trees within this site or affected by this development (Hulme Hall College, Cheadle Hulme 1970).

The proposed development will potentially impact on the trees on site, however the current amenity value of these trees is limited and can easily be off-set with a good. A full tree survey has been supplied as part of the pre-application, which is acknowledged as a true representation of the tree stock on site.

Full details have been supplied to show how the tree loss proposed will be off set by replacement planting. The pine trees are the only high value loss on the site. These are however to be replaced and it is suggested that they be semi mature specimens and located within the POS to make these more a focal point.

The garden areas to the east and south of the site retain the poor/low amenity specimen Maple trees which could be removed and replaced with more appropriate species trees to enhance the back gardens. This would also reduce the shading on the development and create usable garden spaces. The hedgerow area should also be retained and enhanced through additional planting to retain and create a green corridor around the back of the site.

The garden area directly to the east of the access point off Hill Top Avenue has a double line of mature trees. It is agreed there could be a selected loss of the inner trees to create again more useable garden spaces and the second line can be enhanced with wildflowers and hedgerow planting to continue the corridor around the back of the site.

To the front of the site it is key that the holly/yew and lime tree planting is continued as shown on the plan to fully enhance the hard landscaped look to the site and really screen and soften this frontage but I would like to see an increase in the holly/yew planting between the lime trees to fully screen and enhance the frontage planting.

In regards to the retained trees on site the root protection plan is required and will need to be adhered to with all relevant fencing be erected prior to any works commencing on site. This will need to be conditioned to allay those concerns as well as greater details for construction methods with any root protection areas in accordance with British Standards 5837 including all the proposed entrances (to avoid having to relocate elements of the proposed development).

In conclusion whilst the proposed development will have an impact on trees on site and within neighbouring properties, subject to the conditions to secure an enhanced landscaping scheme and root protection, there are no objections to the proposed development.

EHO Contamination - I have reviewed the CGL Geo-Environmental and Geo- Technical Interpretive Report dated April 2017. The report makes the following recommendations for remediation; - Amber 2 Gas Risk Classification requiring appropriate gas measures to be installed within the properties. - Capping layer of 600mm of clean topsoil/subsoil to be used within garden areas and 450mm thickness in landscaped and public open space areas. - Further delineation testing in the vicinity of WS10 and WS11 with any impacted material being appropriately disposed of. - No re-use of any made ground material.

I can confirm that I am satisfied with the above proposals for remediation and subject to the imposition of conditions to secure the submission and approval of a Validation Report, there are no objections.

EHO Noise - I have assessed the above development and I do not object to the development in principle. A noise report has been commissioned and assesses the existing background noise levels from road, rail and aircraft. The noise report advises that windows will need to provide an overall noise reduction of between 26- 29dB the report does not specify the exact specification of windows to be fitted but should be easily achievable. Ventilation will by openable windows for purge ventilation and trickle vents fitted into window frames. However, occupants should be aware that if they choose to open the windows, they will be bypassing the mitigation measures and internal noise levels will be higher than the guideline internal noise limits. The report identifies the levels of insulation provided within the walls and roof and advises that they will achieve a higher level of insulation than what is needed. The report advises that airport noise stops after 01.15, there may be no take-offs but there are arrivals to the airport.

There have been no details submitted in relation to the demolition or construction of the properties. I feel that given the scale of the development, closeness of noise sensitive receptors and the time that it will take for the development to be completed we will need to know how the demolition and construction will be managed. This can be secured by condition.

If piling is proposed then details of this would be required.

I have also assessed the Noise Report regarding the impact of the car parking proposed. The report advises that noise levels produced by the cars driving in the north would be 38dBLAeq, the background noise levels in this area are 43dBLAeq therefore noise from the cars should not be audible. Noise levels to the south from cars will be 43dBLAeq and background noise levels are 42dBLAeq. Here, noise levels produced from cars will be slightly over the background noise levels however an increase of 1dB will not be noticeable. Noise from car doors shutting may be noticeable due to the nature of the noise however, the noise is not prolonged and it should not be any more intrusive than neighbours who already have cars nearby.

Director of Public Health – With regard to Active Travel, the promotion of active travel and public transport is key to maintaining physical and mental health through fostering activity, social interaction and engagement outside of the home. The site is in a reasonable location for bus and rail services, schools, leisure and other service needs within Cheadle Hulme centre, accessible by cycling and walking, including using nearby Public Rights of Way routes. The promotion of active travel and public transport is key to maintaining physical and mental health through fostering activity, managing healthy weight, reducing emissions from vehicles and enabling social interaction.

In relation to Ageing Well, Stockport Council has adopted an Ageing Well Strategy which takes account of the World Health Organisation guidance on appropriate place making for older people that can help with this issue. The design considerations are critical to ensuring that the needs of the growing ageing population of Stockport are addressed where practicable through new development. For clarification, the consideration of age friendly design is not yet enshrined in Stockport Planning Policy but the Council has an adopted Ageing Well Strategy that can inform design of places and buildings for the benefit of residents 55 and over. It is relevant to any type of development, not just those providing accommodation for older people, since older people can visit and interact with and within any place in the Borough.

With regard to Green Infrastructure (GI), this offers multifaceted health benefits whether it be shading in hot or wet weather, active travel routes, tackling social isolation through outdoor amenity spaces, providing recreational and interactive spaces and food growing areas to encourage activity and healthy eating (ranging from planters to raised beds). Consideration of trees and biodiversity are key to enabling public health benefits from green infrastructure enhancement not just around addressing flood risk but also in terms of tackling stress and its exacerbating effect on health, through provision of pleasant relaxing environments and views. In terms of public health benefit the proposed enhancement of Green Infrastructure on this site is welcome, including opportunities contributing to tackling urban heat island impacts, improving air quality and to enable links between existing natural capital assets such as the nearby green chain and strategic open spaces. The summertime comfort and well-being of the urban population has become increasingly compromised. In contrast to rural areas, where night-time relief from high daytime temperatures occurs as heat is lost to the sky, the urban environment stores and traps heat. This urban heat island effect is responsible for temperature differences of up to 7 degrees (Centigrade) between urban and rural locations. The majority of heat-related fatalities during the summer of 2003 were in urban areas and were predominantly older more vulnerable members of society (Designing urban spaces and buildings to improve sustainability and quality of life in a warmer world).

Drainage Engineer (LLFA) - The Drainage Strategy is acceptable in principle. It is however considered that the applicant can include larger areas of permeable surfacing throughout the site. However, this can be picked up at a detailed design stage.

No objections subject to the imposition of a condition to secure the submission, approval and implementation of a detailed surface water drainage scheme prior to the commencement of the development (other than demolition).

Environment Agency - We have reviewed the following reports with respect to potential risks to controlled waters from land contamination:

Hulme Hall Grammar School Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Interpretive Report. Prepared by GCL Ltd. Report ref. CGN/03848. Date: April 2017.

The previous use of the proposed development site as a school with a potential boiler house presents a medium risk of contamination that could be mobilised during construction to pollute controlled waters. Controlled waters are particularly sensitive in this area since the site is located on Secondary A and principal aquifers.

The report has not found any significant leachable contamination within the made ground deposits, however if during the ground works any unexpected contamination is discovered then we would expect to be consulted on the risk to controlled waters.

The reports detailed above submitted in support of this planning application provide us with confidence that it will be possible to suitably manage the risk posed to controlled waters by this development. However, further detailed information will be required before built development is undertaken. It is our opinion that it would place an unreasonable burden on the developer to ask for more detailed information prior to the granting of planning permission but respect that this is a decision for the local planning authority.

In light of the above, the proposed development will be acceptable if the following planning conditions are included within any planning permission granted for the site to ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination are adequately addressed and mitigated during the re-development of the site.

We ask to be consulted on the details submitted for approval to your Authority to discharge these conditions and on any subsequent amendments/alterations and ask that our comments below under ‘Advice to Applicant’ are provided to the developer / consultant.

To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution from previously unidentified contamination sources at the development site, the following condition should be imposed:

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works is waste or has ceased to be waste. Under the Code of Practice: • excavated materials that are recovered via a treatment operation can be reused on-site providing they are treated to a standard such that they are fit for purpose and unlikely to cause pollution • treated materials can be transferred between sites as part of a hub and cluster project • some naturally occurring clean material can be transferred directly between sites

Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed on-site operations are clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.

We recommend that developers should refer to: • The position statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice • The waste management page on GOV.UK

Contaminated soil that is (or must be) disposed of is waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal are subject to waste management legislation, which includes: • Duty of Care Regulations 1991 • Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 • Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 • The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically in line with British Standard BS EN 14899:2005 'Characterization of Waste - Sampling of Waste Materials - Framework for the Preparation and Application of a Sampling Plan' and that the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays. If the total quantity of hazardous waste material produced or taken off-site is 500kg or greater in any 12 month period, the developer will need to register with us as a hazardous waste producer. Refer to the hazardous waste pages on GOV.UK for more information.

United Utilities – no objections subject to conditions

Greater Manchester Police - no objection subject to condition to ensure compliance with CIS

ANALYSIS In considering this application it is acknowledged that the applicant has sought to engage with the Planning Authority, statutory consultees and the local community prior to the submission of this application. This engagement is a welcomed and important element of the planning process and one which is encouraged not only by this Authority but by the Government also. In this context, pre application discussions with the applicant have been continuing since early 2018 with the proposals evolving and changing over that time period in response to the feedback given. The submission of this application is therefore the culmination of that process however during the consideration of this application, further amendments have also been discussed and agreed to ensure that the proposals comply with the Development Plan.

Members are advised that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (para10). Para 11 of the NPPF reconfirms this position and advises that for decision making this means:-

- approving developments that accord with an up to date development plan or - where the policies which are most important for the determination of the application are out of date (this includes for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the LPA cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing), granting planning permission unless: - the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of importance (that is those specifically relating to designated heritage assets (conservation areas and listed buildings)) provides a clear reason for refusing planning permission or - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

In this respect, given that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year deliverable supply of housing, the relevant elements of Core Strategy policies CS4 and H2 which seek to deliver housing supply that are considered to be out of date. That being the case, the tilted balance as referred to in para 11 of the NPPF directs that permission should be approved unless: - there are compelling reasons in relation to the impact of the development upon the Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent listed buildings to refuse planning permission or - the adverse impacts of approving planning permission (such as the loss of the community facility, local open space or sports pitch or impact on residential amenity, highway safety etc) would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The main issues for consideration are as follows:-

- Loss of a community facility - Loss of the Local Open Space and sports pitch - Principle of residential accommodation including affordable housing and density - Impact on the Conservation Area and the character of the locality - Impact on residential amenity - Highway impacts - Other matters such as ecology, trees, energy efficient design, contamination and drainage.

Having regard to this presumption in favour of residential development, Members are advised accordingly:

Loss of the School, LOS and Sports Pitch The lawful use of the site is as a school and therefore policy CTF1.1 of the UDP Review is material to the consideration of this application. CTF1.1 confirms that development which would result in the loss of existing community facilities (which includes public and private sector facilities) will only be permitted where adequate replacement is provided or special justification can be shown.

The application confirms that the site was formerly occupied by Hulme Hall Grammar School providing private education to pupils ranging from pre school age to 16 years old. The school was founded in 1928 and most recently accommodated 332 pupils and around 60 members of staff. The majority of the buildings were constructed in the mid 20th century and in recent years the age and condition of the buildings increasingly became a concern and set off a chain of events that led to the school relocating to their current site in Davenport. The school’s Governor elaborates on the rationale for the move making the following points:- - Hulme Hall Education Trust Ltd is a charitable company whose objectives are to establish and maintain Hulme Hall School. Other than the original house, the buildings on the site are all post war and built to poor quality. Following the crash in 2008 maintenance was reduced to a minimum consistent with health and safety and environmental requirements. - In May 2014 the Trust sought professional advice on improving the buildings and grounds but even the cheapest was unaffordable at that stage. - In September 2014 Hillcrest Grammar closed and the Educational Funding Agency (EFA) bought the site for a new Stockport Technical School. The school never opened due to lack of interest. - The Trustees of Hulme Hall school approached the EFA in June 2015 with a view to buying Hillcrest Grammar and relocating the school on the basis that the building and site were in a better condition that that at Hulme Hall. The EFA expressed an interest in this as they had no use themselves for Hillcrest but did have a potential use for Hulme Hall to establish two new free schools. Representatives of the new free schools visited Hulme Hall and concluded that none of the buildings would be of any use due to their condition The EFA however intended to demolish the buildings in any event. - An agreement was reached to swap both sites with the District Valuer valuing each site and paying the more valuable site the difference in valuation. This deal however collapsed in November 2015 when the National Audit Office ruled it outside of Government procurement rules. - Cheadle Hulme School then expressed an interest in the site with a view to moving their junior school however this did not proceed as their surveyor considered that the state of the buildings made refurbishment uneconomic and a complete rebuild was prohibitive. - In January 2016 the Trust suggested to the EFA that they take a lease out on Hillcrest Grammar with an option to purchase. The EFA agreed to this offer and Heads of Terms were agreed late in 2016. The move was announced as from September 2017. - In Spring 2017 the school was approached by the Muslim Educational Trust of Manchester however this never proceeded for the same reasons as had arisen with Cheadle Hulme School. - It was clear at this time that there was no educational establishment that wanted the site so the Trust put it on the market through GVA within the terms of the Charities Act. - Hulme Hall Grammar is now on the Hillcrest site on a 5 year lease with an option to purchase. Any resources from the sale of the Hulme Hall site will be used to buy the Hillcrest site and extend the facilities there.

Members are advised that the proposed redevelopment of this site clearly results in the loss of a community facility contrary to policy CTF1.1. This policy does however allow for an exception to be made where special justification can be shown. In this respect the statement by the Governor sets out clearly the issues that the school had with the condition of the buildings on the site, the ability of them to continue to maintain the school in that location and the viability of refurbishing or replacing the existing buildings in order to remain on the site (which is evidence by the fact that both Cheadle Hulme School and the Muslim Educational Trust for Manchester withdrew their interest in the site for the same reasons). It is evident that the school have attempted to maintain their presence on the site for as long as viable and have made attempts to find an alternative user to continue the educational use of the site.

On the basis of the above, whilst the loss of this community facility is regrettable, it is considered that special justification has been demonstrated and as such, the proposal in terms of the loss of the community facility is compliant with policy CTF1.1 of the UDP Review.

Part of the application site encompasses land designated on the UDP Proposals Map as Local Open Space (LOS) upon which there is a sports pitch. As such policies CTF1.4, UOS1.3 and L1.1 are relevant to the consideration of this application along with para 97 of the NPPF.

Policy CTF1.4 confirms that where proposals for the redevelopment of redundant community facilities are made on sites which include open land, and where there is a local deficiency of recreational open space, the proposal should make a contribution to reducing that deficiency.

Policy UOS1.3 confirms that within areas of LOS development will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there is an adequate provision of open space in the local area and that the loss would not be detrimental to the well being of the local community or the amenities of the area; or the open space that would be lost would be replaced by open space of an equivalent or better quantity, quality, usefulness and attractiveness in a location at least as accessible to current and potential users.

The supporting text to policy UOS1.3 confirms that private recreation facilities and school playing fields both can both perform as LOS. This text also sets out the factors of importance in determining the value of areas of LOS. These can be summarised as follows:- - Standards of open space provision in the local area - The visual or amenity value of the land - The ecological value of the land - Formal recreation use - Informal public access and - Contribution to urban form or general well being of the community.

Policy L1.1 confirms that proposals which involve the loss of public and private sports grounds or other land currently or last used for recreation will not be permitted except where the proposed development would provide facilities of sufficient benefit to sport and recreation to outweigh the loss. Development of land currently or last used as playing fields will not be permitted unless:- - The proposed development is ancillary to the use of the site as a playing field - The proposed development only affects land that is not capable of forming a playing pitch and results in the retention and enhancement of pitches - The playing fields that would be lost would be replaced by playing fields of an equivalent or better quantity, quality, usefulness and attractiveness in a location at least as accessible to current and potential users - The proposed development is for a sports facility of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the loss of the playing field.

Para 97 confirms that existing open space, sports and recreational land including playing fields should not be built upon unless:- - Assessment has been undertaken which shows that the land is surplus to requirement - The loss would be replaced with equivalent or better facilities or - The development is for alternative sports and recreation provision, the benefits of which outweigh the loss of the former or current use.

On the basis of the above mentioned policies, there are two issues that require consideration those being the loss of the land designated as LOS and the loss of the sports pitch. In response to this policy position the applicant has made the following case:-

In respect of the loss of LOS: - The land currently offers no amenity value and always has been private, benefitting only those pupils attending the school and nobody since 2017. - The site is neither a site of special nature or nature conservation importance and has no ecological value. The survey undertaken of the site and submitted with this application confirms that no protected species currently utilise the site. The report concludes that the proposed development offers the potential to enhance biodiversity through landscaping and other means. - The site provides no contribution to formal recreation since the school closed and relocated to Davenport; it has never provided any informal public access. - The site is a relatively hidden and secluded patch of previously developed land that makes little contribution to the wider understanding of the urban form and low contribution to the general wellbeing of the wider community. - The value that the site has contributed to the provision of LOS has historically been low in terms of quality and quantity, accessible only to those attending Hulme Hall School. Since the school closed the contribution has been nil. - Within 200m to the north of the site is Hesketh Park another LOS designation that is publically accessible and does provide recreation and amenity value for the community. 200m to the west of Cheadle Hulme School with grass and all weather pitches and a sports hall which are available to the community out of school hours. - New publically accessible open space is proposed within the development and the new pedestrian link through the site will residents to walk through the site cutting journey times for some looking to access Hesketh Park. The loss of LOS will be partly offset by the proposed open space and pedestrian link.

In respect of the loss of the sports pitch: - The former pitch measures 0.22Ha, which is marginally over the 0.2Ha threshold definition of a playing pitch within the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015. - The pitch has not been used since at least July 2017, when the School closed and, before that, the pitch only had very limited use given its poor state of repair, and the School rarely hosted matches as a result. No community use took place and the pitch therefore made a very limited contribution to the supply of pitches in the local area. - The proposed development has already led to the investment of replacement provision of facilities provided at the new Hulme Hall Grammar School location, at Beech Avenue in Davenport and that further improved facilities would follow once the Hulme Hall Road application site had been sold. - One of the key aspects of the relocation of the school was to secure improved sports facilities that were available at the Davenport. Already, through securing a contract with Seddon, the School was able to improve quality, quantity and accessibility of sports including: - Resurfacing three former tennis courts, replacing sports fencing, added and marking out to create a new all-weather pitch for playing hockey, football, netball and tennis; - Investment in early years outdoor space; - Bringing a modern Sports Hall back into active use.; - The ability for Hulme Hall School to host school matches, including the ISA North netball tournament in 2018; - Making the re-purposed all-weather pitch available every Friday afternoon for use by St Georges C of E Primary School, a nearby school which has very limited outdoor space; - Sharing the sports hall with other local community groups including local cricket clubs for practice during the winter months; - Establishing links with the nearby Stockport Cricket Club on Beech Road to share facilities which include a large cricket pitch, lacrosse pitch and use of the grass outfield of the cricket pitch for athletics, including hosting the School’s Sports Day. - The redevelopment of the former school site will enable further investment in sports for the benefit of pupils and the wider community. It is forging closer links with neighbouring community and sports groups and, overall, the development has enabled significant improvements closely in line with Sport England’s overarching aim - to help maximise opportunities for sport and physical activity for all. - Overall, therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets with Sport England’s overarching aim to help maximise opportunities for sport and physical activity for all and, by delivering improved quality, quantity, functionality and flexibility of sports facilities, the proposal also complies with Exception 4 of Sport England’s Guidance and paragraph 97 of the NPPF and Policy L1.1. - The loss of the former pitch is an impact of the proposed development but, in the circumstances set out, where the development has helped significant improvements in sports facilities elsewhere in Stockport, and with the existing facilities in the vicinity of the site, the loss of the former pitch does not represent an adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting permission.

Members are advised as follows:

The application proposes a loss of around 0.46ha of LOS including a sports pitch on a wider 1.61ha site contrary to policies UOS1.3, CTF1.4 and L1.1 of the UDP Review and para 97 of the NPPF.

It is acknowledged that being positioned to the rear of the school, the LOS is not publically accessible or visible being enclosed by mature trees forming the rear garden boundaries of properties on Barrington Avenue, Hill Top Avenue and Upton Avenue. The ecological report submitted with the application confirms that the LOS has little ecological value and is not inhabited or utilised by any protected species. On this basis it is accepted that the visual and amenity value of the land is limited other than to those properties sharing a boundary with the site. Notwithstanding this, whilst there is no public access, the LOS has been used for formal and informal recreation and as such, it has made a contribution to the general well being of the community, albeit limited to the pupils of the school. Taking into account these factors, it is however considered that the value of the LOS is somewhat limited.

Sport England is a statutory consultee on this application given that the proposed development will result in the loss of a sports pitch. Sport England have assessed the proposed development having regard not only to para 97 of the NPPF but also to their playing fields policy contained within ‘Playing Fields Policy and Guidance Document’. This document is material to the consideration of this application and is drafted along similar lines to the UDP policies referred to above as well as para 97 of the NPPF.

As Sport England confirm, it is their policy to oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of, all/part of a playing field, unless one or more of the five exceptions stated in its policy apply. They have noted that all existing sports facilities/playing field land at the site would be lost and that there is an undersupply of playing field provision in the area. As such they conclude that the proposal is contrary to exception 1 of their policy document as well as the corresponding bullet point within NPPF paragraph 97.

They note that the applicant has sought to demonstrate that the investment in sports facilities at the site of the former Hillcrest School in Davenport constitute a replacement of the facilities lost. Sport England comment however that these measures do not constitute replacement provision in the context of these policy requirements. As such the proposal is contrary to exception 4 of their document as well as the corresponding bullet point within NPPF paragraph 97.

On this basis, Sport England objects to the application on the grounds that it is contrary to their ‘Playing Fields Policy’ and with Paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

In response to this it is acknowledged even though there has been no public access to this site, the sports pitch has made a contribution to the general well being of the community, albeit limited to the pupils of the school. The relocation of the school to the Hillcrest site has not resulted in any replacement provision. Whilst the relocation of the school has resulted in enhanced sporting provision, this does offer sufficient benefit to offset the proposed loss at the Hulme Hall site. The 500m2 of public open space proposed on the site as part of the residential redevelopment is very small in size compared to that existing (4600m2). Furthermore it would not be able to function as a Local Area for Play being too close to the 4 houses adjacent and therefore is likely to be used for informal recreation by the occupiers of this development. As such this area of open space whilst welcome in amenity terms makes little meaningful replacement for that lost.

The loss of the LOS and sports pitch clearly weigh against the merits of the proposed development and their loss will cause harm in terms of the amenities of the properties surrounding this part of the site and the well being of the population. This however to be balanced against the merits of the proposed development in terms of the regeneration of this previously developed site, the enhancement of the Conservation Area and visual amenities of the locality (particularly to Hulme Hall Road where the development is most publically visible) and the tilted balance in favour of residential development engaged by para 11 of the NPPF. These issues are explored in detail below in this report, however, having regard to the conclusions reached in relation to these issues, it is considered that on balance, the benefits that will accrue from the proposed development outweigh the loss of LOS and sports pitch. On this basis it is considered that this justifies an exception to policies CTF1.4, L1.1 and UOS1.3 of the UDP Review and para 97 of the NPPF.

Members are advised that should they agree the recommendation to grant planning permission then as the development is contrary to policies CTF1.4, L1.1 and UOS1.3 of the UDP Review and para 97 of the NPPF, not only will the application have to be referred to the Planning & Highways Committee but also the Secretary of State (in respect of the loss of the sports pitch only).

Principle of Residential Accommodation Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy directs new residential development towards the more accessible parts of the Borough identifying 3 spatial priority areas (Central Housing Area; Neighbourhood Priority Areas and the catchment areas of District/Large Local Centres; and other accessible locations). Policy H-2 confirms that when there is less than a 5 year deliverable supply of housing (as is currently the case) the required accessibility scores will be lowered to allow the deliverable supply to be topped up by other sites in accessible locations. This position has been regularly assessed to ensure that the score reflects the ability to ‘top up’ supply to a 5 year position. However, the scale of shortfall is such that in order to genuinely reflect the current position in that regard the accessibility score has been reduced to zero.

As referred to at the start of this analysis, the fact that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing means that elements of Core Strategy policies CS4 and H2 are considered to be out of date. As such the tilted balance in favour of the residential redevelopment of the site as set out in para 11 of the NPPF is engaged.

The application site comprises a brownfield site within the catchment area of Cheadle Hulme District Centre and the proposal is therefore in compliance with policies CS4 and H2 of the Core Strategy. The redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is also in accordance with para 118 of the NPPF which places substantial weight upon the use of brownfield land within settlements for homes and supporting opportunities to remediate derelict land.

In terms of affordable housing provision, policy H3 of the Core Strategy confirms that provision should be made on this site with between 40% and 50% of the dwellings being affordable. Notwithstanding this policy position, para 63 of the NPPF confirms that to support the re-use of brownfield land, where buildings are being re-used or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution should be reduced by a proportionate amount (that being equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of the existing buildings). The evidence presented by the applicant clearly demonstrates that the floorspace of the buildings to be demolished exceeds that proposed (5802m2 existing vs 5623m2 proposed) and as such, in accordance with para 63 of the NPPF, there is no requirement for the provision of affordable housing on this site.

With regard to the density of the proposed development, policy CS3 of the Core Strategy confirms that sites close to District Centres should achieve around 50 dph. As the site is under 400m from Cheadle Hulme District Centre, this density would apply to development on this site and certainly the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), estimated that 48 units might be secured. As advised by the Planning Policy Officer, the inclusion of a site within the SHLAA does not imply it should be granted, nor should the estimated supply figure be taken as either a maximum or minimum that should be delivered. However the contribution that this site was expected to achieve in the SHLAA forms part of that needed to minimise the loss of Green Belt through allocations in the GMSF. As such, the proposal would deliver 11 fewer units than was estimated in the SHLAA assessment. Under-delivery of estimates within the SHLAA places even greater pressure for the efficient use of urban land in terms of minimising the loss of Green Belt land to development.

Para 123 of the NPPF confirms that when there is a shortage of housing, decisions should avoid homes being built at low densities and LPA’s should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in the Framework. The drive to secure the efficient use of urban land set out at para 122 of the NPPF however acknowledges that account must also be taken of the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character

The proposed development will achieve 23 dph which is significantly below what the site is expected to deliver having regard to Core Strategy policy CS3. The NPPF through references in para’s 122 and 123 acknowledges that regard must also be paid to other policies and the character of the area. In this respect, in considering the redevelopment of this site, its location within a Conservation Area must be taken into account and the resulting requirement that development must preserve or enhance the character and appearance of that Area (Core Strategy policy SIE-3 and para 192 of the NPPF). It should also be noted that an increase in density would most likely result in a larger number of smaller dwellings including more apartments which in turn would result in smaller gardens and more car parking. There is concern that such a development would not reflect the spacious character of the Conservation Area where medium to large sized houses are set within generous plots with the impacts of car parking soften by well landscaped gardens. As such a balance has to be taken between these requirements.

The impacts upon the Conservation Area are assessed below and concludes that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the Area. Noting that there will be other opportunities in the Borough to secure quality high density developments on urban brownfield land to claw back some of the dwellings not achieved on this site (which will be required to avoid further intrusion upon the Green Belt), it is considered that the density proposed on this particular site, having regard to the Conservation Area constraints, is not unacceptable. On this basis, notwithstanding the conflict with Core Strategy policy CS3, the proposed development complies with Government advice contained within para’s 63, 118, 122 and 123 of the NPPF.

Policy L1.2 of the UDP Review and SIE-2 of the Core Strategy seek to ensure that residential development makes an appropriate contribution towards the provision of children’s play and formal recreation. This policy position is supported by the Council’s SPD Open Space Provision and Commuted Sum Payments.

The proposed development does not include any features for children’s play as advised by policy SIE2 and the SPD; the area of public open space being too small and close to the proposed dwellings to provide for a Local Area for Play. As such this contribution will be secured by way of a commuted sum payment as part of a S106 agreement which will be used to enhance existing facilities in the area.

Impact on the Conservation Area and Visual Amenities of the Locality The application site occupies a prominent position within the Conservation Area particularly to Hulme Hall Road and is positioned opposite a Grade 2 listed building, 1 Higham Street. Policies HC1.1 and HC1.3 of the UDP Review together with policy SIE3 of the Core Strategy and para 192 of the NPPF require development to protect the significance of these heritage assets. The duty set out under the primary legislation, S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, is to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Policies H1, CS8 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 124, 127 and 130 of the NPPF seek to secure high quality development that functions well and responds well to the character of the locality within which it is located.

The character and appearance of the Conservation Area (and thereby that of the locality) is derived from a spacious quality, buildings are set within generous sized plots which are maturely landscaped and a low density prevails. The Conservation Officer notes that the proposed development is consistent with the low density grain of the Conservation Area and the value afforded from private gardens. The plots in terms of their generous size allow for a sense of openness and spaciousness between adjacent dwellings which again reflects that prevailing in the Conservation Area.

The proposed 3 storey apartment building will be no higher than the highest point of the Victorian villa however this height will extend for a greater length than that existing. The Conservation Officer concludes that the greater set back from Hulme Hall Road, the angled orientation of the building, and the frontage with gardens and significant tree and hedge planting, along with the proposed design (which incorporates projecting bays, recesses and an articulated roofline) and materials will mitigate this increase in scale and mass. This will result in an improved form of development and one which has an acceptable impact upon the setting of the listed building.

The height of the smaller 2 storey apartment building to the south of the site is considered to be in keeping with the prevailing scale of properties in this location, reflecting the smaller scale of the development adjacent. The siting of the building forward of that existing reinforces the existing building line of the houses adjacent on Hulme Hall Road and there is sufficient space in front to provide enhanced landscaping.

The landscaping to the Hulme Hall Road frontage including the boundary treatment will greatly soften the appearance of the site and thus enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The proposed houses are of a similar scale to those on Hill Top Avenue and whilst being at the upper height limit of those adjacent, it is considered that the siting of these houses relative to those existing together with the existing and proposed landscaping will cause no harm thus preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Given the length of the existing access to Hill Top Avenue and the landscaping to either side which will be enhanced with new planting to the front and rear of this route, only glimpses of the proposed development will be gained from this point. As such there will be little impact on this part of the Conservation Area other than the removal of the existing gates (which will represent a visual improvement).

In terms of the architectural approach, the use of 12 differing design styles unified by features that are previlant in the Conservation Area (steeply pitched roofs, gables, ridge cresting and projecting bays, and a shared palette of traditional materials, fenestration (with vertical emphasis), proportions and constructional detailing) will ensure that the proposed development will be in keeping with the Conservation Area and locality.

Conditions as requested by the Conservation Officer can be imposed. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would significantly improve the condition and appearance of the site and would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area together with the setting of designated and non designated heritage assets. On this basis the proposal is compliant with policy HC1.3 of the UDP Review, Core Strategy policy SIE3, policies contained within chapter 16 of the NPPF, and the duty under S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area.

Members are therefore advised that having regard to para 11 of the NPPF, the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of importance (that is those specifically relating to the protection of heritage assets) do not provide a clear reason for refusing planning permission. The tilted balance in favour of the residential redevelopment of this site as invoked by para 11 of the NPPF therefore weighs heavily in favour of this application.

The above considerations apply also to the impact of the development upon the visual amenities of the locality. The proposal is thereby compliant with policies H1, CS8 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 124, 127 and 130 of the NPPF.

Impact on Residential Amenity Policies H1, CS8, SIE1 and SIE3 of the Core Strategy together with para 127 of the NPPF seek to ensure that developments provide for a good standard of amenity not only for existing but also future occupiers. The Core Strategy policies are supported by the Council’s SPD ‘Design of Residential Development’ which provides detailed guidance regarding the layout of development and its relationship with existing properties. Members are reminded that the SPD is not policy but is simply guidance to influence but not dictate development. There is acknowledgement within that document that rigid adherence with the guidance can stifle creativity and result in uniformity of development.

In relation to the development fronting Hulme Hall Road the following is noted:-

- The position of the 3 storey apartment building to the north of the site (plots HJ11 to HJ13, HK14 to HK16 and HL17 to HL19) which contains habitable room windows is 25m to 27m from the front elevation of 1 Higham Street, which also contains habitable room windows. This exceeds the 21m required by the SPD and as such it is not considered that the proposed development will give rise to an unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

- The 3 storey apartment building with its uniform ridge height will be no higher than the highest part of the existing buildings fronting Hulme Hall Road (11.1m). As the existing roofline is varied (5.5m to 11.1m), however, there will be taller elements as proposed. Notwithstanding this increase in the height of part of the building, that proposed will be positioned further back into the site from the boundary to Hulme Hall Road than that existing (10m to 17m as existing and 11m to 20m as proposed). This section of Hulme Hall Road has a tight knit feel to it afforded from the siting of 1 Higham Street and 73 Hulme Hall Road on the back edge of the pavement, the mature tree planting to the front of the application site and the bend in the road. Having regard to this character and taking into account the increased setback, it is not considered that the increased height of the building will give rise to an overbearing and unneighbourly impact on the amenities afforded by the occupiers of 1 Higham Street.

- The side elevation of the 3 storey apartment building will be positioned behind the rear elevation of 73 Hulme Hall Road, a commercial property with a flat above, approximately 5m from the side boundary. The siting of the development adjacent to the single storey rear projection to this building will ensure that the first floor side facing window to the flat is not obscured by the development. On this basis it is not considered that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on this property.

- The side elevation of the 3 storey apartment building which contains no habitable room windows, only bathroom and blind windows will be positioned 20m from the rear elevation of 2 Barrington Avenue. This exceeds the 15m required by the SPD. Together with the obscure glazing of the bathroom windows (which can be secured by condition) it is considered that the proposed development will not give rise to an unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

- The siting of the 3 storey apartment building relative to the rear of 2 Barrington Avenue is such that side elevation will project only 6m across its 22m wide rear garden boundary, at a distance of between 5m and 6m from the boundary. Whilst it is noted that the proposed building adjacent to the boundary will be 2.8m higher than that existing, given the siting off and limited projection along the boundary, it is not considered that the proposed development will be visually obtrusive or overbearing to the occupiers of this property.

- In respect of amenity space provision, the SPD advises that whatever the size or location of a dwelling there will always be a requirement for some form of private amenity space ranging from balconies, roof gardens and communal private space associated with flats. Incorporating balconies and roof gardens is encouraged where they can be provided without compromising the privacy and amenity of neighbours, or harming the character of the area. They may be required where the private or communal space provision is insufficient. The SPD recommends that 35m2 of communal amenity space per flat is appropriate to ensure a satisfactory level of amenity for the future occupiers. For the 9 apartments proposed in this building, 315m2 of communal space would comply with the SPD. The communal gardens for this building are proposed to the front of the site and will provide circa 480m2 of amenity space thus exceeding the requirement of the SPD. Whilst this is positioned to the front of the building where it might not be as private as if it were to the rear, it is noted that the existing landscaping to the boundary with Hulme Hall Road is to be retained and a new hedge planted. As such this area is likely to be relatively private and will provide an acceptable level of amenity for the future occupiers.

- The proposed car parking to serve this apartment building will be positioned adjacent to the rear garden boundary with 2 Barrington Avenue. The refuse store will also be positioned 28m from the boundary. A Noise Report submitted with this application which assesses the impact of the car parking areas upon the amenities of the locality concludes that there will be no adverse impact arising. This report has been considered by the Council’s EHO which concurs with this view. The use of the car park and refuse store will in any event be sporadic and vehicle movements brief. Additional tree planting proposed to this boundary will also help screen views from the upper floor windows of 2 Barrington Avenue. On this basis it is not considered that there will be an unacceptable impact on the amenities afforded from this neighbouring property.

- The front elevation of the 2 storey apartment building to the south of the site (plots HL20 and HL21, HK22 and HK23) containing habitable room windows will be positioned 25m to 27m from the front elevation of Beechwood on the opposite side of Hulme Hall Road also containing habitable room windows. This separation exceeds the 21m required by the SPD and as such will ensure that the proposed development will not give rise to an unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

- To the south of the application site is 77a Hulme Hall Road. This 2 storey property is L shaped with the garage projecting forward of the main dwelling and positioned away from the application site, adjacent to the boundary with 77 Hulme Hall Road. Whilst the side elevation of this house facing the application site is blank, the front and rear elevations contain habitable room windows. The blank side elevation of the proposed 2 storey flats will be positioned 14m from the blank side of 77a Hulme Hall Road. As such there will be no loss of privacy or overlooking occurring in this respect.

- The proposed 2 storey apartments will be slightly higher than 77a Hulme Hall Road as is illustrated on the streetscenes appended to this report (by 0.7m to ridge). The proposed front elevation will be positioned level with the front of the garage to 77a Hulme Hall Road and 4m in front of the main front elevation to this house. The rear elevation of these apartments closest to 77a Hulme Hall Road will be positioned 1m behind the rear elevation of this neighbouring house but projecting 2m beyond this rear elevation at a distance of over 25m from the boundary. Having regard to this relationship, including the siting of this apartment building 14m away from 77a Hulme Hall Road, it is not considered that the development will overbearing or unneighbourly when viewed from this neighbouring house.

- In terms of amenity space provision, communal gardens of 140m2 in area would be required to accord with the guidance set out in the SPD. That proposed to the front of this building will total circa 132m2 in size which is marginally short of that suggested by the SPD. There is no existing planting to screen this part of the site however it is noted that it is proposed to plant a hedge and new trees along the frontage. This will not however make this space as private as that to the larger apartment building noting that the landscaping will not form as dense a screen. It is however noted that immediately to the rear of these apartments it is proposed to create an area of public open space which will serve the residents of this development. Whilst not private space, this will however enhance the amenity afforded to the occupiers of these flats. On this basis it is considered that the proposed development will provide for an acceptable level of amenity for the future occupiers.

- The 8 car parking spaces serving this 2 storey apartment building will be positioned along the side boundary with 77a Hulme Hall Road along with the proposed refuse store (positioned behind the front boundary). This part of the existing site accommodate the school playground and the boundary is formed by a 1.8m high close boarded fence. Whilst details of the refuse store have yet to be submitted (and will be secured by way of a planning condition) there is no reason why this could not be of an attractive design with a solid roof to ensure that the visual amenities afforded from the front facing windows of 77a Hulme Hall Road (particularly those at first floor level) will not be adversely affected. Replacement tree planting is also proposed along the boundary with 77a Hulme Hall Road, forward of its front elevation and this will help screen views of the refuse store.

- A Noise Report submitted with this application which assesses the impact of the car parking areas upon the amenities of the locality concludes that there will be no adverse impact arising. This report has been considered by the Council’s EHO which concurs with this view. The use of the car park will in any event be sporadic and vehicle movements brief. Given that refuse will be stored in appropriate containers, issues relating to vermin are likely to be no greater than experienced in relation to any other residential property. On this basis it is not considered that there will be an unacceptable impact on the amenities afforded from this neighbouring property.

- To the rear of the 2 storey apartment building it is proposed to erect 2 pairs of semi detached houses (plots HH24 to HH27), the rear elevation of which would be positioned 21m to 22m from the boundary and at least 38m from the rear elevation of houses on Upton Avenue. This separation exceeds the 6m required to the boundary and the 25m required between rear elevations as set out in the SPD. On this basis, it is not considered that an unacceptable loss of privacy or overlooking will occur to the occupiers of these properties.

- As viewed from the rear, these houses will appear as 2 storey (as the dormer windows are proposed to the front elevation and there are no rooflights to the rear). The siting of these houses rising 9.35m to ridge level over 21m from the boundary will also ensure that they do not appear visually obtrusive or overbearing when viewed from the adjoining rear gardens or houses on Upton Avenue.

- To comply with the SPD in relation to amenity space, these 3 bed houses should have 75m2 private rear gardens. Those proposed are circa 45m2 to 55m2 and therefore are 20m2 to 30m2 smaller than that recommended by the SPD. Notwithstanding their small size, the proposed gardens will still provide useable private amenity space. In addition to this, these 4 houses are positioned immediately adjacent to the 600m2 of public open space proposed within the development with their front entrances and gardens opening directly out onto this space. This additional area will compensate in some way for that not provided to the rear of these houses, allowing children to play safely whilst being visible from these houses. On this basis, it is not considered that the small size of these gardens is unacceptable and the proposed development will provide satisfactory amenity for the future occupiers.

In relation to the development proposed as being accessed from Hill Top Avenue, the following is noted:-

- To the north of site, adjacent to the rear garden boundary of 4, 6 and 8 Barrington Avenue, it is proposed to erect 2 pairs of semi detached houses which would have accommodation in the roof served by dormers to the front and rooflights to the rear (HG7 to HG10). These houses would be positioned 10.5m to 15.5m from the rear garden boundary with the houses on Barrington Avenue and at least 29m measured to the original first floor rear elevation (as is appropriate when applying the SPD). Noting the 3 storey nature of these houses, these distances exceed the 9m required to the boundary and the 28m required between habitable room windows as set out in the SPD. On this basis, it is not considered that there will be an unacceptable impact in relation to overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of these neighbouring properties.

- The proposed houses will have a ridge height of 9.6m. Noting however that they are at least 10.5m from the rear garden boundary of houses in Barrington Avenue and at least 29m when measured first floor to first floor, it is not considered that they will be unduly prominent. In addition to this, the mature tree planting and landscaping that exists on the boundary will be retained and in the case of that adjacent to 4 Barrington Avenue, enhanced ensuring that to a varying degree, views of the proposed development are screened. On this basis it is not considered that the proposed development will give rise to an obtrusive or overbearing form of development.

- These 5 bed houses will have rear gardens ranging in size from circa 110m2 to 160m2 which exceeds the 100m2 required by the SPD. As such it is considered that the future occupiers will benefit from an acceptable level of amenity.

- Adjacent to the northern boundary with 17 to 28 Hollybank Court it is proposed to erect 2 detached houses (HD3 and HD4) which would positioned side on to this boundary. The proposed houses would be 2 storeys high with an attached garage with accommodation above served by a front facing dormer window. The side elevation of these houses and rear elevation of the garages would be positioned 7m to 11m from the boundary with Hollybank Court. This exceeds the requirement of the SPD that the development be at least 6m from the site boundary. The elevation of the proposed houses facing Hollybank Court would contain only habitable room windows at ground floor level with those to the first floor serving only bathrooms (the obscure glazing of which can be secured by condition). As such, the siting of these elevations 13m to 16m to the closest facing elevation of Hollybank Court exceeds 12m advised as appropriate in the SPD. On this basis and noting that there is mature tree planting along the boundary with Hollybank Court which will be retained and enhanced (where there is a small gap), it is considered that the development will not give rise to an unacceptable impact in relation to overlooking and loss of privacy.

- Plot HD3 also has a boundary to 2X Hill Top Avenue (Yew Tree House) to the east. The rear elevation of this proposed dwelling will be positioned at least 17m from the rear garden boundary of this house and approximately 40m from its rear elevation. This exceeds the 6m required to the boundary and 25m required to the rear elevation as set out in the SPD. Noting also that the boundary adjacent to this house is set with mature trees, it is considered that there will not an unacceptable impact in relation to overlooking and loss of privacy.

- Given the degree of separation between plots HD3 and HD4 with Hollybank Court and Yew Tree House together with the screening afforded to both the north and east boundary, it is not considered that these 2 storey houses with a ridge 9m high will appear visually obtrusive or overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring properties.

- These 4 bed houses will have rear gardens ranging in size from circa 380m2 to 580m2 which exceeds the 100m2 advised by the SPD. As such it is considered that the future occupiers will benefit from an acceptable level of amenity.

- Adjacent to the eastern boundary with The Willows and 2a Hill Top Avenue, it is proposed to erect 2 detached houses (plots HB2 and HE1). The rear elevation of these 2 storey, 5 bed houses would be positioned 11m to 14m from the rear garden boundary of these neighbouring houses thus exceeding the 6m advised in the SPD as being appropriate. The rear elevations would also be positioned at least 38m from the rear elevations of the houses on Hill Top Avenue thus exceeding the 25m separation suggested in the SPD. Noting also the mature tree planting on the boundary which will be retained, it is not considered that the proposed development will give rise to a loss of privacy or overlooking to the neighbouring occupiers.

- Given this degree of separation and the landscaping on the boundary, it is not considered that these 2 storey houses with a ridge 9.5m high will appear overbearing or unneighbourly when viewed from The Willows or 2a Hill Top Avenue.

- These 5 bed houses will have rear gardens ranging in size from circa 160m2 to 200m2 which exceeds the 100m2 advised by the SPD. As such it is considered that the future occupiers will benefit from an acceptable level of amenity.

- On the opposite side of the access from Hill Top Avenue into the site it is proposed to erect 4no. 2 storey detached houses along the rear garden boundary of 4 to 14 Hill Top Avenue (HC34, HA35, HB36 and HA37). The houses would be positioned between 7m and 15m from boundary with those in Hill Top Avenue which exceeds the 6m advised by the SPD. Of these 4 houses, plots HA35, HB36 and HA37, all of which have habitable room windows in their rear elevations, would be positioned over 70m from those of the adjacent houses on Hill Top Avenue thus exceeding the 25m advised in the SPD.

- The 4th house, HC34, would be positioned side on to Hill Top Avenue and has only non habitable room windows in this elevation. This house would be 80m from the rear elevation of the houses on Hill Top Avenue which exceeds the 12m advised in the SPD. This house also has boundary to the south with the rear garden of 13 Upton Avenue and would be positioned 9m to 11.5m from this boundary which exceeds the advice of 6m in the SPD. The first floor elevation facing this boundary contains habitable room windows and would be positioned 41m from the closest rear elevation of 13 Upton Avenue. This exceeds the 25m advised by the SPD. On this basis and noting the mature tree planting on the boundary with properties on Hill Top Avenue and Upton Avenue which will be retained and enhanced, it is not considered that these houses will give rise to overlooking or loss of privacy harmful to the occupiers of these neighbouring houses.

- Given this degree of separation and the landscaping on the boundary, it is not considered that these 2 storey houses with ridges 9.1m to 9.5m high will appear overbearing or unneighbourly when viewed from these adjacent houses on Hill Top Avenue or that on Upton Avenue. Plot HA37 benefits from a detached garage rising 6.55m to the ridge of its pitched roof. At 7m distant this garage would be positioned closer to the rear garden boundary with 4 Hill Top Avenue than the proposed house. Whilst the ridge height of this garage is fairly high, it is considered that given its small footprint 5.9m by 6.1m, its distance from the boundary, the distance from the house to the rear (61m) and the screening afforded by the mature tree planting on the boundary, this building would not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupier.

- These 4 and 5 bed houses would have rear gardens ranging in size from circa 195m2 to 370m2 which exceeds the 100m2 suggested as appropriate by the SPD. On this basis it is considered that the proposed development will provide for a satisfactory level of amenity for the future occupiers.

- Adjacent to the southern boundary with 5 to 13 Upton Avenue, it is proposed to erect 3 detached houses (HA+28, HC32 and HB33). HA+28 at the end of the rear gardens to 5 and 7 Upton Avenue would have accommodation over 3 floors with that in the roof served only by windows in either gable end, neither of which face the houses on Upton Avenue. HC32 and HB33 at the end of the gardens to 9 and 11 Upton Avenue would be 2 storeys high. These 3 houses would be positioned 6.5m and 12m from the rear garden boundary with the houses on Upton Avenue thus exceeding the 6m advised by the SPD for 2 storey houses and 9m for 3 storey houses. The elevations of these houses facing Upton Avenue would be positioned between 40.5m and 60m away from the closest rear elevations thus exceeding the 25m for 2 storey houses and 28m for 3 storey houses as advised by the SPD.

- Given this degree of separation and the landscaping on the boundary which will be enhanced, it is not considered that these 2 and 3 storey houses with ridges 9.1m to 9.5m high will appear overbearing or unneighbourly when viewed from these adjacent houses on Upton Avenue.

- Plot HA+28 benefits from a detached garage rising 6.55m to the ridge of its pitched roof. At 1.5m to 3m distant this garage would be positioned closer to the rear garden boundary with 7 Upton Avenue than the proposed house. Whilst the ridge height of this garage is fairly high, it is considered that given its small footprint 5.9m by 6.1m, its distance from the boundary, the distance from this adjacent house (51m) and the screening afforded by the mature tree planting on the boundary, this building would not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupier.

- These 4 and 5 bed houses would have rear gardens ranging in size from circa 105m2 to 176m2 which exceeds the 100m2 suggested as appropriate by the SPD. On this basis it is considered that the proposed development will provide for a satisfactory level of amenity for the future occupiers.

- It is noted that the rear elevation of plot HA+28 to the side elevation of plot HC32 is 12m apart. As HA+28 is effectively a 3 storey house on account of the accommodation in the roofspace, this separation should be 15m to comply with the advice of the SPD. Whilst this does not reflect the generally spacious character of the remainder of the development nor that of the wider locality outside of the application site it is not considered that this relationship will cause serious harm to occupiers of either of these houses. There is also a case to be argued that future occupiers will buy in to this relationship only if they consider it suits their requirements. Noting that this arrangement does not cause harm to any existing occupier and that it forms only a small part of the overall development proposed, it is not considered that a refusal in terms of loss of visual or residential amenity could be justified.

- Within the centre of this part of the site and not adjacent to any boundary with existing properties, it is proposed to erect a pair of 4 bed semi detached dwellings (HF+30 and HF+31) with accommodation in the roof served by dormers to the front elevation together with a detached 5 bed dwelling (HA++29) also with accommodation in the roof served by front dormers. The siting of plot HA++29 relative to its proposed neighbour to the rear (plot HC32) at 15m, meets the advice of the SPD. Plot HF+30 is sited such that to the rear it does not directly face any other proposed house and as such, the siting of this house to the rear will secure an acceptable level of amenity afforded from this house whilst having no adverse impact on its neighbours. To the front, the siting of this plot relative to the front of plot HG7 opposite is only 15m front elevation to front elevation rather than 24m as advised by the SPD. This pinch point is however relieved by plot HF+30 being positioned at an angle to plot HG7 and as such these houses will not directly face each other. On this basis it is not considered that an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the future occupiers of these plots will arise.

- The rear gardens to these 4 and 5 bed houses (plots HA++29, HF+30 and HF+31) will range from circa 100m2 to 162m2. This complies with and exceeds the 100m2 advised by the SPD. As such the occupiers of these houses will benefit from an acceptable level of amenity.

- It is also noted that the front elevation to front elevation distance across the cul de sac proposed to the north east of the site (plots HE1, HB2, HD3, HD4, HB5 and HA6) fails to comply with the advice of 21m set out in the SPD measuring only 13.5m between plots HA6 and HE1 widening to 19.5m between plots HD3 and HD4. As such this cul de sac will have a tighter knit character to it than is perhaps evident in the remainder of the development. Whilst this does not reflect the remainder of the development nor that of the wider locality outside of the application site, it is not considered that this relationship will cause serious harm to occupiers of these houses. Again, there is also a case to be argued that future occupiers will buy in to this relationship only if they consider it suits their requirements. Noting that this arrangement does not cause harm to any existing occupier and that it forms only a small part of the overall development proposed, it is not considered that a refusal in terms of loss of visual or residential amenity could be justified.

- Whilst plot HB5 in this cul de sac has a rear garden circa 120m2 thus exceeding the advice in the SPD for a 100m2 garden, the adjacent plot, HA6 has a smaller rear garden, circa 72m2 in area which fails to comply with the SPD. This is the only house on this side of the development that does not have a rear garden of a size advised as appropriate by the SPD. It is however acknowledged that the garden proposed would still provide the occupiers of this property with usable amenity space and that this plot may be attractive to those who do not wish for a larger garden. Given the scale of the wider development proposed and its general exceedance of the space standards in the SPD, it is considered that this failure to comply with the SPD would not sustain a reason for refusal.

On the basis of the above, it is noted that on the whole, the proposed development complies with and in most instances exceeds the space standards set out in the SPD. As such it is concluded that the proposed development as a whole, will provide for a good standard of amenity and will not cause harm to either existing or future occupiers. Noting that there is a presumption in favour of residential development as engaged by para 11 of the NPPF it is not considered that the limited instances of failure to comply with this guidance as set out above significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development. That being the case the development accords with policies H1, CS8, SIE1 and SIE3 of the Core Strategy together with para 127 of the NPPF.

Highway Impacts Policies SIE1, CS9, T1, T2 and T3 of the Core Strategy seek to ensure that development is delivered in accessible locations and are of a design and layout that are safe to use, consider the needs of the most vulnerable road users following a hierarchical approach, provide sufficient parking and do not have an adverse impact on highway safety or the capacity of the highway network. The NPPF continues this stance advising at para 109 that “development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”

In support of the application, the application includes a Transport Statement (TS), Road Safety Audit with Designers Response and site layout drawings.

The location of the site close to Cheadle Hulme District Centre ensures good connectivity with services and amenities. In addition to this the site is also within reasonable distance of public transport connections and as such it is considered that there will be convenient access to these services from the site.

The highway impact of the proposed development must be considered having regard to the lawful use of the site as a school. Until the school relocated there were 322 pupils attending and circa 60 members. The catchment area for the school was wide with many pupils attending from a 20-mile radius of the site. The application advises that about 80% of pupils and staff travelled to and from the school each day by private car. On this basis, the use generated around 96 staff vehicle movements and in the region of 300 pupil related car trips during the school day utilising where possible the 68 parking spaces on site. This use clearly generated a considerable amount of traffic during the day, with movements concentrating around the start and end of the school day. This baseline and fallback position is material to the consideration of the application.

The detailed comments of the Highway Engineer are noted including reference the automatic traffic counts undertaken over a 24 hour, 7 day period on both Hulme Hall Road and Hill Top Avenue. These show that, as expected, traffic is considerably higher on Hulme Hall Road than it is on Hill Top Avenue. Using the industry standard TRICS database the application demonstrates that the proposed development will generate significantly less vehicle movements not only during the peak periods but generally across the course of the day. On this basis it is concluded that the proposed development will have no material impact upon the operation of the highway in terms of traffic generation. Having regard also to the lack of recorded accident data on the frontages of the site, it is concluded that the development in terms of traffic generation will not have a severe impact on highway capacity or safety.

Both access points are considered of an acceptable design with adequate carriageway, footway facilities and manoeuvring space for visiting vehicles. It is noted that neither road will be offered for adoption; details to ensure that this infrastructure will be constructed and maintained to an acceptable standard in perpetuity can be secured by condition.

The provision of a pedestrian and cycle link between the two elements of the proposed development is welcomed and will enhance the accessibility of the site by providing shortened travel distances for pedestrians and cyclists accessing facilities and services in the area.

The development proposes an appropriate level of refuse and recycling facilities, with bins being collected from the kerbsides for houses and shared facilities in communal areas for the apartments.

Car parking provision accords with the Council’s maximum standards of 2 spaces per dwelling and also includes disabled parking and cycle storage. Minor revisions to the disabled bay proposed for the southerly apartment building can be secured by condition. In addition to this conditions can be imposed to secure the submission, approval and implementation of details relating to the construction, drainage, surfacing, marking and lighting of parking areas along with electric vehicle charging facilities and cycle parking.

On the basis of the above, the proposed development is considered to be in a sustainable location and is of a highway design and layout that will not give rise to unacceptable highway operational or safety conditions. The proposal is thereby in compliance with policies SIE1, CS9, T1, T2 and T3 of the Core Strategy and the requirements of the NPPF.

Other Matters Policies NE1.2 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance of the UDP Review and SIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment of the Core Strategy along with para’s 170 and 175 of the NPPF seek to ensure that proposed development does not adversely affect protected species and secures enhancements for biodiversity.

The site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise. Notwithstanding this, submitted with the application is an ecological survey of the site and buildings to be demolished. This report concludes that whilst there is no evidence of roosting bats, roosting opportunities were observed within the buildings. Dusk emergence surveys did not record bats emerging from the buildings however low level bat foraging and commuting activity was recorded. No potential roosting features were observed in the trees on site. A condition can be imposed to secure compliance with section 4.5 of the ecology report relating to sensitive working methods and the provision of bat boxes throughout the development can also be secured. An informative can also be imposed to make the applicant aware of the legal requirements in the event that protected species are encountered during construction works.

It is acknowledged that there is a suitable habitat for nesting birds throughout the site and a condition can be imposed to ensure that if vegetation clearance is carried out during the nesting season that appropriate measures are put in place first. Bird boxes throughout the development can also be secured by condition.

There is no evidence of or significant potential for any other protected species such as great crested newts or badgers on site. Whilst the presence of fox was recorded, this species is not legally protected. Notwithstanding this measures to ensure no harm can be secured through condition.

Conditions can be imposed to secure the following:- - A repeat protected species survey in the event that demolition has not commenced by March 2021 - External lighting - The containment, control and removal of Japanese knotweed - Enhancements to the landscaping of the site including a mix of locally native species (such as hawthorn, holly, hazel, guelder rose, dog rose) and - Occasional gaps at the base of any proposed fencing (13cm x 13cm) to retain habitat connectivity and allow species such as hedgehog to move through the site.

On this basis the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on protected species and will provide for enhancements to biodiversity in accordance with policies NE1.2 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance of the UDP Review and SIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment of the Core Strategy along with para’s 170 and 175 of the NPPF.

Policies NE1.2 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance of the UDP Review and SIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment of the Core Strategy along with para’s 170 and 175 of the NPPF seek to ensure that proposed development does not adversely affect the natural landscape of the site. The trees throughout the site are legally protected by the Conservation Area Status and Tree Preservation Orders.

Submitted with this application is a full tree survey which provides an accurate record of the trees within and immediately adjacent to the site. Several ‘high’, ‘moderate’ and ‘low quality’ trees will be removed to accommodate the development. These removals which have been discussed in detail with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer, generally have limited amenity value, are mainly internal to the site and their loss will have only modest impacts on the character and appearance of the wider area. The 2 black pine trees towards the north east corner of the site proposed for removal are the only trees of high value; to compensate for their loss it is proposed that semi mature replacement specimens be planted on the public open space where they will be more visually prominent. This together with the general landscaping and replacement tree planting of the site can be secured by condition.

Conditions can also be imposed to secure:- - An increase in the holly/yew planting between the lime trees to fully screen and enhance the frontage planting - Compliance with the root protection plan for retained trees and - Greater details for construction methods with any root protection areas in accordance with British Standards 5837

In conclusion whilst the proposed development will result in tree loss on the site, subject to the protection of the retained trees and an enhanced landscaping scheme, it is not considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact. On this basis the proposal is considered compliant with policies NE1.2 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance of the UDP Review and SIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment of the Core Strategy along with para’s 170 and 175 of the NPPF.

Policy SD3 of the Core Strategy together with para 153 of the NPPF require developments to demonstrate how they will contribute to carbon reductions. To address this issue the application includes an Energy Statement which advises that the applicant “is committed to achieving a carbon reduction of at least 40% over Part L1a 2006, which equates to a 9% reduction in carbon emissions over Part L1a 2013 (the Building Regulations in force at the current time). Due to the lack of a nearby existing or proposed district heating network, the intention is to use renewable technology in the form of Photovoltaic panels to achieve the required carbon reduction for the development.” Enhanced fabric specification will also help achieve these targets.

Compliance with the Energy Statement can be secured by condition as can details of the photovoltaic panels. On this basis the proposed development complies with policy SD-3 of the Core Strategy DPD.

Core Strategy policies EP1.7 and SD6 require developments to demonstrate that no adverse impact will arise in relation to flooding and that development is designed in such a way as to avoid, mitigate or reduce the impacts of climate change. All development will be required to incorporate sustainable drainage systems so as to manage the run off of water from the site. This positioned is supported by the NPPF at para’s 163 and 165.

Submitted with the application is a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy which have been considered by the Lead Local Flood Authority and United Utilities.

The Drainage Strategy confirms that it is proposed to install a new foul drainage system connected to the public sewer network to serve the proposed residential development. In terms of surface water, whilst the primary option for surface water disposal is via infiltration, testing has demonstrated that this will not be a feasible method for the disposal of all run‐off due to the elevated ground water table. The proposed drainage strategy is therefore to provide permeable driveways which will permit infiltration at shallow depths. Runoff generated by proposed buildings, access roads and other areas of hardstanding will be conveyed to the existing culverted watercourse which crosses the south of the site. Discharge to the culvert will be restricted however this restricted flow generates a storage requirement during periods of intense rainfall and therefore a below ground geocellular attenuation tank is proposed which will provide storage for storm events up to and including the 100 year return period plus a 40% allowance for climate change.

The LLFA have considered this Strategy and advise that subject to conditions to secure larger areas of permeable surfacing throughout the site together with the submission, approval and implementation of a detailed surface water drainage scheme prior to the commencement of the development, the proposal complies with policy SD6 of the Core Strategy and para 165 of the NPPF.

The Flood Risk Assessment advises that the site is in an area identified as having a ‘low’ probability of flooding on the Environment Agency Flood Map and is located in Flood Zone 1. As such and in accordance with the NPPF the application should be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

The FRA has reviewed all sources of flood risk to both the proposed development and to existing adjacent properties as a result of the development proposals, including fluvial, tidal, pluvial, groundwater, sewers and flooding from artificial sources. This report demonstrates that the development site is not at significant flood risk nor does it increase flood risk off‐site.

The development is accessible for emergency access and egress during times of extreme flooding as the flood plain does not extend into the area proposed for development. The FRA is considered to be commensurate with the development proposals and in conjunction with the Drainage Strategy for the site, the development can be considered appropriate for Flood Zone 1 in accordance with the NPPF.

On the basis of the above, the proposal addresses the requirements of policy EP1.7 and para 163 of the NPPF.

Policy SIE-3 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 178, 179 and 180 of the NPPF seek to ensure that pollution arising from development is managed and mitigated such that there is no harm to public health or controlled waters. Pollution can arise from ground conditions and air. Submitted with the application is a Contaminated Land Report and a Noise Impact Assessment both of which have been considered by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and the Environment Agency.

In relation Contaminated Land Report advises that:-

- No major instances of contamination have been identified and that subject to appropriate measures in relation to sampling and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to limit contact with the surface soils during such works, there will be no adverse impact.

- A 600mm capping layer of clean topsoil and subsoil within gardens and 450mm within landscaped areas of public open space will provide for a safe environment.

- The results of the ground gas monitoring indicate an Amber 2 gas risk classification for the site. As such appropriate gas protection measures would be required to be incorporated within properties to ensure no adverse impact upon the occupiers of the development from ground gas.

- In order to minimise the volumes of soils being disposed to landfill facilities, it is prudent to consider material management options prior to waste disposal.

- If off-site disposal of excavated soils is unavoidable, the Contractor will be responsible for the appropriate classification of the waste. Assessment of the total soil results with respect to waste classification indicates that generally the Made Ground is classified as not hazardous, with the exception of asbestos impacted Made Ground. The overall mass percentage of asbestos in this sample is below the hazardous waste threshold, however, should this material be removed from site it must be disposed of at a licensed landfill.

The Council’s EHO has considered this report and confirms that subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal is acceptable. The Environment Agency also confirm that subject to conditions (on which they would like to be consulted), the development is acceptable.

The Noise Report assesses the impact of existing noise levels on the occupiers of the proposed development and advises that subject to mitigation measures relating to insulation of external walls and roofs together with appropriately designed glazing and ventilation, that the proposed development will not be adversely affected by existing external noise levels.

The Report also assesses the impact of noise levels from various types of activity associated with car movements in car parks etc on the existing neighbours surrounding the application site. These noise sources include car doors shutting, engine noise and conversations between users of the car parking areas. The report concludes that the addition of the car parking spaces will have negligible effect on the noise climate in the area and that the noise levels would be indistinguishable from the noise levels associated with an individual dwelling having 2 or 3 parking spaces or a private driveway. The report notes that there is no statutory standard applicable to domestic car parking, however, the assessment is based on the comparison of the predicted noise levels with the prevailing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed development. It should also be noted that the addition of 11 cars onto the traffic of the existing road network will also have a negligible effect on the noise levels to the wider area.

The Council’s EHO has considered this report and advises that there will be no adverse impact arising in relation to noise in relation to the existing or future occupiers. Conditions should however be imposed to secure compliance with the mitigation measures proposed to ensure an acceptable internal environment. In addition to this, conditions can be imposed to ensure that mitigation measures are secured to reduce the impacts of the demolition and construction phase of the development. If piling is proposed then details of this, the noise impacts and mitigation measures can be secured by condition.

Taking all the above into account and having regard to the tilted balance in favour of residential development created by para 11 of the NPPF

On this basis the proposed development is considered to be in compliance with policy SIE-3 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 178, 179 and 180 of the NPPF.

Policies H1 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 117 and 127 of the NPPF seek to ensure that developments create safe living conditions. The applicant is required to include a Crime Impact Statement (CIS) with the application. This report is compiled by GMP Design for Security who then offer their comments on the proposals in this respect once the application is submitted. The CIS advises that:-

“The site is located in a neighbourhood with a low volume of reported crime, although the burglary rate does raise some concerns. However, the development is well laid out from a crime prevention perspective and the mix of housing appropriate; as a result, there are few recommendations to improve the scheme. These recommendations are generally related to controlling access into the dwellings and the surrounding grounds and gardens. That said, there is scope to improve the location and design of the refuse stores to the apartment buildings and to include for cycle parking provision, but overall we are happy to support the proposals.

At the planning application stage, Greater Manchester Police Design for Security will make representations to Stockport Council to require the inclusion of a condition requiring the completed development to achieve Secured by Design accreditation. Should the recommendations included in this report be adopted, I have every confidence that the scheme will achieve the award and the conditions met.”

In responding to the application, GMP advise that they have no objection to the application subject to compliance with the CIS. Members are advised that since the CIS was drafted, the proposals have been amended such that the refuse storage for the larger apartment building is no longer positioned in the narrow area between it and the northern boundary but has been relocated to a more prominent position within the car park to the rear. Cycle parking is also annotated on the site layout for the apartments and can be secured by condition. It is considered that this addresses the criticism of the CIS and indeed is reflected in the lack of objection now received from GMP.

On this basis, the proposed development by reason of its design and layout will minimise the opportunity for criminal behaviour and as such accords with policies H1 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 117 and 127 of the NPPF.

In terms of objections raised which have not been addressed above, Members are advised as follows:-

- There is no policy objection to the provision of apartments in this location nor at present is there anywhere in the Borough. Policy requires that efficient use be made of urban land and at a time when the Council is in a continued position of housing undersupply and is in need of all sizes of dwellings, the provision of apartments is welcomed. Balanced against this is the need to ensure that the development in terms of its physical presence reflects the character of the locality and enhances the Conservation Area. Notwithstanding these requirements, it is noted that there are apartments at the junction of Hulme Hall Road and Claremont Road as well as on Hill Top Avenue (at Hollybank Court). As such whilst single dwellings may be predominant in the area, there are examples of flatted development as well. - Any noise arising from the occupation of the dwellings would not exceed normal domestic levels and as such would not cause a loss of residential amenity. It is also expected that the proposed development is most likely to result in less noise and disturbance than was associated with that arising from the school. On this basis there is no justification for acoustic fencing between the proposed development and existing residential properties. Additional tree planting and landscaping is proposed along the boundaries of the site as well as throughout it which will help reduce the impacts of the proposed development upon the existing neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise and other air pollution. - The pedestrian link is routed through the centre of the site and other than users of this route accessing it to and from Hill Top Avenue, pedestrians and cyclists will not be passing by boundaries with existing properties. Even accepting that the access from Hill Top Avenue will be used by pedestrians and cyclists, it is not considered that such use will give rise to conditions harmful to amenities of the existing properties to either side given that its lawful use is in connection with a school and was used on school days by staff, pupils and visitors. Policies in the Core Strategy and NPPF seek to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) are put first and that opportunities are taken to enhance the pedestrian network. The proposed development achieves this without harm to residential amenity. - The application site is not located within an Air Quality area as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. As such there is no requirement for the development to include measures to reduce emissions from vehicles. - The application cannot be used as an opportunity to address existing problems such as speeding vehicles on Hulme Hall Road. If there is an existing problem with speeding traffic then measures to curb this should be considered outside the determination of this application. Off site traffic measures can only be secured to mitigate against harm arising from the proposed development. The proposed development is not likely to give rise to vehicles speeding on Hulme Hall Road nor are the existing traffic speeds considered so great that vehicles entering and exiting the development will result in harm to safety of those already using Hulme Hall Road. On this basis such measures cannot be secured. - The Road Safety Audit is not required to include unrecorded accidents. As such accidents are unrecorded data from them clearly cannot be collated. Unrecorded accidents by their nature (and lack of recording) tend to be less serious than those which are recorded. - The existing access onto Hill Top Avenue is already capable of use by vehicles and has been used as such in connection with the lawful use of the site with parking occurring on the hardsurfaced areas to the rear of these properties. Its use by residential traffic on the scale proposed will not give rise to disturbance, noting the historic and lawful use of the site that is harmful to the amenities enjoyed by the neighbours to either side. - It has been suggested that the development be restricted to Use Class C3(a) residential accommodation only. Members are advised that Use Class C3 is split into 3 subsections. C3(a) covers use by a single person or a family, an employer and certain domestic employees, a carer and the person receiving the care and a foster parent and foster child. C3(b) covers up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care and C3(c) allows for groups of people (up to six) who may not be related living together as a single household (such as a household with lodgers). It is not considered that the occupation of the development in any of these circumstances would give rise to conditions that would necessitate the restriction of the development. Certainly there are no other known residential developments that have been subject to such a restriction. On this basis, the restriction of the use is considered unnecessary and unreasonable. - There is no policy requirement for the apartments to be restricted to those aged over 55 only and the lack of such a restriction would not prohibit such occupation either. - There is no policy requirement that the proposed development should make provision for additional school places. - In terms of the security of existing occupiers surrounding the site, the only properties that would have a boundary exposed to public use unrestricted by gates (beyond those already existing) would be 2 and 4 Barrington Avenue and 1, 3 and 5 Upton Avenue whose rear garden boundaries would adjoin the parking areas to the apartment buildings. The side boundary of 2a and 4 Hill Top Avenue already forms a boundary to the open vehicle access onto Hill Top Avenue. Whilst this access is currently gated, when the school were in operation the gates were open for periods to allow access to the parking areas adjacent to the pitches thus also opening up access to these boundaries. Members are advised that the CIS is required to relate only to the proposed development and as such the application is not required to propose measures to ensure the security of existing occupiers. That aside, it is noted that the existing boundaries to all of these properties appear to comprise fencing circa 1.8m high or landscaping to such a density that would deter unlawful access. Further details of how the site within and along the existing boundaries will be enclosed can be secured by condition. - Agreement as to the precise location of the boundary around the site taking into account the existing areas of ‘no man’s land’ is a matter for the applicant to resolve outside of the planning process. - The issue of access by neighbours along to the route onto Hill Top Avenue is a private matter between them and the developer/landowner.

Conclusions The proposed redevelopment of this site will result in the loss of a community facility, Local Open Space (LOS) and a sports pitch. The loss of the community has been justified through the demonstrating of exceptional circumstances and as such this aspect of the development is compliant with UDP Review policy CTF1.1. The applicant has sought to justify the loss of the LOS and sports pitch through the limited value of the LOS and enhancement of sporting provision at the school’s new site in Davenport. Whilst it is acknowledged that the LOS has limited value, it does however make a contribution to the general well being of the community. As the site to which the school have relocated was already used as a school, in terms of sporting facilities it does not provide for adequate compensation for that lost. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies UOS1.3, CTF1.4 and L1.1 of the UDP Review and para 97 of the NPPF.

Balanced against this it is acknowledged that the provision of residential accommodation on this brownfield site accords with policies CS4 and H2 of the Core Strategy and para 118 of the NPPF. Having regard to the floorspace of the development to be demolished and that proposed, in accordance with para 63 of the NPPF there is no requirement for affordable housing as set out in Core Strategy policy H3. Whilst acknowledging that policies seek to secure the efficient use of urban land and higher density developments on brownfield sites in locations close to Centres, having regard to the legal duty to ensure that development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the density proposed is acceptable. Notwithstanding the conflict with Core Strategy policy CS3, the development accords with para’s 63, 118, 122 and 123 of the NPPF.

Compliance with policy L1.2 of the UDP Review and SIE-2 of the Core Strategy in terms of the provision of children’s play and formal recreation can be ensured by way of a commuted sum payment secured by a S106 agreement.

The proposed development is considered to improve the condition and appearance of the site and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area together with the setting of designated and non designated heritage assets. On this basis the proposal is compliant with policy HC1.3 of the UDP Review, Core Strategy policy SIE3, policies contained within chapter 16 of the NPPF, and the duty under S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area. Equally it is considered that the proposed development will enhance the visual amenities of the locality and thus is complaint with policies H1, CS8 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 124, 127 and 130 of the NPPF.

The proposed development generally exceeds the space standards set out in the Council’s SPD ‘Design of Residential Development’ in terms of separation distances and garden sizes. This is particularly the case in terms of the apartments and the houses around the boundaries of the site where adjacent to existing properties. The instances where the guidance is not met are limited to plots within the site which do not adjoin existing properties and not considered likely to cause harm to the amenities of future occupiers. The proposed development will not give rise to noise or air pollution harmful to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The development therefore accords with policies H1, CS8, SIE1 and SIE3 of the Core Strategy DPD together with para 127 of the NPPF.

The proposed development is sited in a location close to services and is accessible by public transport. Traffic generation will be significantly less than that arising from the lawful use of the site as a school and will not give rise to conditions harmful to highway safety. The layout is of an acceptable design, will be safe and practical to use. Parking is provided in full accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. The proposed development is thereby in compliance with policies SIE1, CS9, T1, T2 and T3 of the Core Strategy and para 108 of the NPPF.

The site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise. There is no evidence of any protected species on the site other than low level bat foraging and commuting activity, which the proposed development will not restrict. Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on protected species and will provide for enhancements to biodiversity in accordance with policies NE1.2 of the UDP Review, SIE3 of the Core Strategy and para’s 170 and 175 of the NPPF.

The trees on the site are legally protected by the Conservation Area status and Tree Preservation Orders. Whilst trees are to be removed to facilitate the development, replacement planting and enhanced landscaping will provide compensation for this loss. Subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the development will not have an unacceptable impact on the landscaping of the site. On this basis the proposed development is compliant with policies NE1.2 of the UDP Review and SIE3 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 170 and 175 of the NPPF.

The Energy Statement submitted with the application addresses the requirements of Core Strategy policy SD3 together with para 153 of the NPPF.

The site is note located within a designated area liable to flood having regard to the advice of the Environment Agency. The Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy address the requirements of policy EP1.7 of the UDP Review, policy SD6 of the Core Strategy and para’s 163 and 165 of the NPPF.

The Contaminated Land Report and Noise Report address the requirements of Core Strategy policy SIE3 and para’s 178, 179 and 180 of the NPPF. Subject to the imposition of conditions the redevelopment of the site will not give rise to conditions harmful to health or amenity.

Policies H1 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy together with para’s 117 and 127 of the NPPF seek to ensure that developments create safe living conditions. The Crime Impact Statement submitted with the application addresses this policy position. By reason of its design and layout the proposed development will therefore minimise the potential for criminal activity.

Having regard to the tilted balance in favour of the residential development of this site as set out at para 11 of the NPPF, Members are advised that the application of policies that protect areas of importance (the heritage assets) do not provide a clear reason for refusing planning permission. Furthermore, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission in terms of the loss of the LOS and sports pitch and the limited instances of non compliance with the guidance set out in the SPD ‘Design of Residential Development’ do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits arising when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. As such in accordance with para 11 of the NPPF the application should be approved subject to the conditions referenced in this report together with others considered reasonable and necessary, and subject to a S106 agreement to secure compliance with policy L1.2 of the UDP Review and SIE2 of the Core Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND S106 AGREEMENT