Public Document Pack

Resources Directorate David Wilcock Assistant Director (Legal, Governance & Workforce)

Governance & Committee Services Floor 2, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU

Phone: 01706 647474 Website: www.rochdale.gov.uk To: All Members of the Rochdale Township Enquiries to: Shahada Shahid Planning Sub-Committee Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01706 924713 Date: 19th September 2016 Dear Councillor

Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee

You are requested to attend the meeting of the Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee to be held in Training and Conference Suite, First Floor, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU on Tuesday, 27th September 2016 commencing at 6.15 pm.

The agenda and supporting papers are attached.

If you require advice on any agenda item involving a possible Declaration of Interest which could affect your right to speak and/or vote, please refer to the Code of Conduct or contact the Monitoring Officer or staff in the Governance and Committee Services Team at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

Site visits have been arranged as follows:- (14:30 Meet staff entrance N1R) 14:40 The Klondike, Chichester Street 14:55 45 Tweedale Street 16/00947/VRCON 15:10 Land adjacent 115 Shaw Road - 16/00355 (BS) 15:35 Rochdale Rugby Club - 16/00691/FUL (JN) 15:50 Meadow View - 16/00706/FUL (DA) 16:10 12 Forest View - 16/00672/HOUS (MAS)

Yours Faithfully

David Wilcock Assistant Director (Legal, Governance & Workforce)

Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee Membership 2016/17 Councillor Iftikhar Ahmed Councillor Surinder Biant Councillor Allen Brett Councillor Ian Duckworth Councillor James Gartside Councillor Jane Howard Councillor Daniel Meredith Councillor Aasim Rashid Councillor Billy Sheerin Councillor Shah Wazir Rochdale Borough Council

ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 27th September 2016 at 6.15 pm

Training and Conference Suite, First Floor, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU

A G E N D A

Apologies for Absence 1. Declarations of Interest 1 - 3 Members must indicate at this stage any items on the agenda in which they must declare an interest. Members must verbally give notice of their interest at the meeting and complete the form attached with this agenda.

Members are also advised to take advice with regard to any matter where there is potential bias or predetermination in any business to be considered at the meeting and whether they should take part in decision making at the meeting.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's adopted Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any discloseable pecuniary interest; personal interest and/or prejudicial interest required of them and, in the case of any discloseable pecuniary interest or prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item, unless permitted otherwise within the Code of Conduct. 2. Minutes 4 - 5 3. Rochdale Township Planning Committee reports 6 - 124 4. Planning Appeals i) Notification that the following appeals have been lodged

 None

ii) Notification that the following appeals have been dismissed

 15/01305/HOUS – 83 Heights Avenue - Two storey rear extension front dormer extension front porch (part- retrospective) - Part Allowed/Part Dismissed (Healey Ward) – Township Decision

ii) Notification that the following appeals have been allowed

 16/00189/HOUS – 2 Phoenix Street, Rochdale - First floor side extension - resubmission 15/00766/HOUS (Spotland and Falinge Ward) – Delegated Decision

Agenda Item 1

Page 1 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON 25TH JULY 2012, MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO DECLARE DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS, PERSONAL INTERESTS AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS (LISTED ON THEIR REGISTER OF INTERESTS).

MEMBERS SHOULD REFER TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND/OR THE MONITORING OFFICER AND/OR THEIR DECLARATION FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE

MEETING AND DATE Indicate either Nature of Interest  Discloseable Pecuniary Interest OR …………………………….  Personal Interest OR  Personal and Prejudicial interest Agenda item Page 2 Page

Signed………………………………………………………………………………………… Please print name…………………………………………………………………………………………..

IF A MEMBER HAS A DISCLOSEABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED ON THEIR REGISTER SUBMISSION, THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO UPDATE THEIR REGISTER ENTRY WITHIN 28 DAYS. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTIFICATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

THIS FORM, INCLUDING ‘NIL’ ENTRIES, MUST BE GIVEN TO THE GOVERNANCE AND COMMITTEE OFFICER NO LATER THAN AT THE END OF THE MEETING Summary of discloseable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests.

Disclosable pecuniary interests A ‘disclosable pecuniary interest’ is an interest of yourself, or of your partner if you are aware of your partner's interest, within the descriptions set out in the table below. "Partner" means a spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom you are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom you are living as if you are civil partners.

Subject Description Employment, office, Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit trade, profession or or gain vocation Sponsorship Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the Council) made or provided within the 12 month period prior to notification of the interest in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. Contracts Any contract made between you or your partner (or a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest) and the Council - (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed: and (b) which has not been fully discharged. Land Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Licences Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the Borough for a month or longer. Corporate Tenancies Any tenancy where (to your knowledge) - (a) the landlord is the Council: and (b) the tenant is a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest. Securities Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where - (a) that body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the Borough; and (b) either – (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or (ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.

Personal Interests You have a personal interest in any business of the authority where it relates to or is likely to affect - (a) any body of which you are in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by your authority; (b) any body - (i) exercising functions of a public nature; (ii) directed to charitable purposes; or (iii) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party or trade union), of which you are in a position of general control or management; (c) the interests of any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25.

Prejudicial Interests Where you have a personal interest you also have a prejudicial interest in that business where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest and where that business - (a) Affects your financial position or the financial position of a person or body described above; or (b) Relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any person or body described above.

MEMBERS ARE ADVISED TO REFER TO THE FULL DESCRIPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED ON 25TH JULY 2012. Page 3 Agenda Item 2

ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Tuesday, 30th August 2016

PRESENT: Councillor Billy Sheerin (Chair); Councillors Surinder Biant, Brett, Duckworth, James Gartside, Howard, Meredith and Rashid

OFFICERS: J Groves (Economy Directorate) and S Shahid (Resources Directorate).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Zaheer.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillor Iftikhar Ahmed

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 20 There were no declarations of interest.

MINUTES 21 DECIDED – that the Minutes of the meeting of Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee held on 2nd August 2016 be approved as a correct record.

CHANGE OF USE OF A DWELLING, INSERTION OF GLAZED ELEMENTS AND ERECTION OF A REAR LEAN-TO EXTENSION AT MOUNT COTTAGE, SHAWCLOUGH ROAD, ROCHDALE. 22 The Director of Economy presented a report detailing planning application 15/00924/FUL which was for a change of use of a dwelling into two separate dwellings (resubmission14/01344/FUL), insertion of glazed elements into the existing ground floor and the erection of rear lean-to extension at Mount Cottage, Shawclough Road, Rochdale, OL12 7HR.

In introducing the report, the Planning Officer referred to the site visit undertaken by members of the Sub-Committee.

Further to the submitted report the Director advised that an additional condition be introduced to ensure any additional construction to separate the two dwellings is the subject of consideration by the Local Planning Officer.

The applicant was not in attendance at the meeting.

No objectors were present at the meeting.

DECIDED – that (1) the Planning and Licensing Committee be informed that this Sub-Committee would be minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as detailed in the submitted report. (2) an additional condition be introduced to ensure any additional construction to separate the two dwellings is the subject of consideration by the Local Planning Officer.

CHANGE OF USE OF A DWELLING, INSERTION OF GLAZED ELEMENTS AND ERECTION OF A REAR LEAN-TO EXTENSION, BLOCKING UP OF FIVE INTERNAL DOORWAYS, INSERTION OF NEW INTERNAL STAIRCASE AND

Page 4 NEW STUD PARTITIONING AT MOUNT COTTAGE, SHAWCLOUGH ROAD, ROCHDALE. 23 The Director of Economy presented a report detailing planning application 15/00924/FUL which was for a change of use of a dwelling into two separate dwellings (resubmission14/01344/FUL), insertion of glazed elements into the existing ground floor, the erection of rear lean-to extension, blocking up of five internal doorways, insertion of new internal staircase and new stud partitioning at Mount Cottage, Shawclough Road, Rochdale, OL12 7HR.

In introducing the report, the Director referred to the site visit undertaken by members of the Sub-Committee.

Further to the submitted report the Director advised that an additional condition be introduced to ensure any additional construction to separate the two dwellings is the subject of consideration by the Local Planning Officer.

The applicant was not in attendance at the meeting.

No objectors were present at the meeting.

DECIDED – That (1) the Planning and Licensing Committee be informed that this Sub-Committee would be minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as detailed in the submitted report; (2) an additional condition be introduced to ensure any additional construction to separate the two dwellings is the subject of consideration by the Local Planning Officer.

APPLICATION TO FELL T6 LIME TREET WITHIN TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 23 AT RYEFIELDS, BURY ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL11 4AU 24 The Director of Economy reported on submitted planning application 16/00651/WTTPO to request permission to fell one Lime Tree within Preservation Order No 23 at Ryefields, Bury Road, Rochdale, OL11 4AU.

The applicant was not in attendance at the meeting.

Members requested that the applicant be asked to provide an independent report detailing the condition of the tree and the risk(s) it represents.

DECIDED – That (1) the applicant be asked to provide an independent report detailing the condition of the tree and the risk(s) it represents; (2) the Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair be authorised to make the final determination of the application upon receipt of the required information.

PLANNING APPEALS 25 The Director of Economy presented a report which detailed current planning appeals in the Township.

DECIDED – That the report be noted.

Page 5 Agenda Item 3

Subject: Submitted Planning Applications Status: For Publication

Report to: Rochdale Township Planning Date: 27 September 2016 ^DS,DATEACTCOM.DCAPPL,21; Committee

Report of: Director of Economy and Environment

Author: See individual agenda reports

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide recommendations to the Committee on planning applications or related consents submitted to the Council and requiring the consideration and/or determination of the Committee in accordance with the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation.

1.2 To provide information on any other planning or development related matters which may affect the work of the Committee.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Recommendations in respect of individual planning applications are as detailed in the following papers.

3. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The submitted applications on this agenda are to be determined in accordance with the provisions of relevant legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Planning and Compensation Act 1991, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Act 2008, Localism Act 2011 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 together with any Directions and Regulations which support that legislation.

3.2 Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where relevant, any such material considerations will be referred to in the report.

The Development Plan

3.3 All planning applications referred to in this report have been assessed against the relevant policies and proposals of the development plan for the Borough (currently the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan 2006) and any Supplementary Planning Documents or Guidance adopted by the Council.

Page 6 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3.4 In addition, in assessing the submitted planning applications, there is a requirement to have regard to relevant national policies as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the policies of which are a material consideration. Where relevant, the provisions of the NPPF and any other relevant national guidance will be referred to in the report.

4. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters. Members and Officers are required to have full regard to the Code in discharging their responsibilities and duties in relation to planning matters on behalf of the Council. The Code seeks to ensure that all decision making is governed by an open and transparent process and represents a standard against which the conduct of Officers and Member sitting on the Committee will be judged.

4.2 A Declaration of Member Interests Register is taken prior to the commencement of the Committee meeting. Advice on whether any Member sitting on the Committee ought to declare any interest on any item on the submitted agenda should be obtained from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services or the Head of Planning.

4.3 The Council’s Standards Committee will monitor the operation of this Code of Conduct.

5. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

5.1 The above Acts require Local Planning Authorities to consider planning applications on their individual merits having regard to the development plan and other material planning considerations.

5.2 The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics which are known as protected characteristics. These protected characteristics are Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage or Civil Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex (Gender), Sexual Orientation, socio-economic status and Carer.

5.3 In applying the Equality Act 2010, the Council is required to consider the effects of its decisions on different groups protected from discrimination, including a duty to make reasonable adjustments. In taking account of all material planning considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, the Director (Economy and Environment) has concluded all opportunities to promote equality through the planning process have been taken, or where adjustments cannot be made, these are justified on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal.

5.4 The Rochdale and District Disabled Access Working Group may comment on relevant planning applications. Where comments are received, these will be included within the reported to Committee. Consideration is given in designing access when dealing with the planning applications. Where applicable, any issues relating to these matters or other equal opportunity matters will be referred to in individual planning application reports.

6. Human Rights Act 1998 considerations

6.1 The submitted applications need to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applications (and those third parties, including

Page 7 local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments.

6.2 Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 confer(s) a right of respect or a person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Director (Economy and Environment) has concluded that some rights conferred by these Articles on the applicant(s)/objectors/residents and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

Background Papers

The background papers relevant to the planning applications to be considered on this agenda will include:-

1. The Planning application file and its contents which will include:

i) The planning application form and supporting information, together with scaled drawings/plans and relevant statutory certificates. ii) Letters of response from statutory and other consultees who may have been consulted or commented on the planning application iii) Letters and documents received from interested parties. iv) Notes of telephone conversations, meetings and any information received and of relevance to the submitted proposal

2. For any previous planning application referred to in the agenda report or in the application file, the planning application forms and the decision on that proposal

3. Such other papers (if any) received after the preparation of individual reports on planning applications on this agenda (to be reported verbally at the meeting).

4. Any other guidance or procedural documents adopted by the Council and of relevance to the recommendation and/or determination of any submitted planning applications or related consents

For further information about this report, or if you wish to see any background papers please contact: Sharon Hill, Senior Business Support Officer, in Economy and Environment, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU

Telephone (01706) 924305 or via the online planning services at: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/planning

Page 8 Application Number: 15/01261/FUL Ward: Kingsway

Proposal: Erection of four industrial units (Use Class B2) and external works including storage area, parking and additional fencing

Site Address: The Klondike Chichester Street Rochdale

Applicant: Mr Peter Cordwell PGC Ltd

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

DELEGATION SCHEME

The application has been brought to the Committee because, in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, 19 letters of objection have been received, and the Officer recommendation is for approval. The Committee has delegated powers to approve or refuse the application.

SITE

The Klondike is a large industrial site which lies at the end of Chichester Street in Rochdale. Access to the site is provided from this highway. The site is located in a Mixed Employment Zone, as designated by the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

Page 9 The immediate area is a mix of industrial, business and residential uses. Chichester Street includes a variety of industrial and business uses, and a Council operated waste and recycling centre is located to the west of the site.

A large warehouse building, Gaps House, is located to the far north of the site. The present use of approximately two-thirds of Gaps House is warehousing in association with a haulage transport business, Graham Poole Road Transport Limited, operating from the site. The remaining third of the building is used for vehicle repairs and maintenance also by Graham Poole but under a different trading name.

To the east and south east of the site are located office buildings and industrial buildings. The office buildings are largely vacant at present, and the industrial building is used for vehicle recovery, repairs and maintenance.

The north and south parts of the site are located on varying levels. A concrete access ramp provides vehicular access between the two parts of the site.

The area to the most southerly part of the site, adjacent to the site entrance, was granted a temporary permission in 2015 for 24 hour use in connection with the haulage operation, Graham Poole. For the avoidance of doubt the area currently permitted to operate on a 24 hour basis only relates to that small part of the Klondike site, and does not relate to the wider site which includes Gaps House and the upper yard, or the site of the current application.

Nearest residential properties are located to the north east of the site, beyond an area of public open space, along Newbold Moss, Burchall Field and Eclipse Close, and to the south east of the site beyond the railway line, along Kathan Close.

The land subject of this application is currently vacant. The site did until recently benefit from outline planning permission for six industrial units (ref. 12/55946/OUT), granted by Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee at its meeting of 18 December 2012. This permission has since expired.

The railway line runs to the south east of the site beyond the land subject of this application.

PROPOSAL

This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of an industrial building, and associated external works including the creation of a storage area, parking and access areas, and additional fencing.

Access to the site is to be taken from within the existing Klondike site.

The building is proposed to be sited parallel with and set 2.0m in from the existing concrete panel boundary fence. The building would have a length of 74.1m and a depth of 5.95m.

The building would be divided into four units, all to be utilised as General Industry (Use Class D2). The units would be as follows:  Unit 1 – Ground floor only. 216 square metres area.  Unit 2 – Ground floor – 218 square metres area. First floor – Offices and amenity space.  Unit 3 – Ground floor – 218 square metres area. First floor – Offices and amenity space.  Unit 4 – Ground floor only. 657 square metres area.

The building would have a height to the eaves of 9.52m, and would have a shallow pitched roof, with a maximum height of 10.5m. The building would have a brickwork base, with a

Page 10 Plastisol vertical profiled cladding above, in a ‘Goosewing Grey’ colour. The roof would also consist of the same cladding material and colour.

Access into the units would be taken from the south side of the building. 10 white roller shutter vehicle access doors would be provided to this elevation, with 11 white steel sheet pedestrian access doors. White UPVC windows would serve the ground and first floor areas within Units 2 and 3. An additional vehicle roller shutter door is proposed to the gable elevation. No fenestration is proposed to the rear (northern) elevation.

Two 25.0m vehicle turning circles are proposed, one to the eastern end of the site adjacent to the railway line and one to the western end of the units. Two parking areas are proposed - One parking area would accommodate 15 car parking spaces including 1 disabled space, and the other would accommodate 10 car parking spaces including 1 disabled space (total of 25 including two disabled spaces).

The area would be secured with a 2.0m high galvanised palisade fence and gates, running along the line of an existing fence line, and a 3.0m high boundary fence is proposed. An acoustic fence, also of 3.0m in height, is proposed to the north side of the building. A landscaping strip would be located beyond this.

A service yard and general storage area is proposed to the western end of the units.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/1 Defined Urban Area

G/EC/1 Employment Land Supply EC/3 Mixed Employment Zones

G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development BE/8 Landscaping in New Development

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control

Page 11 EM/3 Noise and New Development EM/4 Contaminated Land EM/7 Development and Flood Risk EM/8 Protection of Surface and Ground Water

G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/4 Protected Species

Emerging Rochdale Core Strategy:

The following policies of the emerging Rochdale Publication Core Strategy are relevant:-

SO1 To deliver a more prosperous economy SO2 To create successful and healthy communities SO3 To improve design, image and quality of place

SD1 Delivering sustainable development

E2 Increasing jobs and prosperity

P2 Protecting and enhancing character, landscape and heritage P3 Improving design of new development

G6 Enhancing green infrastructure G7 Increasing the value of biodiversity and geodiversity G8 Managing water resources and flood risk G9 Reducing the impact of pollution

T2 Improving accessibility

DM1 General development requirements

Supplementary Planning Documents:

Energy and New Development (SPD)

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

15/00451/VRCON Application to vary condition 3 of planning permission 98/D35033 (relating to permitted hours of trade and business) to allow 24 hour operation on the area hatched in red on the submitted plan – Approved.

12/56023/FUL Retention of part of existing concrete panel fence at reduced height of 3m, including timber cladding to north elevation and removal of existing fence at east and west ends and replacement with 3m high paladin fence. (Resubmission D54820) – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

12/55946/OUT Outline application for the access to and layout and scale of a building to be divided into six industrial units together with six open storage bays for the storage of bulk loose materials – Approved.

11/D54820 Erection Of Concrete Panel Fence Measuring 147 Metres In Length And Between 4.5 Metres And 5.5 Metres In Height On Southern Side Together With Formation Of Earth Embankment And Landscaping To Northern Side (Retrospective) – Refused.

Page 12 10/D53294 Change Of Use Of Land And Buildings From (B2) And Storage (B8) Of Timber Components Manufacturing To The Storage, Processing And Recycling Of Waste, Building And Demolition Materials Including The Siting Of Associated Plant And Machinery- Retrospective – Refused

01/D38705 Erection Of Industrial Buildings (Class B2), Kilns, Canopy To Existing Timber Storage Sheds, Turning Area And Revised Car Parking Layout – Approved

99/D37194 Renewal Of Temporary Planning Permission D24845 To Retain Prefabricated Storage Shed – Grant unconditionally

99/D37195 Renewal Of Temporary Planning Permission D24845 To Retain Prefabricated Storage Shed – Grant unconditionally

98/D35033 Application To Vary Condition No 6 On Approval D24525 Relating To Hours Of Working. – Approved. Appealed (against conditions 2, 3, 7 and 8) – Appeal allowed. 94/D31481 Single Storey And First Floor Extensions To Existing Offices – Approved

93/D29027 Renewal Of Planning Permission (D21937) For Use As A Waste Transfer Station And Skip Hire Operation – Application withdrawn

89/D24525 New Timber Storage buildings - Approved

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Public Protection (Noise/Odours) - This section has no objection in principal to the proposal but would recommend the following conditions:

Planning condition 8, of previous permission Ref: 12/55946/OUT, is carried over. This condition was as follows: Noise from the units shall not exceed 43 dBA Leq 1 hr between 07:00 hours and 23:00 hours and 38dBA 5mins Leq at all other times when measured at the curtilage of any noise sensitive premises. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2, EM/2 and EM/3.

(Original comments on 12/55946) - There are concerns with the application as follows:

1. The western end of the site adjacent to the access to the site will be a position where significant noise is created from vehicle ingress and egress and other activities. It would therefore be beneficial if this area either retains the existing concrete panel fence or has installed a wall/ solid fence to at least 3m high that links to the rear of the proposed buildings and to the existing wooden noise fence that sits on top of the mound on the northern part of the site;

2. The open storage and storage bays are likely to be a significant source of noise that will be poorly controlled by a 3m wall/fence especially if the stock piles are higher that 3m. Environmental Health would therefore object to this use in its present form. If a revision to this proposal is made it should include restrictions on the hours that items can be moved within the area;

3. The easterly turning circle appears to represent an open yard area that has the potential for ad hoc uses close to residential properties unless there is a clear safety need that can not be met elsewhere Environmental Health would object to large vehicle access to this area;

Page 13 4. If the industrial units are to be permitted Environmental Health would request that a condition is attached requiring that noise from the units does not exceed 43 dBA Leq 1 hr between 7.00hrs and 23.00hrs and 38dBA 5mins Leq at all other times at the curtilage of any noise sensitive premises;

5. If the industrial units are to be permitted Environmental Health would request that a condition is attached requiring that no chimneys or extract ducts exit the buildings to the rear of the building ridge.

Hours of operation are conditioned as per the application.

Public Protection (Environment) - Recommend condition for contamination Site Investigation and Assessment prior to commencement.

Design For Security - The proposed development should be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained within section 3.3 of the submitted Crime Impact Statement dated (03/05/2016 – URN: 2016/0035/CIS/01 Version A) and a planning condition should be added to reflect the physical security specifications listed within sections 3 & 4 of the submitted Preliminary Crime Impact Statement. (Please see www.designforsecurity.org/secured-by-design/ or www.securedbydesign.com for more information).

In summary, our support for this application is dependent on the recommendations made within the Crime Impact Statement being incorporated into this proposal.

Carey Robinson - No objections to the landscape proposals.

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

Condition 1 Foul Water

Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

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

Condition 2 Surface Water

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

The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly.

The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

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

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

Page 14 Management and maintenance of Sustainable Drainage Systems

Regardless of the stage in the planning process, we recommend the Local Planning Authority includes a condition in their Decision Notice regarding a management and maintenance regime for Sustainable Drainage Systems. We suggest the following condition should be appropriate for most instances;

Condition 3

Prior to the commencement of the development a sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning authority and agreed in writing. The sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan shall include as a minimum: a. The arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker, or, management and maintenance by a Resident’s Management Company; and b. Arrangements concerning appropriate funding mechanisms for its ongoing maintenance of all elements of the sustainable drainage system (including mechanical components) and will include elements such as ongoing inspections relating to performance and asset condition assessments, operation costs, regular maintenance, remedial woks and irregular maintenance caused by less sustainable limited life assets or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

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

Reason: To manage flooding and pollution and to ensure that a managing body is in place for the sustainable drainage system and there is funding and maintenance mechanism for the lifetime of the development.

We recommend the developer also contacts the Local Planning Authority along with the Lead Local Flood Authority to discuss surface water drainage as they will ultimately be the decision maker on this matter.

Water Comments

We can supply water for domestic purposes, but for larger quantities for example, commercial/industrial we will need further information. The provision of a mains water supply could be expensive. There are no passing mains from which this development can be supplied. Our water mains will need extending to serve any development on this site. The applicant, who may be required to pay a capital contribution, will need to sign an Agreement under Sections 41, 42 & 43 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The applicant may have to privately negotiate an easement for the new service supply to the property. The applicant must undertake a complete soil survey, as and when land proposals have progressed to a scheme design i.e. development, and results submitted along with an application for water. This will aid in our design of future pipework and materials to eliminate the risk of contamination to the local water supply. A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999. Should this planning application be approved, the applicant should contact United Utilities on 03456 723 723 regarding connection to the water mains or public sewers.

General comments It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. United Utilities offers a fully supported

Page 15 mapping service and we recommend the applicant contact our Property Searches Team on 03707 510101 to obtain maps of the site. Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

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

Site drainage In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way. The NPPG clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. We would ask the developer to consider the following drainage options in the following order of priority: 1. into the ground (infiltration); 2. to a surface water body; 3. to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; 4. to a combined sewer. The comments made in this letter regarding site drainage reflect this approach.

Environment Agency - We have no objection in principle to the proposed development, but would wish to make the following comments.

We do not appear to have received any information to demonstrate that the risks to controlled waters are acceptable. Our records show the site and surrounding land are potentially on contaminated historic landfills, which may contain inert, industrial, commercial, household, and liquid sludge wastes. For consultations relating to potential land contamination the minimum level of information we require is a preliminary risk assessment as outlined in the document ‘CLR11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’. The document ‘Guiding Principles for Land Contamination’ also outlines the information we need to make an assessment of the risks to controlled waters. Both the ‘CLR11 Model Procedures’ and the ‘Guiding Principles for Land Contamination’ can be found on our website at the following address: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/managing-land-contamination https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/managing-and-reducing-land-contamination

If the planning authority are minded to grant planning permission without the benefit of this information we recommend the following conditions be imposed to ensure that risks to controlled water receptors are appropriately assessed and mitigated:

Condition: 1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses potential contaminants associated with those uses a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to

Page 16 demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Condition No occupation shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.

Condition 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 the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason The site is located above a principal aquifer and located approximately 70m from Barrow Brook. The above conditions will ensure that the risks to the principal aquifer and surface water course are adequately assessed and mitigated.National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).

The proposed development is on the site of two historic landfills. On the 22nd of June 2007 we sent your Authority a CD containing historic landfill data which has all the information we hold on the historic landfill sites within 250m of this development proposal. The applicant should identify any existing surface water drains or other drains within the site which may discharge to a watercourse, and ensure that these are protected from contamination during the demolition and construction phases.

If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably permitted facility. The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. If any waste is to be used onsite, the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us. We are unable to specify what exactly would be required if anything, due to the limited amount of information provided. Excavated material arising from site remediation or land development works can sometimes be classified as waste. For further guidance on how waste is classified, and best practice for its handling, transport, treatment and disposal please see our waste pages at http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/default.aspx

Page 17 If the applicant intends to use the site for the storage, treatment or use of waste, an appropriate Environmental Permit will be required. The applicant should contact the Environment Agency on 03708 506 506 for further details if needed.

Lead Local Flood Authority - No objection to this planning permission. However, check that UU have agreed to connecting this into their system and at the discharge rate required.

Updated comments: Requires confirmation of drainage proposals when completed. This could be conditioned based on proposals of soakaway of UU connection. RMBC will not be adopting new connection. Confirmation would be required to discharge water to existing system.

Highways And Engineering - A development of this size and nature requires 22 dedicated parking spaces to meet standards set in the UDP. The applicant has proposed 25 dedicated parking spaces; therefore Rochdale Borough Councils Highways Service has no objections regarding this proposal. This development will not have a significant negative impact upon road safety. Ample dedicated parking exists therefore on street parking outside the development will not be an issue. The level of traffic this development would generate will not create a significant negative impact upon the existing local highway network. Therefore there would be no capacity issues due to the approval of this development; the surrounding highway network will adequately accommodate vehicles from the development. No new access to the highway will be created by this development. A private refuse strategy is required for a development of this size and nature. This application will not impact upon the highways layout. Highways drainage will not change as a result of this development. No public right of way will be obstructed by this development.

Highways were involved in this site many years ago. We have approved the principle and the layout of the site. We therefore have no objection to these proposals.

(Original Highways comments on 12/55946) - The HGV turning areas are of a sufficient size and will be segregated from pedestrian parking.

The 'Existing Access Road' is more of a dirt track and will not be used as part of this development. There are concerns regarding how pedestrians will access this site some 300m from the adopted highway. It is therefore recommended that a condition is attached to any planning permission granted requiring any subsequent reserved matters application to provide a suitable pedestrian route through the site to the proposed development.

There are no objections to the proposal subject to the recommended condition being attached to any planning permission.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit - The following represents the formal view on the above application;-  The application was not supported by any ecological information and I therefore undertook a site inspection to ascertain if there were any ecological issues that needed addressing prior to the determination of the proposal and/or would require conditions. As already noted in my earlier email, the application site has in the past received permission under application number 12/55946/OUT.  Although the site visit was undertaken at an inappropriate time of year for field surveys, the current condition of the site is such that an accurate picture of the ecological issues can be formed. The site is currently part of a wider area of informal industrial usage which occupies the area to the south (edged blue) and includes the application site (edged red).  The ground has been cleared and much disturbed – probably about 18 - 24 months ago. As such the vegetation is very sparse and has revegetated on bare ground which

Page 18 in some places has had other materials spread on it, and a number of very shallow pools have formed on the compacted substrate. The recolonized vegetation has local value to invertebrates who prefer this kind of substrate, but it only represents an impoverished type of habitat and does not represent the Habitat of Principal Importance – Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (NERC 2006). Such habitats in Greater Manchester can also be suitable for ground nesting birds such as little ringed plover (Schedule 1 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981), ringed plover and lapwing. However, the area is very small and narrow and is likely to be quite disturbed by a number of human and vehicular activities. Therefore, it is considered that the site would be highly unlikely to support any of these ground nesting species.  Circular 06/2005 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (paragraph 99) indicates that ecological surveys should be conducted prior to determination where there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present. It is my opinion that this likelihood is very low and that no further ecological assessment is necessary in this particular instance.  However, it was noted that there is a large stand of Japanese knotweed (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and Environmental Protection Regulations 1991) on the eastern boundary of the site and adjacent to the railway, which extends from the application site to the ‘yards’/open land to the south west. This highly invasive species can cause damage to property and hard standing if left untreated. Additionally, it is an offence to cause it to spread and spoil containing the parts of the plant should be disposed of at a licensed tip. It is noted that stores of tarmac scalping’s/planings were stored close to this plant, whose roots (rhizomes) can spread up to 7m from the growing stems.  We would recommend that any permission if granted is supported by a condition to require the production, agreement and implementation of a control programme for this species. As some areas will be subject to planting of trees under the landscape proposal (DEP Landscape Architects Ltd Planting Plan dwg no 02 dated 04/01/16) the treatment regime should be safe to use near newly planted trees and shrubs.  Although not a matter for this current application, we would strongly advise the agent and owner to extend the treatment and control of Japanese knotweed to other stands of the plant which occur in their ownership (edged blue).  I note the planting specification for the landscaping and concur with the native mix suggested. A suitably worded condition should require its implementation. Planting should occur in areas free of Japanese knotweed infestation, which are free of persistent herbicides.

In summary and conclusion;  The site does not require any further ecological investigations prior to the determination of the current application.  The stand of Japanese knotweed on the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the railway should be controlled by an agreed methodology and implemented via a condition attached to any permission if granted.  The landscape scheme should be subject to an appropriately worded condition

Network Rail - (1) The site plan shows a 3m high paladin fence going around the perimeter which also includes land adjacent to the railway.

(a) As the proposal includes works which may impact on the existing operational railway, a BAPA (Basic Asset Protection Agreement) will need to be agreed between the developer and Network Rail. The developer will be liable for all costs incurred by Network Rail in facilitating this proposal, including any railway site safety costs, possession costs, asset protection costs / presence, site visits, review and agreement of proposal documents and any buried services searches. The BAPA will be in addition to any planning consent. The applicant / developer

Page 19 should liaise directly with Asset Protection to set up the BAPA. [email protected]

(b) The developer is to submit directly to Network Rail a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) for all works to be undertaken within 10m of the operational railway. Network Rail would need to be assured the works on site follow safe methods of working and have taken into consideration any potential impact on Network Rail land and operational railway infrastructure. Review and agreement of the RAMS will be undertaken once a BAPA has been set up between Network Rail and the applicant/developer. The applicant /developer is to submit the RAMs directly to: [email protected]

(c) The developer will need to serve a Party Wall Act 1996 notification on Network Rail for the works adjacent to the railway boundary. The developer should email the notice (and a plan of the proposal site) to: [email protected] The developer will be liable for all costs incurred by Network Rail in facilitating the Party Wall works.

(d) We will need to have details of all excavations and earthworks within 10m of the railway boundary.

(2) There is a turning circle proposed within 10m of railway land. Where a proposal calls for hard standing area, parking of vehicles area, turning circles near the boundary with the operational railway, Network Rail would very strongly recommend the installation of suitable high kerbs or crash barriers (e.g. Armco Safety Barriers). A suitable small earth bund, which could be managed by the applicant, would also be acceptable. This is to prevent vehicles from accidentally driving or rolling onto the railway or damaging lineside fencing.

We would draw the LPA and developer’s attention to the Department of Transport’s, ‘Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles.’ (2003). “The report (Health and Safety Commission, 2002) following the rail incursion at Great Heck in February 2001 recommended that the Department for Transport develop guidance on the application of measures to manage risk where roads meet, cross or run close to railways. This guidance is most relevant to: ■ road bridges over railways; ■ roads running alongside railways; and ■ cul de sacs ending at railways.” In cases like these the developer will need to provide a risk assessment to determine what protection should be given to the railway and its boundary as a result of placing a road and parking spaces adjacent to railway land.

The Road Vehicle Incursion risk (RVI) should be considered by the developer in conjunction with the LPA and the Highways team. A risk assessment will provide a clear framework for any mitigation measures necessary when constructing a proposal that includes vehicle parking spaces and roads adjacent to the railway.

We would request that a condition is included in the planning consent as follows: Details of appropriate vehicle safety protection measures along the boundary with the railway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Network Rail.” Reason: to prevent the design and layout of the road and parking spaces from impacting the adjacent operational railway with accidental vehicle incursion. Network Rail believes that the condition is necessary and appropriate to this development to protect our infrastructure from damage to lineside fencing, or from vehicles accidentally rolling onto the railway and causing a close call.

Page 20 (3) Any drainage of surface water on site must drain away from the direction of the railway and no soakaways are to be installed within 10m of the railway boundary.

GMPTE (Metrolink) - No comments received to date.

GM Fire Service - No comments received to date.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours, and a site notice erected adjacent to the site. 19 letters of objection have been received in total.

The letters were submitted by 10 residential addresses on Burchall Field, Newbold Moss and Newbold Hall Drive (with two letters not including an address); with one letter submitted by the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, Mr Simon Danczuk.

The main points raised in the 9 letters of objection are detailed below. The analysis section of the report will consider those issues raised which are material planning considerations.

 Make clear as to the size and number of units. As there are homes in close proximity and the units will be B2 and B8 storage there could be a variety of businesses using them.  On a full application all areas should be made clear as the issue of potential noise from increase of vehicles needs to be closely examined.  Over past 6 years, local residents have had upheaval over the various planning at this site. This has caused physical and emotional suffering.  Over past years, local residents have experienced loud noises. It is unfair that residents should put up with this again.  As a resident, can already hear current noise. This would cause increased stress and lack of sleep due to noise increase.  The work at this site has affected the structure (brickwork specifically) of a neighbouring residential property.  Although accepted that this is an industrial site, it would increase noise over a wider area, affecting even more residents.  HGVs would run directly behind residents gardens. There are enough noise levels from warehouses already without HGVs running closer to garden areas.  It would be good to develop the site. Unfortunately, internally the area is still an eyesore, and the erection of buildings would add to this. The concrete walls and metal fencing proposed are of a concern.  Hours of operation are a concern, as there was previously disruption late and night and in the early hours of the morning. There was no concern for residents and the Council had to remedy the situation, due to out of hours noise pollution, even early hours during weekends without care for local residents.  There are enough units already on this site, and noise levels will increase even if additional barriers and fencing are utilised.  Odours/smells are also generated on this site, which are unpleasant and unhealthy.  The area was previously quiet and safe, but due to work on this site it has become the opposite.  Metal shipping containers and heavy plant seen on the site, which can be viewed from residential properties.  Residential properties are disrupted by high noise levels, as the existing exterior wall does not extend the perimeter alongside the railway line.  The buildings as proposed are too high. The acoustic aids would make little difference.  Contaminants have been shown to be present within the area, which are historical from when the site was utilised as landfill. Potential problems could therefore occur.

Page 21  The regrade of the land would cause unnecessary disturbances. The openness of the area means noise and environmental issues are problematic.  The application lacks detail.  The erection of four additional B2 units does raise questions over future use. Additional ones are not required, the location near residential properties is not environmentally conductive.

The letter submitted by Rochdale’s Member of Parliament, Mr Simon Danczuk, is set out below:

I write in support of concerned local residents regarding a planning application recently submitted by Mr Cordwell containing proposals to erect four industrial units at the Klondike site.

Firstly, I am concerned about the number of units and the proposed open bay storage areas. In addition, I wish to raise concerns about the two turning circles that have been created and the increased amount of parking that has been requested. Given Mr Cordwell’s previous behaviour, my constituents are worried that he may attempt to mislead planning officers, and elected officials, as to his true intentions for the proposed development.

Secondly, my constituents are concerned about the assertion that a noise report has been completed for the proposed development. I would be grateful if you would write to me and explain how an accurate noise report can be undertaken prior to work being commenced.

Given Mr Cordwell’s past record, I would be grateful if you would take local residents’ concerns into account and consider this letter as a formal objection to Mr Cordwell’s latest proposals.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

ANALYSIS

Background

Timbermet Ltd

In 1990, the Council approved new timber storage buildings at The Klondike site (Application 89/D24525). This application included a condition (No. 6) restricting the movement of timber to, from or within the building other than between 0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1200 hours on Saturdays. It was stated that this was in order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to prevent nuisance arising. This condition applied to the storage buildings, and at that stage there was no restriction on the hours of usage of the wider site.

In 1998, an application was submitted (98/D35033) which proposed a variation to condition 6 of permission 89/D24525 (above). The proposed variation was to allow new hours of working from 0600 to 2300 hours Monday to Friday and 0600 to 1300 hours on Saturdays. The application was approved by the Council in 1999, and included the following conditions relating to hours of working and noise:

 2. The level of noise emitted from any part of the application site shown edged in red on the approved plan (ref. 1966-01), shall not exceed 40 dBA expressed as a 15 minute leq as measured at the boundary or within the curtilage of any noise sensitive building between the hours of (i) 0700 and 0800 hours Monday to Friday and (ii) 1700 and 2130 hours Monday to Friday.

Page 22  3. No work shall take place from the site nor shall the premises be open for any trade or business: (i) before 0700 hours nor after 2130 hours Monday to Friday; (ii) before 0800 hours nor after 1200 hours on Saturdays; (iii) at any time on a Sunday.

 4. Before the work or operations take place from the site during the extended hours hereby approved a 2.50m high acoustic screen fence of a design to be approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected on the eastern boundary of the site in the position indicated with a red line on the approved plan (ref: 1966.01.A) and retained thereafter.

 7. The date of the commencement of the use of the site between the hours of 0700 and 0800, and the hours of 1700 and 2130 Monday to Friday, hereby approved shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced.

 8. The proposed use of the site between the hours of 0700 and 0800, and the hours of 1700 and 2130, Monday to Friday, hereby approved shall cease on or before a date which is six months from the date notified to the Local Planning Authority under Condition 7.

The reasoning for the final condition was to allow the Local Planning Authority an opportunity of ascertaining the impact of the proposed use on the occupiers of residents in the area.

Following the approval of the application, in 2000 the applicant challenged the conditions imposed by the Council, and this appeal was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate. The conditions disputed in this appeal were Nos. 2, 3 and 8, which were related to imposed noise limits, setting revised working hours and restricting permission to a temporary period. During the hearing period, condition 2 was removed from the dispute, so the Planning Inspector then reviewed conditions 3 and 8. The Inspector summarised that the main issues were whether the restrictions on working hours imposed by condition 3 were necessary to control noise from the appeal development affecting nearby residents, particularly in Newbold Moss and Lower Wheat End, situated on higher ground to the east; and whether the limitation of the development to a temporary period by way of condition 8 was reasonable.

The Inspector considered the noise levels recorded on the site at that time, and observed that the noise levels would not exceed guidance if repeated during the night. The Inspector commented:

“Residents have clearly been disturbed by individual noises from the site in the past and understandably fear a worsening of the present situation. They complain that engines, reversing sirens and various other sounds from timber being moved are regularly audible inside their properties”.

The Inspector went on to state:

“The noise studies have shown that, due to their essentially urban location, the nearby residential streets experience relatively high ambient noise levels throughout the early morning and evening periods, partly due to traffic and the regular passage of trains not far away. This background noise would reduce the degree to which individual sounds from the site would be noticed”.

“It therefore appears to me that, if the development were allowed to operate to the extent of the hours proposed in the original application, the overall noise climate of nearby dwellings would be no worse than at present. Condition 3 is therefore not necessary in its present form to protect residents from noise in line with the UDP”.

In addition to the amendments of condition 3 granted by the Planning Inspector, condition 8 was also removed, and so the temporary restriction on the extended working hours was removed.

Page 23 The appeal was allowed, resulting in the removal of conditions 2, 3, 7 and 8. The following new conditions were then applied:

 2. The level of noise emitted from any part of the application site shown edged red on the approved plan (ref. 1966-01), shall not exceed 40 dBA expressed as a fifteen minute Leq as measured at the boundary or within the curtilage of any noise sensitive building between the hours of (i) 0600 and 0800 hours Monday to Friday and (ii) 1700 and 2300 hours Monday to Friday.  3. No work shall take place from the site nor shall the premises be open for any trade or business: (i) before 0600 hours nor after 2300 hours Monday to Friday; (ii) before 0600 hours nor after 1300 hours on Saturdays; (iii) at any time on a Sunday.

As mentioned earlier in the report, the above application approved in 1999, and the subsequent appeal allowed in 2000, were related to the whole of The Klondike site. At this time the site was being utilised for timber manufacturing, processing and storage.

Graham Poole Road Transport Limited

In 2012 the Council understands that the site changed hands and was let to Graham Poole Road Transport Limited, the applicant. This company moved onto the site and commenced haulage operations. This did not in itself require planning permission as Use Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) was considered to be one of the authorised uses of the site given that it had been used for timber storage in accordance with a planning permission. However, Graham Poole was operating from the whole of the site on a 24 hour basis in breach of the condition imposed by the Inspector and therefore an Enforcement Notice was served. The Enforcement Notice was justified as it was considered that activity outside the permitted operating times gave rise to a loss of amenity to the occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

It is important to note that this Enforcement Notice only applied to Gaps House, which is the building located to the north of The Klondike site. The Enforcement Notice did not apply to the remainder of the site.

The above Enforcement Notice was then appealed. This appeal was dismissed in February 2014. The Planning Inspector acknowledged in the appeal report that the Enforcement Notice related only to Gaps House, but importantly did consider activity associated with the use of the building, in particular vehicle movements, which occur in the yard areas alongside the building.

It is considered that the appeal report did consider the hours of operation of this building, in addition to vehicle movements and other activities within the yard area fronting Gaps House. The Planning Inspector noted that “the comings and goings and manouvering of goods vehicles, and activity associated with this are all potential sources of disturbance, especially when this occurs at those times when local residents ought reasonably to be able to enjoy periods of relative peace and quiet in their homes”. The Inspector went on to say that “I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the removal of the condition in question would not have an unacceptably adverse impact upon the living conditions of the local residents”.

It is clear from the appeal decision issued in February 2014 that the Planning Inspector gave great regard to the neighbouring properties located close to the site, particularly those located along Newbold Moss to the north east, as they were closest to the area of the site in question. This is considered to be consistent with the Council’s concerns in regard to this current application, whereby relevant controls on operations and use of the site are recommended, in order to ensure that adequate levels of amenity are retained for nearby residential properties.

Page 24 Injunction

Members may be aware that an injunction has been used to exercise control over unlawful development and use of parts of the wider Klondike site. Whilst this and other enforcement issues provide useful background as to the approach adopted when action has been considered appropriate the grant of planning permission in this case is not inhibited by historic action and does not undermine the requirements of the injunction.

Previous application regarding 24 hour use

Application 16/00581/FUL, regarding the 24 use of part of the site in connection with the haulage operation (Graham Poole Transport Ltd) was approved in 2016. This area of the site is located to the very southern-most part of the site (hatched in red on the previous application), directly adjacent to the Klondike entrance off Chichester Street.

Following an assessment of the site by Officers, it was felt that on balance the use of this part of the site would be appropriate for use through the night, seven days a week. It was considered that the distances from neighbouring properties are significant, and neighbouring amenity would not be significantly harmed by this proposal. It is recognised that local residents can hear noise taking place on the site. However simply hearing noise taking place on an established industrial site is not sufficient for it to be significantly detrimental to residential amenity. That noise must be a nuisance.

It is noted that previous enforcement action had been taken on the site with regards to 24 hour operation, prior to the approval of the above planning application. However, it should be noted that previous enforcement action on a site is not a reason to prevent proposals coming forward which are acceptable on planning grounds.

Principle of Development

The site is located within a Mixed Employment Zone where the principle of employment uses, including General Industry (Use Class B2) are acceptable. Policy EC/3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that:

Within Mixed Employment Zones development and change of use will be permitted for the following employment generating uses [inter alia]:  General Industry (B2)

One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to drive and support economic development. As such Policy EC/3, which is generally permissive of employment generating uses in Mixed Employment Zones is considered to be generally compliant with the NPPF and is not considered to be out of date in this particular context.

The industrial uses currently operating on the site have been established previously. The application does not propose any alterations to the existing uses operating on the site.

It should be noted that an outline application for this use was granted permission in 2012 (12/55946/OUT), in the same location as that proposed under this application. The outline application was not implemented, and no reserved matters applications were received. It has therefore now expired. In light of this, it is considered that the principle of this industrial development has therefore been established previously. There is no material change in circumstances to suggest that the principle of the application would now be unacceptable.

In light of the above, this application is considered to be in accordance with UDP Policy EC/3. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy E2 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Page 25 Design and Street Scene

UDP Policy BE/2 requires that development proposals will be required to demonstrate good design by:  Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure;  Appropriate treatment of open spaces between and around buildings, including the provision of landscaping as an integral part of the development layout;  Providing for safe and convenient access and circulation;  Minimising opportunities for crime against people or property;  Minimising the potential environmental impact of and on the development, including noise, air and water pollution.

The proposed units would have a length of 74.1m and a depth of 5.9m. The units would have a shallow pitched roof, which would measure 10.5m to the ridge and 9.5m to the eaves. The units would include a Plastisol vertical profiled cladding, in a ‘Goosewing Grey’ colour.

The building would be sited at least 45.0m from the nearest residential property, located on Eclipse Close, and would be at least 33.0m from the nearest part of Belfield Lane, which is the closest public vantage point to the site.

It is considered that the height and scale of the proposed units is appropriate for the site, especially considering that a variety of established industrial units are in place within the wider Klondike site, and would continue to be viewed in context alongside the proposed units. The design of the proposed units, with a brick base, grey Plastisol vertical cladding and stainless steel roller shutter and pedestrian access doors, is considered to be an acceptable design for an industrial unit, and is not considered to be wholly different from the adjacent existing industrial units which are established on the site.

It is considered that the scale, height and design of the building proposed is acceptable for this industrial area, especially considering the separation distance to the neighbouring residential properties and public vantage points. It is considered that the proposed building would reflect the character of the immediate industrial site, therefore appearing acceptable with regards to the street scene and surrounding area.

Supporting information submitted with the application outlines provision for a landscaped strip area, to be placed immediately to the northern part of the application site. This would consist of a native screen mix planting and tree/shrubbery. It is considered that this landscaping strip would provide some visual relief and some screening from the proposed acoustic fence, when viewed from the nearby residential properties particularly along Newbold Moss, Burchall Field and Eclipse Close. The Council’s Green Infrastructure Officer has not raised any concerns with regards to the type and species of landscaping measures proposed, and it is therefore considered appropriate to recommend a condition which would ensure the landscaping strip is put in place.

Paladin fencing of 3.0m in height is proposed to secure the site, to be located adjacent to the eastern boundary with Belfield Lane, and the northern boundary adjacent to the proposed acoustic fence. Additional fencing of 2.0m in height is proposed within the site, which would replace the line of fencing surrounding this area of the site, separating the particular area from the wider Klondike site. Limited details of the above mentioned fencing has been submitted, and therefore it is considered appropriate to recommend a condition which would require the agreement of these parts of the proposals prior to their implementation, in order to ensure the acceptability of their design.

Page 26 In light of the above, it is considered that the scale, layout and design of the proposed building is acceptable, and compatible with its surroundings in accordance with the requirements of UDP Policy BE/2 and the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policies P3 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Impact upon surrounding uses

Unitary Development Plan Policy EM/3 relates to noise and new development. Criterion (a) states that development will not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings, or users of open space.

Criteria (j) of UDP policy BE/2 states that development proposals will be required to demonstrate good design by minimising the potential environmental impact of and on the development, including noise, air and water pollution.

The supporting text to Policy EC/3 states that many Mixed Employment Zones are located very close to residential areas and full account has to be taken of the amenity of local residents when assessing proposals for new development. Any development should be appropriate in scale and character to the local area and accommodated without harming local living conditions.

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF refers to preventing existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution. This point is echoed in Paragraph 123 of the NPPF. The UDP policies referred to above are broadly in compliance with the NPPF and are not considered to be out of date in this context.

The application site lies within an estate which is primarily industrial in nature, however which includes many residential properties within the immediate vicinity. A railway line separates the site to the south from Kathan Close, and to the north east of the site is located Newbold Moss, Burchall Field and Eclipse Close. Both of these are built-up residential areas.

It is important to consider in the determination of this application the area of the site to which this proposal relates, and the living conditions of the nearby residential occupiers mentioned above. It should be noted that this planning permission would relate to only the area of the Klondike site in question, as identified on the submitted plans. The existing uses and hours of use established by previous permissions would still be in force on the remainder of the site, including Gaps House and its surrounding yard.

It is recognised that the wider area is largely industrial, and many of the businesses operating in and around The Klondike have been operating in this area for several years, for example a Council-run refuse/recycling centre operates adjacent to the site, and a parcel/postal depot operates 24 hours a day, located along Chichester Street, close to the site.

In addition, the scheme now proposed has previously been approved under an outline application, which reinforces the use of this area for an industrial use. The outline planning application approved in 2012 (12/55946/OUT) proposed a building of the same size and footprint, divided into six units. This permission has now expired – hence the requirement for this new application. The building previously proposed was in exactly the same location as the currently proposed building. It is considered that the previous outline permission for this industrial site has already set a precedent regarding industrial uses and their acceptability within this immediate area. It is important to consider that residential properties are located close to the site, but it is noted that the nature of the area has resulted in industrial uses operating within the area for some time, alongside the residential properties.

The Council’s Environmental Health Service were previously consulted on the proposal, and raised concern over possible disturbance arising from the absence of any solid boundary

Page 27 treatment to the western end of the building; the proposed open storage bays and the turning circle to the east of the proposed building.

In addition to these concerns they recommended that if the application is to be approved then it should be subject to conditions requiring a restriction on the noise emitted from the site and requiring that no chimneys or extract ducts exit the building to the rear of the building ridge. Officers considered that these restrictions are acceptable and still applicable, and therefore recommend appropriate conditions.

With regard to the issue of the western end of the site adjacent to the access to the site being a position where significant noise will be created from vehicle ingress and egress and other activities, it is considered that this can be adequately controlled by condition on any permission. Previously, no solid fence was proposed adjacent to this area of the site, however this proposal includes provision for an acoustic fence to run along the entire northern boundary of the site in question. A condition is therefore recommended which would require further details of the acoustic fence to be agreed with the local planning authority, to be erected prior to occupation of the buildings. It is noted that an existing concrete panel fence at a height of 3.0m, with a paladin fence to the east and west ends, was allowed at appeal in 2012. Clearly, this fence does not have any acoustic properties, and therefore a new fence or additional fence would be required and is therefore recommended.

Previously, Environmental Health Officers did raise concerns that the proposed open storage bays have the potential to be a significant source of noise that will be poorly controlled by a 3.0m acoustic fence especially if the stock piles are higher than the 3.0m fence. It is noted that open storage bays have been removed from the submitted plans, however it is noted that outdoor service yards are still retained. Given those objections and the relevance of this, a condition is recommended that no open storage is to be permitted on the site. This would prevent the proposed service yard being converted to provide open storage.

The final concern raised by Environmental Health relates to the easterly turning circle adjacent to the railway bridge/embankment. Environmental Health previously raised concerns that this could be used as an open yard area that has the potential for ad hoc uses close to residential properties. They object to large vehicles entering this part of the site unless there is a clear safety need that cannot be met elsewhere. As the turning circle is located at the end of the site it is considered that it is necessary to keep it available for turning of vehicles since reversing could pose a safety risk. Officers consider that if a condition is attached to any permission requiring no external storage or parking to take place within the area and for the area to be used solely for turning of vehicles that this will be sufficient to ensure no nuisance arises from this area.

It is also recommended that a condition is attached to any permission controlling the general hours of operation of the site to between 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 and 12:00 on Saturday and at no times on Sunday or Public Holidays. This condition would also cover the areas external to the site including the eastern turning head and the combination of both conditions is considered adequate to ensure amenity is protected. It is considered appropriate to closely restrict this area of the site to daytime operation only, due to the close proximities to surrounding residential properties, given that it is reasonable to expect a degree of peace and quiet during evening hours adjacent to an established industrial site which is heavily utilised throughout the day.

Due to the importance of residential amenity as a material planning consideration, it is considered that, in accordance with Policy EC/3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, proposals would not be supported if they would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings. In addition, Policy BE/2 states that noise pollution should be minimised. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF refers to preventing existing

Page 28 development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution. This point is echoed in Paragraph 123 of the NPPF.

For the above reasons it is considered that the proposal, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions, will comply with the requirements of UDP policies BE/2, EM/2 and EM/3, and the NPPF, and will not result in harm to the amenity of the surrounding area, particularly residential, in terms of noise, air or light pollution. The application is considered to be compliant with Policies P3, P9 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Access, Highways and Parking

Policies A/8, A/9 and A/10 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan are concerned with the impact upon of the proposals upon the highway network, accessibility for vehicles and the provision of parking to support the development. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Access to the site would take place via the existing ‘Klondike’ site which is on Chichester Street. The site would not have its own dedicated access from the public highway and would share the private access through the wider site.

The Council’s Highways Service were previously consulted on the proposal and raised no objections in principle to the proposal. They have indicated that these previous comments would still apply. The vehicle access from Chichester Street is safe and satisfactory as are the proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements within the site.

The Highways Service have commented that they are concerned that pedestrian access to the units would not be safe and satisfactory and have therefore recommended that should permission be granted a condition should be attached to the decision notice requiring a footway to be provided through the existing Klondike site into the application site. In order to comply with the requirements of UDP policies BE/2 and A/3 it is recommended that a condition is attached requiring the footway provision.

In light of the above, it is considered that this proposal would not result in a severe cumulative impact and as such complies with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, in addition to Policies A/8, A/9 and A/10 of the UDP. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Flood Risk and Drainage Implications

Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that “inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding [land within Flood Zones 2 and 3; or land within Flood Zone 1 which has critical drainage problems and which has been notified to the local planning authority by the Environment Agency] should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.

Paragraph 101 of the NPPF refers to the sequential test for the location of development, which aims to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Flood zone 1 is the lowest probability of flooding, with flood zone 3 the highest.

The application site falls within flood zone 1 and is therefore at a low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 or 0.1% annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year). However, the application site does comprise a major development and accordingly the application has been supported by an outline drainage strategy.

The Environment Agency and United Utilities have raised no objections to the proposed

Page 29 development subject to the imposition of conditions which have been included in the recommendation. Therefore, it is considered that in principle adequate measures can be put in place in order to ensure that the development poses no unacceptable risk in terms of flooding (either on the site itself or elsewhere) in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies EM/7 and EM/8 and the policies within the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy G8 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Ecology

The NPPF requires that applications should conserve and enhance biodiversity, valued landscapes, minimise impacts and recognise the benefits of ecosystems. The impacts on nature conservation interests are also protected by separate legislation including the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, which requires Local Authorities to have regard to nature conservation and article 10 of the Habitats Directive, which stresses the importance of natural networks of linked corridors to allow movement of species between suitable habitats, and promote the expansion of biodiversity.

UDP policy NE/2 stipulates that development proposals adversely affecting sites and areas of ecological and geological/geomorphological importance will not be permitted (the Council seeking to protect and enhance them). UDP policy NE/4 seeks to protect species protected by National or European law or its habitat.

GMEU have been consulted on the application, and have stated that no further ecological assessment is necessary in this instance. Conditions are included relating to the implementation of the landscaping scheme as proposed, and the removal of Japanese Knotweed.

Subject to the conditions set out below it is considered that there should be no unacceptable ecological impacts and the development will comply with Policies NE/2 and NE/4 and the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy G7 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Land Contamination and Site Conditions

Paragraph 120 of the NPPF identifies that where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

Paragraph 121 of the NPPF indicates that planning policies and decisions should ensure that: • the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation;

• 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

• adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented.

The Council’s Public Protection Officer has no objection to the application subject to the imposition of a condition requiring further site investigations. The Environment Agency also consider this condition is necessary to protect Barrow Brook. Subject to the imposition of this condition, as detailed below, it is considered that the development complies with Policy EM/4 of the UDP and the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy G9 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Page 30 Impact on Network Rail

The application site is sited adjacent to Network Rail land and an active rail line. Network Rail has raised no objections to the application. A number of conditions have been requested by Network Rail and these will ensure the protection of their asset throughout construction and following this. These conditions are considered to be a reasonable request and are recommended to be included on any approval. In this regard the application would have no impact on the long term safety and operation of the rail line and would ensure the protection of sustainable transport choices, in accordance with policy G/A/1 of the UDP and Chapter 4 of the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Crime and Disorder

A Crime Impact Statement has been submitted with the application. Consultations have been undertaken with Greater Manchester Police’s Design for Security department.

Design for Security have raised no objections to the submitted CIS, and have recommended that the measures included within this document be incorporated into the development. A condition is recommended in this regard.

Energy and new development

The Council’s adopted Energy and New Development SPD requires that new development over 500 square metres must achieve at least a ‘very good’ (or ‘excellent’) energy efficiency BREEAM rating. A relevant condition is therefore recommended.

Summary

The application site is located within a Mixed Employment Zone (MEZ), the boundaries of which are identified on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. Within an MEZ proposals for industrial development are acceptable in principle. The employment generating proposal contributes towards the provision of an adequate supply of employment premises in accordance with UDP policy G/EC/1 (Employment Land Supply) and to the benefit of the economic regeneration of the area. The layout and scale of unit proposed is acceptable having regard to the character of the area and the intervening distance between the units and the nearest residential properties. Subject to compliance with the recommended conditions the proposal will not result in detriment to nearby residents in terms of noise and disturbance. Safe and satisfactory access and parking arrangements are proposed. The flood risk of the site, ecological assessments, contamination assessments and safety adjacent to the active Metrolink line have been considered and subject to compliance with the recommended conditions the proposal will not be at the detriment of these factors. The development therefore complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in that it will deliver economic development in a sustainable location as well as the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies EC/3, A/9, A/10, BE/2, BE/8, EM/3, EM4, EM/7, EM/8 and NE/4, and the relevant emerging Core Strategy policies.

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved, subject to the conditions below.

Page 31 RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 This permission relates to the following plans:-

 Proposed location plan. Drawing No. HC-15264-(60)-SLP1, Rev. B. Amended plan received 11.08.2016.  G.A. Ground floor plan and roof plan. Drawing No. HC-15264-(60)-001, Rev. B. Amended plan received 11.08.2016.  Elevations and section. Drawing No. HC-15264-(60)-002, Rev. A. Amended plan received 11.08.2016.  Proposed site plan. Drawing No. HC-15264-(60)-SLP2, Rev. B. Amended plan received 11.08.2016.  Proposed landscaping strip elevations and plan. Drawing No. HC-15264-(60)-003. Amended plan received 11.08.2016.  Site levels. Drawing No. HC-15264-(60)-SLP3. Amended plan received 11.08.2016.

and the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 3 Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground construction works shall take place until samples and / or full specifications of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy BE/2, Policies DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and the requirements of condition 2 of this permission, within 3 months of development first taking place details of the siting, height, design, materials and finish to be used in the construction of boundary treatments to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved boundary treatments shall be constructed in full accordance with the approved details before the industrial units hereby approved are first occupied and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy BE/2, Policies DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 a) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works

Page 32 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the formation of any banks, terraces or other earthworks, hard surfaced areas and materials, planting plans, specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities), existing plants / trees to be retained and a scheme for the timing / phasing of implementation works.

a) The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for timing / phasing of implementation or within the next planting season following final occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the sooner.

b) Any trees or shrubs planted or retained in accordance with this condition which are removed, uprooted, destroyed, die or become severely damaged or become seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted..

Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development and in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and BE/8, Policies DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 Prior to the commencement of development, notwithstanding any details contained in the application, details of the construction of the units to ensure no transmission of noise through their fabric shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the approved specification and retained as such thereafter unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any alternative.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2, EM/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: This application proposes four industrial use buildings close to surrounding residential properties. It is important to assess the transmission of noise to ensure no undue impact upon surrounding uses.

7 Prior to occupation of any of the units hereby approved a solid acoustic screen shall be erected to the west of the building and the far western boundary of the site. The screen shall be erected in accordance with full details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the position, height, design and materials of the screen. The screen shall be retained at all times when any part of the site is in use for the use permitted by this permission.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2, EM/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8 Before any of the units hereby permitted are first occupied a pedestrian footway shall be provided from Chichester Street to the units in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footway shall be retained and made available at all times when any part of the site is in use for the use permitted by this permission.

Reason: In order to provide for safe and sustainable access to the site in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and A/3, Policy T2 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 33 9 None of the units hereby permitted shall be subdivided or amalgamated unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To allow the Local Planning Authority to exercise full and proper control over the future use of the buildings in the interests of amenity and to prevent nuisance arising to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 Details of any plant machinery and/or odour extraction system to be erected on the units hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before installation. Such details shall include the means of extraction and filtration of any odours, the finish of any external flue(s), noise emission data, manufacturer's operating instructions and a programme of equipment servicing/maintenance. Any plant machinery and/or odour extraction system shall be installed in full accordance with the duly approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to control the siting, appearance and design of any plant machinery and/or odour extraction system in the interests of visual amenity and to prevent nuisance arising to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11 A risk assessment and method statement (RAMS) for the application hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to development first taking place. The RAMS shall consider all works to be undertaken within 10m of the operational railway and shall demonstrate safe methods of working, taking into account any potential impact on Network Rail land and the operational railway. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved RAMS.

Reason: To ensure the protection of transport infrastructure in accordance with Policy A/9 of the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policy T2 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: As any work on the site, including ground works, could have a potential impact on the safety of the operational railway.

12 Prior to the commencement of development, details of appropriate vehicle safety protection measures along the boundary with the railway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the safe operation of the adjoining railway in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and EC/3, Policy T2 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The site is bordered by an active railway line, and these details would ensure the safe operation of this railway line during development.

13 No doors or other shall be inserted within the rear (north facing) elevation of the building or roofspace unless details of any such insertions have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any doors or other openings shall

Page 34 be installed in accordance with the approved details and the terms of any such approval.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14 No noise emanating equipment shall be installed on any part of the building or roofspace unless details of any such equipment, together with details of any necessary noise mitigation measures, have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any equipment shall thereafter be installed in full accordance with the approved details and the terms of any such approval and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to control the siting, appearance and design of any plant machinery and/or odour extraction system in the interests of visual amenity and to prevent nuisance arising to the occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

15 Noise from the units shall not exceed 43 dBA Leq 1 hr between 07:00 hours and 23:00 hours and 38dBA 5mins Leq at all other times when measured at the curtilage of any noise sensitive premises.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2, EM/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

16 Full details of any external lighting to be installed on the building or on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation. Such details shall include its position and height on the building or site and its luminance, angle of installation and any hoods to be fixed to the lights. Only lighting as approved shall be installed on the site in accordance with the terms of any such approval, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any lighting to be installed on the site does not cause a nuisance and is compatible with the area in order to comply with Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

17 Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 2 of this permission and any details shown on the submitted plans or contained within the application no open storage bays shall be created on any part of the site.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2, EM/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

18 There shall be no storage of containers, waste skips, materials, goods, equipment or trailers on any external part of the site. External areas shall be kept clear for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles as shown on the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents, in the interests of visual amenity and pedestrian and road safety, in order to comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2, EM/2, EM/3 and A/9, Policies G9, T2, DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 35 19 The premises shall not be open for trade or business nor any external area of the site accessed before 07:00 hours nor after 18:00 hours Monday to Friday nor before 08:00 hours and 12:00 hours on Saturday, nor at any time on a Sunday or a Public Holiday.

Reason: In order to prevent nuisance arising in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

20 No site preparation, delivery of materials or construction works, other than quiet internal building operations such as plastering and electrical installation, shall take place other than between 0800 and 1800 hours, Monday-Friday and between 0800 hours and noon on Saturday, or at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and prevent nuisance arising in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy EM/3, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

21 Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme of works, which shall include a detailed method statement, for the control and disposal of the invasive plant species, Japanese Knotweed, within the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme of works and method statement shall be implemented in full throughout the course of the development.

Reason: To secure the satisfactory disposal of this invasive species of plant, which under the terms of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, as amended, it is an offence to be caused to spread in the wild, in accordance with the general principles of Unitary Development Plan policy NE/3, Policy G6 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Japanese Knotweed is present on this site. This condition is required to secure the satisfactory disposal of this invasive species of plant, and to prevent its further spread.

22 Prior to commencement of the development an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced and shall have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The report of the findings must include: iv) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination v) an assessment of the potential risks to: o human health, o property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, and service lines and pipes, o adjoining land, o groundwaters and surface waters, o ecological systems, o archeological sites and ancient monuments; vi) where unacceptable risks are identified, an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s)

Page 36 The development shall thereafter be completed in full accordance with the approved recommendations.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies EM/4, EM/8 and BE/2, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

23 The industrial units hereby approved shall not be occupied until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall include a ‘long-term monitoring and maintenance plan’ for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To secure sustainable development, secure a satisfactory system of drainage and to prevent the risk of flooding and pollution of the water environment in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy EM/8, Policy G8 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: As the proposals require ground works and engineering works, these details are required prior to commencement of any building or engineering works on site.

24 No development shall take place until a foul and surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions and inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, foul and surface waters shall be drained on separate systems and the surface water drainage scheme shall accord with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the appropriate disposal of foul and surface waters and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution in accordance with Policies EM/4 and EM/8 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy G8 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Drainage is an early activity in the construction process and it is in the interest of all stakeholders to ensure that an acceptable scheme is agreed before development commences on site.

25 The finishing building hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained within Section 3.3 of the submitted Crime Impact Statement (dated 03/05/2016 - URN: 2016/0035/CIS/01 Version A).

Reason: In order to safeguard security of the site and amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policy P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 37 26 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the industrial units hereby approved shall achieve a 'very good' or 'excellent' Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating or equivalent. Where this BREEAM requirement is achieved, a post construction certificate confirming such an outcome, and detailing the energy supply technology installed within the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the building is first occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where the BREEAM requirement is not achieved, a scheme to offset the impact of the development on the global environment, in accordance with the advice and standards set out in the Council's Supplementary Planning Document, "Energy and New Development" shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the building under construction is first occupied. The approved scheme shall thereafter be fully implemented before any part of the building is first occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials in accordance with Policy EM/13 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the Council's: Energy and New Development Supplementary Planning Document.

Report Author Ben Sandover

______

Page 38 Application Number: 16/00355/FUL Ward: Balderstone And Kirkholt

Proposal: Erection of one pair of semi detached dwellings (resubmission of 15/00128/FUL)

Site Address: Land Adjacent To 115 Shaw Road Rochdale OL16 4SH

Applicant: Mr Richard Hesmondhalgh Hesmaloney

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

DELEGATION SCHEME

The application is presented to the Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee as more than four letters of objection have been received and the recommendation is for approval.

The Committee has delegated authority to refuse the application. If the committee is minded to approve the application, it would be referred to the Planning and Licensing Committee for

Page 39 determination in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, as this decision would be contrary to a previous decision of the Council.

SITE

The application relates to a vegetated parcel of land within the Green Belt that is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO298/14). The site lies between 115 Shaw Road to the east and an area of land that obtained planning permission for the erection of two dwellings in 2014 (14/01169/FUL). Those dwellings are currently being constructed and are substantially complete. There is also a public footpath (ROCFFp44) that runs along the side and rear of the site and this separates the land from the adjacent development site. Beyond the rear boundary are the school playing fields of St Cuthbert’s Roman Catholic High School. To the opposite side of Shaw Road, the land is allocated as Defined Urban Area.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings following the felling of the trees on the site. The dwellings would be identical but handed and they would be set back 2.01 metres from the highway. The properties would then have a depth of 8.0 metres and a width of 5.4 metres (combined width of 10.86m). 5.9m would be provided to the side boundary of the first dwelling, and 5.5m to the side of the second dwelling. A minimum rear garden depth of 5.4 metres is proposed.

From the street, the dwellings would have the appearance of two storey properties with a dual pitched roof and a maximum height of 8.8 metres and eaves height of 5.1 metres. Internally, they would however provide three storeys of accommodation, with habitable rooms proposed within the roof-space.

The properties would be near identical but handed dwellings. In terms of fenestration each would have a triple window to the ground floor front elevation and a single window and triple window to the first floor. Each property would have two roof lights. To the rear of the properties, double French doors are proposed to ground floor as well as a double window. To the first floor there would be a triple window and single window and one further roof light is also proposed. WC and landing windows would be provided to the side elevation of each property to the ground, first and second floor level.

Internally the properties would each provide a hallway, lounge, through kitchen/dining room and WC to the ground floor. To the first floor there would be two bedrooms, a bathroom and landing and to the second floor (in the roof space) there would be a further bedroom.

The drawings indicate that the properties would have a predominantly rendered finish with some stone/brick detailing.

Externally, each property would have a side driveway providing tandem parking for two cars. A small area of curtilage would also be provided to the front of each property, with the main gardens sited to the rear. External boundary treatment is proposed as fencing and landscaping/planting with three replacement trees proposed within each garden area. Two of the trees would be ‘Acer Griseum’ (or paperbark maple) type and one would be ‘Betula Pubescens’ (or downy birch) type.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Page 40 The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in the Green Belt D/5 Infilling at major existing developed sites in the Green Belt D/6 Redevelopment and regeneration of major, existing developed sites in the Green Belt for other purposes

G/H/1 Housing H/3 Residential developments outside allocated areas H/5 Residential Density H/6 Provision of recreational open space in new housing development H/7 Affordable Housing

G/A/1 Accessibility A/2 Accessibility hierarchy A/3 Access for pedestrians and disabled people A4 Access for cyclists A/5 Access for bus services

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/7 Tree Preservation Orders NE/8 Development Affecting Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

Emerging Rochdale Core Strategy:

The following policies of the emerging Rochdale Core Strategy are relevant:-

SO1 To deliver a more prosperous economy SO2 To create successful and healthy communities SO3 To improve design, image and quality of place

SD1 Delivering sustainable development

P2 Protecting and enhancing character, landscape and heritage P3 Improving design of new development

G4 Protecting Green Belt land G6 Enhancing green infrastructure G7 Increasing the value of biodiversity and geodiversity G9 Reducing the impact of pollution

Page 41 T2 Improving accessibility DM1 General development requirements

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Oldham and Rochdale Residential Design Guide SPD Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development SPG Provision of Recreational Open Space in New Housing SPD

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

15/00128/FUL - Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings – Refused, for the following reasons:  The application would result in the loss of trees the subject of TPO 298/14, which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and the street scene. The proposal, by virtue of the loss of the trees, would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the street scene and would result in a net loss of biodiversity. The harm that would arise would not be mitigated by the replacement tree planting, which would make little contribution to the visual amenity of Shaw Road due to their limited visibility. Furthermore, the proximity of the proposed replacement trees to the proposed dwellings would be likely result in pressure to fell the trees due to the limited space available for the trees to be become established. As such, the application would result in significant adverse harm to the character and appearance of the area and the street scene and would result in a net loss of biodiversity, contrary to policies BE/1, BE/2, NE/3, NE/7 and NE/8 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 The proposed dwellings would be provided with private rear gardens only 3.8m in depth, which would provide an inadequate level of amenity for the future occupants of the dwellings. As such, the proposal does not comprise sustainable development and is therefore contrary to policies G/BE/1 and BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ and the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires decisions to always seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants.

Adjacent site: 14/01169/FUL - Erection of two dwellinghouses (Resubmission of 14/00582/FUL) – Approved.

15/01120/AM - Application for minor material amendment to planning permission 14/01169/FUL to raise the ground floor level of one of the proposed dwellinghouses – Approved.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Tree and Woodland Officer - This proposed development will necessitate the loss of the existing protected trees (TPO298-2014). These trees were protected because they make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene. Any proposed development must demonstrate that it will mitigate the loss of visual amenity as well as the loss of tree canopy in an area that has relatively few trees. The current scheme proposes planting six trees within the site, a mix of Betula pubescens (downy birch) and Acer griseum (paperbark maple). The previous scheme allowed only two trees within the site so this proposal is a significant improvement, with more space for the trees to mature. The species suggested are more suitable for growing near to buildings than the species included within the current TPO. The trees will over time mitigate the loss of canopy from the protected group of six trees. The proposed placing of two of the paperbark maples towards the font of the site

Page 42 may partially mitigate the loss of visual amenity, particularly as they mature and soften the appearance of the development.

I would want to see a condition to replant the proposed trees if they are lost or damaged within five years.

Env Health - Noise/Odours – No objection in principal but would recommend the following conditions:

To adequately protect the future residents of the homes from road traffic noise the homes would need to be designed and built to meet the following internal noise levels

35 dB(A) Leq (1 hour) in all habitable rooms with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided between 7 am and 11pm.

30dB(A) Leq 5mins in the bedrooms with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided between 11pm and 7am.

The hours of construction should be restricted to 07:30am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 9.00am to 2.00pm on Saturdays. No work on Sundays.

Highways And Engineering - The applicant has proposed a 200% dedicated parking provision which is ideal for a development of this size and nature at this location. The level of traffic this development would generate will not create a significant negative impact upon the existing local highway network. Therefore there would be no capacity issues due to the approval of this residential development; the surrounding highway network will adequately accommodate vehicles from the development. This development will not have a significant negative impact upon road safety. Ample dedicated parking has been proposed therefore on street parking outside the development will not be an issue. A new access point to the highway will be created by this development. A new access to the highway is relevant for a development of this size and nature. Visibility at the proposed access point is clear. I have no concerns regarding refuse collection from this location. A public right of way runs adjacent to the development. If this public right of way is to be obstructed at any time during construction a formal diversion route is required prior to commencement of the development. However there are no plans to permanently obstruct the public right of way upon completion of the development. Therefore I have no objections regarding this proposal. This application will not impact upon the highways layout. Existing highways drainage will not change as a result of this development.

United Utilities - No objection. Request informatives be included in any permission.

Drainage Engineer - No comments received to date.

Gtr Manchester Ecology Unit - No comments received to date.

Environmental Control (Landfill Gas) - No comments received to date.

Rights Of Way - Stephen Pyke - No comments received to date.

Page 43 REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours and a site notice displayed adjacent to the site.

16 letters of objection have been received, including a letter from the Leader of Rochdale Council, Councillor Richard Farnell.

The main points raised within these letters of objection are listed below, and those which are material planning considerations are considered within the Analysis section of this report:

1. The site is within the Green Belt and should not be built upon. The Council have already approved one infill development of two houses; this proposal would further detract from the overall character of the area. The semi-detached houses add yet another building type to the street. 2. The trees on the site are protected by a TPO. Concerned that the revised plans do not address this issue. The trees have significant amenity value and are a haven for wildlife. The Council previously found these trees suitable for protection. Nothing could be done to prevent future occupiers felling replacement trees and the situation remains the same today. 3. Noting has materially changed since the last application was considered, and the trees should be retained to preserve the character and visual amenity of the area. 4. A public footpath is indicated on the revised plans, and the positioning of this path is inappropriate. 5. The building type and height does not fit with the surrounding area. The ridge line appears too high relative for the ridge line of the adjacent terraced block. The siting of the dwellings is forward of the building line of the adjacent terraced block. 6. The applicant appears to have no regard to undoubted stress and anxiety the development will cause due to loss of neighbouring garden area and associated on site parking. 7. Privacy of neighbouring properties would be substantially reduced, and the views of the moorlands from neighbouring properties would be compromised. 8. Part of the land included within the site is owned by a neighbouring property, and not in control or ownership of the applicant. The plot is therefore not viable for the intended proposal. Any planning permission cannot be implemented without the consent of the neighbouring property whom owns the piece of land. Given that the neighbour in question objects to the proposal, the application could not be taken forward as it stands. 9. Owner of neighbouring property (and land within the site mentioned above) has not agreed to release any of the land which they occupy to the developer. 10. Provided a recent refusal reason to reinforce objections on amenity grounds for the development. The 10.5m separation distance to rear boundary could not be achieved. Whilst appreciated that the fields beyond the rear are Green Belt land, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will not be development in future, and the separation distance should be maintained for this eventuality. 11. Whilst welcomed that the public footpath has been removed from the proposals, the revised proposal is not sustainable. The amenity space around the plots is very limited and would not allow the dwellings to be used and enjoyed by intended occupiers. In particular, the separation distance to the rear does not meet the requirements within the Council’s SPD. Despite flexibilities in this SPD, there are other relevant reasons for objection. 12. The houses will be accompanied by an increase in number of parked cars on the street. Site is opposite a junction, and combined with the recently built houses this will result in a higher volume of cars. This will compromise safety of residents, pupils at the nearby school and other road users. There would be reduced visibility for pedestrians,

Page 44 which when coupled with the issue of speeding vehicles, would increase the likelihood of accidents. 13. Original plans (related to adjacent development) gave a distorted view of relative heights of adjoining properties. 14. Regularly uses the public footpath and concerned that it would not be legal to block this. Does blocking the footpath break any laws and will alternative access be provided. 15. Insufficient car parking proposed for the development. 16. Site notices displayed by the Council were removed within several days. 17. The site is too small and the new houses would appear “crammed” into the plot – again detracting from the special character of the area. 18. The roof levels as shown on the plans are misleading. It shows them being in line with existing properties (essential, for an infill site). However this new development and the recent two new houses adjacent to this site are much higher than the existing houses which, again, is detrimental to the character to the area and detracts from the overall appearance of this part of Shaw Road. 19. Whilst accepted that new housing is required, this should not be treated as an excuse to disregard concerns of existing residents. It should not be considered as an ‘open opportunity’ for housing developers.

ANALYSIS

Principle of development

Planning law requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one such material consideration and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which it states means: 1. approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and 2. where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:  any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or  specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted (such as the Green Belt).

The application site is located within the Green Belt and proposes the development of this land for housing. The footnote to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF specifically references land designated as Green Belt and effectively provides a presumption against development in the Green Belt. Therefore, if the application is acceptable with regards to impact upon Green Belt, then as outlined above permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The main consideration in respect of the principle of the development is therefore whether the proposal satisfies Green Belt policy.

In addition to the UDP and NPPF, paragraph 216 of the NPPF recognises that from the date of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan. The Council is now at an advanced stage in terms of its Core Strategy with the document expected to be formally adopted by the Council in October 2016. The policies within this plan may now be given significant weight in terms of the decision making process. Whilst the latest published information suggests that the Council can demonstrate a five year supply based on the emerging Core Strategy target, this does not preclude the promotion of sustainable development particularly where this can assist in delivering additional housing to meet local needs.

Page 45 The NPPF identifies that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It is also recognised that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

When looking at new development within the Green Belt, paragraph 89 of the NPPF establishes the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate unless it is for the purpose of one of the listed exceptions. Development that is not for one of the listed exceptions will comprise inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Case law has established that ‘any other harm’ includes non-Green Belt harm.

Within paragraph 89 the exceptions to inappropriate development are listed and this includes limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan. The limited infilling of previously developed sites (brownfield land), can also be considered as appropriate, if it would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.

Prior to the NPPF coming into force, infilling in the Green Belt was only deemed appropriate on major developed sites identified in the Local Plan, unless the Council had a specific infilling policy for settlements within the Green Belt, which it does not. As such the development of this site has previously been deemed to be inappropriate in principle. The NPPF allows limited infilling in villages without any reference to the Local Plan and therefore has introduced a substantive material change in the planning policy context by which development on this site should be considered. This new approach has been backed up by various Planning Inspectorate decisions which the applicant had previously submitted in support of their application. The NPPF therefore takes precedence over the Council’s UDP policies in respect of Green Belt.

Having agreed that limited infill development within villages can be deemed as appropriate, an assessment must be made into whether the site is within a village. Having assessed the site location it can be seen that the site is on the edge of an urban development, in a settlement which makes up part of the town of Rochdale. It is again a grey area as to whether part of the urban area of Rochdale (be it separated by the M62) can be classed as a village. However an appeal previously dismissed, (T/APP/P4225/A/97/288414/P2) provides clarity to this as the Inspector referred to the adjacent site being within a village. Taking this into account, it is considered that development on this site must be treated in a similar manner and can be considered as ‘limited infill in villages’ and is therefore appropriate development within the Green Belt and in accordance with Paragraph 89, Chapter 9 of the NPPF.

In addition to being Green Belt, the application site is also greenfield, or previously undeveloped, land and as the site is also outside of an area allocated for residential development, UDP policy H/3 is relevant and this states that the release of greenfield sites for housing will only be permitted if the supply of housing land falls below five years as defined by the projected annualised rate (i.e. the annual target for additional new homes). However, the weight that can be afforded to policy H/3 is limited as it relates to the supply of housing land predicated on the housing target set out in the UDP, which has been overtaken by more recent changes in National Policy and the evidence base for the Core Strategy. Policy C1 of the emerging Core Strategy focuses on brownfield land but acknowledges the potential for sustainable residential development on greenfield land.

Whilst the proposal would result in residential development on a greenfield site, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in all other respects. Given the government’s desire to provide a more flexible supply of housing land, it is considered that it would not be

Page 46 sustainable to refuse this application on the grounds that the principle of residential development on this greenfield site is unacceptable.

In this case, the site also contains trees the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Thus, whilst the principle of the development accords with Green Belt policy, the impact of the development on these TPO trees is also a primary consideration in the determination of this application. In light of the above, it is recognised that the proposal would make a contribution to the supply of housing in the borough. This factor must however be balanced against all other material considerations, including any other impacts on the green belt, the protected trees on site, highway safety and visual and residential amenity.

Impact on Green Belt and Visual Amenity

Although the principle of the development would be appropriate within the Green Belt and would also provide valuable housing, there should clearly be an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on openness and paragraph 79 of the NPPF establishes that the essential characteristic of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. As such, any development on the site should aim to protect this openness and also protect the visual amenity of the wider area.

Policies G/BE/1 and BE/2 relate to design quality and require that proposals contribute to the provision of an attractive, safe and accessible built environment and demonstrate good design.

One of the 12 core planning principles of the NPPF is to always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The NPPF requires that development functions well and adds to the overall quality of the area. Proposals should also establish a strong sense of place, respond local character and history, reflecting the identity of local surroundings and create safe and accessible environments.

It is recognised that the two dwellings as proposed would be very similar in design to those dwellings recently approved and substantially constructed on land adjacent to 99 Shaw Road. As such, when purely looking at the design of the properties it is considered that the traditional style of property proposed would sit comfortably within the street scene and respect the existing form of development, while still allowing a modern and functional proposal to provide two, three bedroom dwellings. The scale and design of the properties would also be in keeping with those in the area, and the materials of construction would complement existing development, ensuring a positive site appearance. It is not considered that the development would adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.

Objections have been received with regards to the height of the proposed dwellings, stating that the heights displayed on the plans are misleading and inconsistent with surrounding existing development. The plans indicate that the proposed dwellings will measure 8.7m to the ridge line, which is consistent with the nearest recently constructed dwelling, located directly adjacent to the site. An increase to the height of that dwelling was approved in 2012 (Ref: 15/01120/AM). The plans also indicate that the other adjacent property, No. 115 Shaw Road, measures 8.9m to the ridge line. Given the slight change in topography along Shaw Road and considering the above, it is considered that the height of the proposed dwellings would not unduly harm the appearance of the properties or their setting within the wider street scene, being largely consistent with those properties adjacent.

In light of the above, it is noted that the scheme is considered to be acceptable visually with regards to other matters, noting the new houses which have recently been constructed adjacent to the site. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies BE/1 and BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as well as the provisions of the

Page 47 NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policies P3, G4 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Loss of Trees the subject of the Tree Preservation Order

Policies NE/7 and NE/8 (and supporting text) of the UDP recognise that healthy trees that contribute to the environmental quality of the area should be protected and retained through favourable management. Furthermore, then NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. Policy G6 of the emerging Core Strategy which generally seeks the protection and enhancement of valuable green infrastructure.

However, it is important to note that the presence of a TPO is not a barrier to development – the purpose of the TPO is to ensure that the trees are given due consideration through the planning process and during and after construction.

The existing TPO was previously placed on the site due to the amenity value the group of trees collectively provide to the character of the street scene. This application proposes the felling of all the trees within the TPO to facilitate the construction of two dwellings on the site. The application includes a replacement planting scheme, which proposes six replacement trees within the site.

This application differs to that previously refused as a tree survey has been submitted with the application. The submitted survey provided an assessment on each of the protected trees on this site. Each tree was given a rating, falling into categories A (highest quality and longevity), B, C, or U (recommend removal).

Each of the trees assessed were categorised as a ‘U’ rating. Supporting information states that this category signifies trees that are in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years and which should, in the current context, be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management.

Expert advice on the above has been sought from the Council’s Tree & Woodland Development Officer. The Officer has stated that any proposed development must demonstrate that it will mitigate the loss of visual amenity as well as the loss of tree canopy, within an area which includes relatively few trees.

The current scheme proposes the planting of six trees within the site - three along each of the side boundaries. The trees proposed are a mix of Betula pubescens (downy birch) and Acer Griseum (paperbark maple). The previously submitted scheme included provision for only two trees within the site, and so this proposal is considered to represent a significant improvement, allowing more space for the replanted trees to mature.

Furthermore, it is considered that the species included within the replanting scheme are more suitable species for planting in close proximity to buildings than those included within the current TPO. The replacement trees would, over time, mitigate the loss of the canopy from the currently protected group of six trees. In addition, it is considered that the proposed placing of two of the paperbark maple trees towards the front of the site may partially mitigate the loss of visual amenity, particularly as they continue to mature and soften the appearance of the development.

Conditions are recommended which would require an agreed replacement tree scheme prior to works commencing, and if any of the replacement trees become damaged or die within five

Page 48 years of planting, then they are to be replaced. This would ensure that the replacement trees are provided adequate time to mature, protecting the visual amenities of the site.

In light of the above considerations, although the proposal would result in the loss of an existing group of TPO trees, it is considered that these existing trees are of a low amenity value, each awarded the lowest category (U Category) within the submitted tree survey, recommending their removal. The proposed replanting scheme is of an acceptable standard and once established, the trees would contribute to the visual amenities to the site and surrounding area. The Council’s Tree & Woodland Development Officer considers the proposal to be acceptable on this basis subject to appropriate conditions. On balance, therefore, the application would be acceptable with regards to impact upon the current trees subject to the Tree Preservation Order, and would accord with Policies BE/1, BE/2, NE/3, NE/7 and NE/8 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as well as chapter 7 of the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy G6 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Residential amenity

Policy H/3 of the UDP requires that development is compatible with surrounding uses, both in terms of its impact upon those uses and the impact of surrounding uses upon the amenity of future residents. Furthermore, policy BE/2 requires that proposals ensure adequate provision for natural light, both within and between buildings.

In addition to the above policies, the spacing standards outlined in paragraph 5.2 of the Council’s SPD “Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development” recommend that a minimum separation distance of 21 metres should be retained between principal elevations of opposing dwellings and a distance of 14 metres between principal and secondary elevations. Where these separation distances cannot be achieved, proposals should be “compatible with the density and character of surrounding development”.

The proposed dwellings would be sited so that their principal elevations face towards Shaw Road. Given this arrangement and the layout of the existing properties adjacent to the site it is considered that the development would cause no harm to the amenity of the occupants of the properties adjacent to the site.

The distance from the site to the front elevation of 50 Shaw Road (site opposite the site across Shaw Road) would be approximately 23 metres and there would also be in excess of 30 metres to the front elevation of no. 7 Ashgrove. These distances are fully in accordance with policy and in line with the guidance set out in the SPD.

The plans demonstrate that the side elevations of the properties would contain only non- habitable room windows. It is considered that these secondary elevations are sufficiently separated from all surrounding development with a minimum distance to the adjacent recently constructed development of approximately 7 metres and in excess of 8 metres to no. 115 Shaw Road. A condition is proposed to ensure these windows are fitted with obscure glazing to protect the privacy of the adjacent occupants.

In regards to the other habitable room windows proposed, these would be sited to the rear of the properties overlooking the public footpath and beyond this the school fields of St Cuthbert’s. These windows would not meet the normally required distance of 10.5 metres to rear site boundary (as set out in the SPD), with a minimum separation distance (to windows) of approximately 3.8 metres. It must however be recognised that the land to the rear is school fields that are also within the Green Belt where it is unlikely future development would take place, where this proposal or any future development would be adversely impacted on by close overlooking or overshadowing.

Page 49 Under paragraph 9 of the NPPF, it is established that development should seek improvements in people’s quality of life and paragraph 17 requires a good standard of amenity for all future occupants of land and buildings. It is recognised that not all properties can benefit from large areas of outdoor amenity space, and indeed in some instances, such spaces may be unwanted i.e. flats. However, in the case of this application, the proposal seeks the provision of two family size houses in an area that is characterised by family dwellings set within areas of private amenity space.

The previous application was refused in part due to the limited depth of the rear gardens, which at that time were proposed as 3.8m from the rear elevations to the rear boundary. The current proposal includes a depth of 5.5m from the rear elevations to the rear boundary. Furthermore, the current proposal includes additional outdoor amenity space to the side elevations of each property, which was not previously included on the previous application.

It is noted that the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ represents a material change in circumstances, due to its adoption following the decision of the previous application. This document equally recommends a minimum separation distance of 10.5 metres between a principal rear elevation and a rear boundary. Where these separation distances cannot be achieved, proposals should be “compatible with the density and character of surrounding development”. The purpose of the policy is to ensure sufficient privacy is afforded to rear gardens.

The proposed rear gardens achieve a distance of 5.5m between the rear walls and the rear boundary and whilst short of the 10.5m distance in the SPD, the gardens would back on to open space at the rear and therefore would benefit from adequate privacy. It is considered that the rear amenity space provided would on balance be acceptable to meet the needs of a dwelling of this size. A condition is recommended which would restrict permitted development rights to ensure no extensions or outbuildings are subsequently erected to reduce this amenity space. This condition would ensure that any extensions to the properties would require planning permission, and thereby the Council could assess their acceptability and ensure that adequate outdoor amenity space is retained.

A condition is also recommended which would require the agreement of boundary treatments (fencing or walls) prior to occupation of the proposed dwellings to provide an adequate level of privacy for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings and to protect the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Furthermore, a condition is recommended which would restrict construction hours, in order to protect the amenity of surrounding residential properties, as suggested by the Council’s Environmental Health department.

In addition to the above, the Environmental Health department have recommended a condition which requires certain internal noise levels, in order to protect future occupiers from noise generated from the adjacent highway, Shaw Road.

In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the amenity of the occupants of adjoining properties and would provide sufficient outdoor amenity space and acceptable living conditions for the future occupants. As such, the application accords with policies BE/2 of the Council’s UDP, the adopted SPD and the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policies P3, P9 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Highways

Policy A/9 requires development to facilitate safe and convenient access for general traffic. Policy A/10 and Appendix C of the UDP require two off-street car parking spaces per dwelling.

Page 50 Each dwelling would benefit from a driveway with two parking spaces accessed from Shaw Road. To assess the acceptability of the application in terms of highway safety consultations have been carried out with Highway Services and no objection has been raised.

As mentioned above, a condition is recommended which would remove permitted development rights for extensions and development within the curtilages of the proposed dwellings and this would also ensure adequate off-street parking is retained.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the proposals would cause a loss of parking to the adjacent end-terraced property, No. 115 Shaw Road, due to the current occupier of that property utilising part of the site, with that part of the site containing a driveway and garage. Although this is of some concern, as that property would no longer benefit from any off-street parking provision, it is noted that a number of the neighbouring terraced properties also do not benefit from off-street parking provision, and indeed on-street parking with few restrictions is available along Shaw Road. It is therefore not considered that the loss of parking for the existing property, No. 115 Shaw Road, would be detrimental to highway safety.

The site is in very close proximity to the adjacent right of way and as such, any works that may obstruct or divert this will require consent, and an informative is recommended in this regard. The revised proposals do not involve the closure or redirection of this footpath.

In light of the above, it is considered that the application would provide adequate off street parking provision and also ensure no detriment to the free and safe use of the highway. Care needs to be taken to ensure no obstruction of the right of way, but subject to conditions the application is acceptable in this regard and in accordance with policies A/9 and A/10 of the UDP. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Biodiversity

With any application which proposes a loss of trees there are concerns that this may impact on biodiversity, with the site possibly providing habitat for wildlife. In accordance with policy NE/3 it is important that habitats of ecological value are taken into account when assessing the acceptability of development, with chapter 11 of the NPPF establishing that local authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

This application proposes a replanting scheme in order to mitigate for the loss of the existing trees on this site. It is considered that this would ensure no net loss of biodiversity on the site. The recommended condition would allow for agreement of a timeframe for replacement, whereby the Council could ensure the existing trees are not felled during the bird nesting season, therefore providing adequate protections to nesting birds. In addition, this condition would ensure any replacement trees that become damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting are replanted.

The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy NE/3 of the UDP, and the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy G7 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Other considerations

In other considerations, it is noted that objections have been received on the grounds that the applicant does not own all of the land within the site edged red. Indeed, part of the site (to the rear and side) is within the control of the adjacent property, 115 Shaw Road. Although this is noted, the applicant does not have to be the owner of the land to apply for planning permission

Page 51 and the appropriate notice has been served upon the landowner. Land ownership is not a material planning consideration.

In other concerns, reference has been made to the wellbeing of the current occupier of the above mentioned property, who may be adversely affected by the stress of such a development. While these concerns are recognised, unfortunately this is not a matter that can be afforded weight in the determination of this application. A condition is however recommended to ensure construction works take place only during the hours recommended by the Environmental Health officer.

Conclusion

The development represents an infill plot and thus is appropriate development in the Green Belt. It is not considered that the proposal would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The trees within the site are currently subject to a group TPO, however it is accepted that the trees are poor specimens and the proposed replacement tree planting, once established, would adequately mitigate for the loss of the current trees. The design of the properties is considered to be acceptable and sufficient off road parking is proposed. On balance, it is considered that the proposal addresses the previous reasons for refusal, providing an acceptable level of outdoor amenity space for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The proposal therefore comprises sustainable development, and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 This permission relates to the following plans:-

 Proposed semi detached dwellings site plan. Drawing No. 635-14-02, Rev. C. Amended plan received 16.05.2016.  Proposed semi detached dwellings. Drawing No. 635-14-01, Rev. B.

and the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 a) No development or works [including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation clearance] shall take place before a Scheme in respect of tree and shrub planting and retention, indicating position, density, species and planting size has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) Any works approved under the Scheme shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Scheme and any agreed timetable thereafter. c) Any trees that are removed, die or become in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective within five years of planting as required by the approved Scheme shall be replaced with specimens of a similar size and species as originally required.

Page 52 Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory level of landscaping in the interests of the amenities of the area and an acceptable replacement for the current trees on the site which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, in accordance with Policies BE/2, BE/8, NE/3, NE/7 and NE/8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1, G/6 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The current trees on site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. This condition requires the agreement of an adequate scheme to replace the current trees, in order to retain adequate levels of visual amenity and biodiversity.

4 Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground works shall take place until samples or full details of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the dwellings have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval.

Reason: In order to ensure use of appropriate materials which are sympathetic to the character of surrounding buildings and the in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE/2, H/3 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 Before any of the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied, a specification for the design and construction (including surface treatment) of the associated driveways shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the duly approved details before each associated dwelling is first occupied, and retained thereafter at all times for the parking of vehicles.

Reason: In order to ensure there is adequate provision for vehicles to be parked clear of the highway and to achieve an appropriate surface treatment for parking areas in order to comply with the requirements of Policies H/3, BE/2 and A/10 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D and E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), or any equivalent Order following the revocation and re-enactment thereof, the dwellings hereby approved shall not be extended or altered and no buildings shall be erected within their curtilages.

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains control over any future extensions to the dwellinghouse in order to prevent overdevelopment of the site and to safeguard the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings in accordance with the requirements of Policies H/3 and BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, the Council's Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’, Policies DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), or any equivalent Order following the revocation and re-enactment thereof, no further window openings shall be inserted into the first floor side elevations of the dwellings hereby approved and prior to the development being brought into use, the side elevation

Page 53 windows of the properties shall be fitted with and permanently glazed, in textured glass whose obscuration level is at least 3 on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 is clear and 5 is completely obscure) and shall be non-opening below a height of 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room they serve. Reason: To ensure the development does not allow the unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring residents and to protect residential amenity in accordance with the requirements of Policies H/3 and BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Note "Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development", Policies DM1 and P3 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8 No site preparation, delivery of materials or construction works, other than quiet internal building operations such as plastering and electrical installation, shall take place other than between 08:00 hours and 18:00 hours Monday-Friday and between 09:00 hours and 14:00 hours on Saturdays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties during the course of construction of the development and to limit the potential for unacceptable noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE/2 and EM/3 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the dwellings shall be constructed to ensure that internal noise levels do not exceed:-

o 30dB(A) Leq (5 mins) in bedrooms with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided between 11pm and 7am; o 35dB(A) Leq (1 hour) in all habitable rooms with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided between 7am and 11pm;

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure that future residents are adequately protected from unacceptable levels of noise and to accord with Policies G/EM/1, H/3 and EM/3 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, Policy G9 of the upcoming Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report Author Ben Sandover

______

Page 54 Application Number: 16/00564/FUL Ward: Castleton

Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling with associated car parking (two spaces)

Site Address: Land Adjacent To 1120 Manchester Road Castleton North Rochdale OL11 2XX

Applicant: Mr K Gardner Abbotswood Developments Ltd

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

DELEGATION

This application is presented to the Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee following a call up request from Councillor Sheerin, on the grounds of the visual amenity of the surrounding area, particularly the street scene of traditional terraced houses, and concerns that the distances that these traditional properties are located from modern properties would diminish. The Committee has delegated authority to determine the application.

SITE

This application relates to a previous Council garage site, which is now informally utilised as an outdoor amenity area by surrounding residential properties.

Page 55 The site is bordered to either side (south and north) by neighbouring residential properties. To the north, No. 1120 Manchester Road is a modern semi-detached dwelling and to the south, No. 21 Collingwood Street is a traditional end-terraced property.

The site is bordered to the west by open fields, designated as Green Belt land. To the east, further residential front onto Manchester Road.

An off-street car park, which is within the ownership of the applicant, exists close to the site, accessed off Earl Street. Within this car park is a mature tree, which is not protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

PROPOSAL

This application seeks permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling, with a further level of accommodation within the loft space.

The property would largely match the style of the adjacent modern semi-detached properties, with main principal elevation windows to the front and rear elevations. A further non-habitable room window (serving a bathroom) is proposed to the side (south) elevation, facing No. 21 Collingwood Street. Two rooflights are proposed within the rear elevation.

Internally, the property would create a lounge, kitchen/dining room and WC at ground floor level. At first floor level, two bedrooms and a bathroom are proposed, with a further bedroom within the loft space.

Two car parking spaces are proposed within the adjacent private off-street car park. One of these spaces would not meet normal standards for car parking bays.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/1 Defined Urban Area

G/H/1 Housing H/3 Residential Development Outside Allocated Areas H/6 Provision of Recreational Open Space in New Housing Development

G/A/1 Accessibility A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People

Page 56 A/8 New Development – Capacity of the Highway Network A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

Emerging Rochdale Core Strategy:

The following policies of the emerging Rochdale Publication Core Strategy are relevant:-

SO1 To deliver a more prosperous economy SO2 To create successful and healthy communities SO3 To improve design, image and quality of place

SD1 Delivering sustainable development

P3 Improving design of new development

T2 Improving accessibility

G6 Enhancing green infrastructure G7 Increasing the value of biodiversity and geodiversity G9 Reducing the impact of pollution

DM1 General development requirements

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Oldham and Rochdale Residential Design Guide SPD Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development SPG Provision of Recreational Open Space in New Housing SPD

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

Adjacent site: 08/D51432 Residential development (6 dwellings) - Approved

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Highways And Engineering - A development of this size and nature requires 2 dedicated parking spaces to meet standards set in the UDP. One space is not ideal, however there will be no significant negative impact as there are additional designated on street parking bays on Earl Street adjacent to the proposed development. Therefore Rochdale Borough Councils Highways Service has no objections regrading this proposal. The level of traffic this development would generate will not create a significant negative impact upon the existing local highway network. Therefore there would be no capacity issues due to the approval of this residential development; the surrounding highway network will adequately accommodate vehicles from the development. Rochdale Borough Councils Highways Service has no concerns regarding refuse collection from this location. This application will not impact upon the highways layout. Highways drainage will not change as a result of this development.

Page 57 No public right of way will be obstructed by this development.

United Utilities - No objections, subject to imposition of informatives regarding water and drainage arrangements.

Drainage Engineer - Requested confirmation of where surface water is discharging too. If it’s to an existing drain, this is acceptable. However, a block paved or infiltration type finish would suffice.

Agent confirmed all adjacent dwellings drain to a combined sewer and the car park is already surfaced with macadam material.

Drainage Engineer then considered that the above is acceptable.

Gtr Manchester Ecology Unit - Birds The application form states that there are no trees to be affected by the development; however it would appear that a tree would need to be removed to create the parking spaces associated with the house build. The tree has the potential to support nesting birds. All birds, with the exception of certain pest species, and their nests are protected under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). We would therefore recommend that the tree should not be removed in the main bird breeding season (March to July inclusive), unless nesting birds are found to be absent, by a suitably qualified person. We would therefore suggest that a condition to this effect be placed on any permission, if granted, in order to protect wild birds.

Biodiversity Enhancement In line with Section 11 of the NPPF, we would recommend that opportunities for biodiversity enhancement be incorporated into the new development. These should include:

• Bird boxes • Native tree and shrub planting

In conclusion we are satisfied that the application can be forwarded for determination and that any permission if granted is supported by the condition above.

(It is noted that these comments were received prior to confirmation from the agent that the tree is not to be removed as part of this application. The biodiversity enhancement considerations are discussed within the Trees and Ecology section of this report below).

Environmental Control (Landfill Gas) - Recommends Site Investigation and Assessment condition prior to commencement.

Greater Manchester Archaelogical Advisory Service - Having checked our records I am satisfied that the proposed development does not threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage. On this basis there is no reason to seek to impose any archaeological requirements upon the applicant.

Tree & Woodland Development Officer – As there will be no disturbance to the roots of the tree I have no objections to the proposals.

Env Health - Noise/Odours - No comments received to date

Environment Agency - No comments received to date

Page 58 REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours, and a site notice was displayed close to the site.

6 letters of objection have been received, from three separate addresses.

The main points raised in the letters of objection are listed below, and an Officer response provided to each:

 Includes a private access which the proposed occupier will need to cross to reach the land in question.

Officer response: Land ownership and the access is not a material planning consideration. This is a private matter. The grant of planning permission does not discharge the owner’s legal obligations.

 No building was permitted to be erected on this land (due to a restrictive covenant).

Officer response: This is not a material planning consideration.

 Existing houses and this site is a former landfill, and therefore may be contaminated which is a concern.

Officer response: A condition is recommended to require a site investigation to ensure any contamination is remediated.

 Development would cause overdevelopment of the area and a high density of housing.

Officer response: This is not considered to be the case, with existing terraced properties within the immediate area already representing a high density of development.

 Concerned about removal of the tree within the car park.

Officer response: This tree is to remain, and would be protected by means of a condition.

 Concerned about congestion within area and availability of car parking.

Officer response: The highways impact of the development is considered to be acceptable. Dedicated parking is provided, on-street parking is available with few restrictions, and public transport is available (primarily buses) along Manchester Road adjacent to the site.

 Private accesses need to remain accessible at all times, and users of the site may be trespassing over private accesses to reach the site.

Officer response: Land ownership and the access is not a material planning consideration. This is a private matter.

 Development may affect surrounding house prices.

Officer response: This is not a material planning consideration.

Page 59 ANALYSIS

Principle of development

The site subject to this planning application is currently informally utilised as an outdoor amenity space. Through discussions with the applicant, apparently the site is informally leased to neighbours of surrounding residential properties, for storage and plants.

The site previously was utilised as a Council garage site, forming part of a larger garage site adjacent which has since been developed. Given the above, this site is considered to be on ‘previously developed’ land. The site is therefore considered to be brownfield land.

The UDP, NPPF and Core Strategy promote the redevelopment of brownfield land within the urban area. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’.

The site lies in the Defined Urban Area and was previously occupied by a Council garage site. Since that time, it has been informally used as outdoor amenity space on an informal basis only. The site is therefore considered to comprise previously developed land and is adjoined by existing residential dwellings. The redevelopment of the site for residential use would be compatible with the surrounding residential area. The site is located in close proximity to Manchester Road, where frequent bus services operate into Rochdale and Castleton town centres. It is therefore considered that the site is well located in terms of access to jobs, shops and services by modes of transport other than the private car. The site is therefore in a sustainable location.

Therefore, the proposal would make efficient use of previously developed land within the Defined Urban Area and would contribute to the supply of housing in a sustainable location within the borough. The principle of the development is therefore acceptable and in accordance with the UDP, the NPPF and the emerging Core Strategy.

Design

Chapter 7 of the NPPF requires development proposals to demonstrate good design, with paragraph 56 indicating that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

Paragraph 58 of the NPPF encourages good design by stipulating that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:  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;  establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;  respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;  create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

The property would be set within an existing open space, bordered to each side by neighbouring residential properties, to the north by a pair of modern semi-detached properties, and to the south by a row of older, terraced properties.

As the proposed dwelling is detached, it would appear separate to the adjacent modern dwellings, as well as the traditional terraced properties also adjacent. The proposed design however is largely similar in format to the modern dwellings, reflecting the height and eaves

Page 60 line of those properties to the front and rear, and including the addition of rooflights to the rear roof slope.

When viewed from the rear elevation, the proposed dwelling would closely reflect the design of the adjacent modern properties, reflecting the ridge and eaves lines, and the fenestration to the existing properties. Although noted that the style of the adjacent traditional terraced properties would not be reflected, as a detached dwelling this is considered to be appropriate. It is considered that the design of the property to this elevation would be acceptable.

When viewed from the front elevation, it is noted that the first floor would primarily be in view from surrounding public vantage points, given the boundary treatments and surrounding development. The first floor design would largely reflect the design of the adjacent modern semi-detached dwelling. At ground floor, it is noted that the design would alter slightly to that of the adjacent modern dwelling, not including a bay window or canopy to the frontage. However, given the variations in development along this row of development, noting that rear elevations of the traditional terraced properties are viewed in context with this development, it is considered that the proposed design is acceptable.

Further to the above, in order to retain an acceptable design form, particularly when viewed from the rear elevation, it is considered appropriate to recommend removal of permitted development rights, in order that planning permission would be required should future occupiers of the property wish to extend the property. This would enable retention of the existing building line, which is consistent with both adjacent properties, and would avoid an unbalance to the frontages of the adjacent traditional terraces, which would appear further inconsistent with the adjacent modern development if a rear extension was constructed.

It is considered that the materials proposed, facing brick and concrete tiles, would largely match the appearance of the adjacent modern semi-detached properties, and are considered to be acceptable. A relevant condition to ensure agreement of materials prior to construction is recommended.

In light of the above, the design is considered to be acceptable, according with the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan, emerging Core Strategy and NPPF.

Impact upon surrounding uses and amenity of future occupiers

It is acknowledged that there are inevitably a number of constraints involved in the redevelopment of this small site that is so closely surrounded by neighbouring dwellings. The application is assessed against the Council’s Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document.

The proposed development occupies an unconventional plot without a conventional road frontage. Separation distances to adjacent dwellings and between the rear elevation and rear boundary do not fully meet the requirements of guidance. However the relationships with neighbouring properties are entirely consistent with those established by the layout of housing in the immediate vicinity of the application site. There is no basis for objection to the proposal on this basis. A condition is recommended which would remove permitted development rights to the proposed dwelling. This would allow the Council to assess an application for an extension, in order to ensure that the amenities of the two adjacent properties would be adequately protected. It is strongly recommended that this condition be imposed on any permission, in order to allow an assessment for future rear extensions, which could particularly unduly affect the amenity of No. 21 Collingwood Street, if constructed adjacent to the front elevation of this property.

The plans demonstrate that the first floor window proposed to the south (side) elevation would serve a bathroom, which is classed as a non-habitable room window. This window would

Page 61 directly face the side elevation of No. 21 Collingwood Street, and therefore a condition is recommended that this window be fitted with obscure glazing, in order to protect the privacy of adjacent occupants and those of the proposed development.

The development is therefore considered to be acceptable with regards to surrounding uses, in accordance with Policies G/H/1, H/3, G/BE/1 and BE/2 of the adopted UDP, and the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policies G3, P9 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Highways

The protection of highway safety is an important consideration and under policy A/8 it is required new development does not detriment the safe and efficient operation of the Highway Network, both adjacent to and further away from the site. Policy A/10 requires that new development is served by parking provision and this is again in the interests of highway safety.

The NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

The proposal includes 2 off-street car parking spaces. These would be located within the existing car park located close to the site accessed off Earl Street. The applicant has confirmed that this car park is within their ownership.

It is noted that although two spaces are proposed, one would not be acceptable with regards to size of the space, as stipulated by relevant Government guidelines. Each space should measure 4.8m by 2.4m, in order to meet the above standards. Notwithstanding this however, it is considered that many neighbouring residential properties do not benefit from any dedicated off-street parking provision, and there are few waiting restrictions within the immediate area, particularly along Earl Street which runs adjacent to the car park. Furthermore, it is accepted that the site does lie within a sustainable location, whereby access to sustainable transport methods are plentiful – particularly buses which operate along Manchester Road – and therefore reliance of the private car should therefore be reduced.

As part of the revised car park layout in order to accommodate the parking as proposed, the entrance to the site would be reconfigured, with the existing brick gatepost to be removed and altered. This is considered to be appropriate, with the access remaining accessible to vehicles.

No objections have been received from the Council’s Highways Service, who have stated that the proposed parking arrangements are acceptable, and the access arrangements would remain acceptable.

It is therefore considered that the application would result in no undue harm to highway safety and would accord with policies G/A/1, A/8, A/9 and A/10 of the UDP, and the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Trees and Ecology

A mature tree is in place to the western boundary of the car park, close to Earl Street. This tree is not protected by a Tree Preservation Order, however due to its mature state and visual appearance it is considered that the tree should be retained. The mature tree provides some visual relief when the site is viewed from public vantage points, particularly Earl Street and Manchester Road which run adjacent to the site.

Chapter 118 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

Page 62  If significant harm 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;  Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged

Policy NE/3 of the adopted UDP states that in areas not identified as SBIs, LNRs, SSSIs, SPAs or SACs, the effect of land use changes on existing features, species, and habitats of ecological value e.g. trees will be taken into account in assessing proposals. Any development should seek to retain such features and incorporate them into the development.

Policy NE/8 states that development proposals will be permitted that do not adversely affect trees, woodland or hedgerows. Proposals on sites containing trees and woodlands should ensure:  Suitable space and conditions for the successful retention of trees, woodland and hedgerows;  Suitable care and protection of trees and their environment during construction

It is considered that, in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and the relevant policies of the UDP explained above, it is considered important that the identified tree is retained.

Following discussions with the agent, it is confirmed that this tree would not be removed as part of this application. Furthermore, it is clarified that works to the car park would be limited to the southern boundary of that car park, specifically to alter the access arrangements to/from Earl Street. Works within the car park would be limited to re-lining of the car park, in order to incorporate the revised spaces layout.

A condition is recommended which would require the agreement of any works to or removal of the tree, in order to ensure retention of the tree. This will allow the Council the opportunity to assess the tree for protection under a Tree Preservation Order.

It is noted that Greater Manchester Ecology Unit commented on the application with regards to a condition stipulating no removal of the tree within the car park during the bird nesting season. Following confirmation from the agent that removal of the trees would not be necessary, and the imposition of the above condition requiring details of any works to the tree, it is considered that this further condition is not necessary.

The Ecology Unit recommended the installation of bird boxes and some further planting, in order to provide for biodiversity opportunities. As the existing tree within the car park is to be retained, it is therefore not considered necessary to impose additional conditions in this regard, given the protections recommended to the existing tree. A condition is recommended with regards to landscaping of the site.

In light of the above, this proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies NE/3 and NE/8 of the UDP and the requirements of the NPPF. The application is considered to be compliant with Policies G6 and G7 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Recreational Open Space

Policy H/6 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan requires all developments, regardless of scale, to make a contribution to recreational open space provision in the Borough. Nevertheless, in November 2014, the Government made a policy announcement that tariff style planning obligations should not be applied to developments of 10 dwellings or fewer or with a floorspace of less than 1000sqm. The Council’s recreational open space policy is a tariff style planning obligation and as such is caught by this change in policy. Government

Page 63 guidance is also clear that where policies in a development plan (i.e. the UDP) are in conflict with national guidance that the national guidance should take precedence.

As a consequence Members of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee determined at their meeting of 22nd December 2014 that the change to government policy should be implemented with immediate effect, granting a large number of planning applications which fell below this threshold (10 dwellings or fewer / 1000sqm or less) without a requirement for a S106 agreement.

This development falls below the threshold at which government policy indicates tariff style S106 contributions should be sought and as such it is not considered appropriate to seek a recreational open space contribution for this development.

Summary

The proposed residential development would make efficient use of previously developed land within the urban area and would contribute to the supply of housing in a sustainable location. The design of the scheme is considered to be acceptable and appropriate materials would be secured by condition to ensure that the development preserves the character of the surrounding area. The proposal would result in an acceptable relationship with surrounding properties and would not unduly affect the privacy and amenity of adjoining occupiers. Adequate access and parking arrangements would ensure that the development would have no detrimental impact on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network. Biodiversity would be adequately protected by means of a condition. Measures can also be put in place in order to ensure that the development poses no unacceptable risk in terms of contamination. The recommendation is therefore for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 This permission relates to the following plans:-

 Site layout. Scale 1:200. Drawing No. 2293/01. Amended plan received 14.09.2016.  Rev A June 2016. Scale 1:200. Amended plan received 14.09.2016.  Rev A June 2016. Amended plan received 14.06.2016.  Site layout. Scale 1:250. Drawing No. 2293/01. Amended plan received 14.06.2016.  Floor plans and elevations. Scale 1:100. Drawing No. 2293/02.  Chamber joist layouts section & notes. Scale 1:100. Drawing No. 2293/03.  Location plan.

and the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 64 3 Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground works shall take place until samples or full details of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval.

Reason: In order to ensure a sympathetic relationship with the character of surrounding buildings and the street scene in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE/2 and H/3 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and the requirements of condition 2 of this permission, within three months of development first taking place a landscaping scheme for the site (including elements of both 'hard' and 'soft' landscaping) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of the proposed surface treatment of all hard surfaced areas and the type, species, siting, planting distances and programme of planting of any trees and shrubs. The duly approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months of the dwellinghouse first being occupied and the areas which are landscaped shall be retained as landscaped areas thereafter. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory level of landscaping and provision of adequate off-road parking facilities for the dwellinghouse in the interests of visual amenity and highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE/2, BE/8, H/3 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 The car parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be marked out in accordance with the details shown prior to the development being brought into use.

Reason: In order to ensure adequate and appropriate parking provision in accordance with Policies A/10, H/3 and BE/2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and the requirements of condition 2 of this permission, within 3 months of development first taking place details of the siting, height, design, materials and finish to be used in the construction of boundary treatments to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved boundary treatments shall be constructed in full accordance with the approved details before the dwellinghouse hereby approved is first occupied and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure adequate levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE/2 and H/3 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any equivalent Order following the amendment, re-enactment or revocation thereof) prior to first occupation of the building hereby

Page 65 permitted the windows in the first floor on the side elevation facing the boundary with No. 21 Collingwood Street shall be fitted with, to a height of no less than 1.7m above finished floor level, non-opening lights and textured glass which obscuration level is no less than Level 3 of the Pilkington Glass scale (or equivalent) and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of amenity and in compliance with Policy H/3 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8 Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D E, F, G and H of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, or any equivalent Order following the amendment, revocation or re-enactment thereof no development shall take place at the dwelling hereby permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of that Order.

Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties in accordance with the requirements of Policy H/3 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 The tree located to the western boundary of the car park shall not be lopped, topped or felled or works carried out which are likely to cause damage to the tree without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure the retention of the tree and to protect any nesting birds in accordance with Policies NE/3, NE/8 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policies G6 and G7 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11 No site preparation, delivery of materials or construction works, other than quiet internal building operations such as plastering and electrical installation, shall take place other than between 08:00 hours and 18:00 hours Monday-Friday and between 08:00 hours and midday on Saturdays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties during the course of construction of the development and to limit the potential for unacceptable noise and disturbance at unsocial hours in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE/2 and EM/3 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1, P3 and G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

12 No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment (in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall investigate the nature and extent of any contamination on the site (whether or not it originates on the site). The assessment shall be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place. The submitted report shall include:

i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:  human health,  property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, and service lines and pipes,  adjoining land,  groundwaters and surface waters,

Page 66  ecological systems,  archaeological sites and ancient monuments; iii) where unacceptable risks are identified, an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s) to form a remediation strategy for the site. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the duly approved remediation strategy and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any of the building(s) hereby approved are first occupied.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policies EM/4, EM/8 and BE/2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policy G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Further investigation will be necessary prior to commencement of any building or engineering works on site.

Report Author Ben Sandover

______

Page 67 Application Number: 16/00672/HOUS Ward: Healey

Proposal: Construction of decking to rear of dwelling (Retrospective)

Site Address: 12 Forest View Rochdale OL12 6HF

Applicant: Mrs Mina Chowdhury

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

DELEGATION SCHEME

The application is to be determined by the Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee as it is the subject of over four representations contrary to the officer recommendation. The Committee has delegated authority to approve or refuse the application.

SITE

The application relates to No. 12 Forest View, a detached house located in Healey and within the Defined Urban Area. The application dwelling sits at the end of a shared access driveway which continues from the head of the cul-de-sac of Forest View. The application dwelling is immediately neighboured by No. 14 Forest View to the south east and No. 10 Forest View to the north east. The side garden curtilage to the north west also forms the rear boundary of Nos. 60-62 Fallowfield Drive. Beyond the rear boundary of the application dwelling is an un- adopted access road surrounding disused industrial land and linking Spod Road and Woodland Road.

Page 68 PROPOSAL

The application seeks retrospective planning permission for an extensive area of decking which measures 12.4m x 8m and spans the entire rear elevation of the dwelling. The decking surrounds an existing conservatory which is sited in the centre of the rear elevation of the dwelling. The furthest reach of the decking from the rear elevation of the host dwelling is 8m, and at this point the decking reaches its maximum height of 2.9m above natural ground level to the surface of the actual deck, or 3.8m to the maximum height of the surrounding balustrade. The materials used in the construction of the decking include timber framework and a composite surface deck.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

Emerging Core Strategy (CS):

The Council has now received the Inspector’s final report following the Examination of the Core Strategy. Once adopted, the Core Strategy will partly replace the 2006 Unitary Development Plan. The Core Strategy is likely to be adopted by the Council in October 2016 and significant weight is now afforded to the policies contained within it. The following policies are relevant:

DM1 General Development Requirements P3 Improving Design of New Development

PUBLICITY

Earliest Decision Date: 8 September 2016 Revised Expiry Date: No extension agreed

Site Notice: General Site Notice Date Displayed: 18 August 2016 Press Advert: N/A

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

N/A

Page 69 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

N/A

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours and a site notice posted locally. Objections have been received from one neighbouring property. Two letters of support have been received, along with a supporting petition signed by the occupiers of nine additional properties.

The following issues were raised in objection:

 The decking significantly affects the privacy of 60 Fallowfield Drive as a result of overlooking from the structure which is more than 300mm from the ground and above the level of the boundary fence. We are permanently on view and this interferes with our right to privacy under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations of 1966. Officer response: The impact on neighbour amenity and privacy is discussed in the Analysis section of this report.

 An objection was also received from the occupants of 14 Forest View on the grounds of a significant loss of privacy to their conservatory and open plan living area. This objection was subsequently withdrawn on the grounds that the applicant has agreed to erect a screen/fencing to protect their privacy. Officer response: It should be noted that the erection of fencing or other screening above the level of the decking would require planning permission and does not form part of the current application. The impact of such fencing would need to be assessed separately. The proposal to retain the decking should therefore be assessed on its own merits, i.e. in the absence of any screen fencing.

 Noise disturbance is caused by people playing football on the decking. Officer response: Although some additional noise could arise through the use of the decking, this would not be significantly greater than the use of the garden and it is therefore not considered that planning permission could be refused on this basis.

The following comments were made in support:

 Privacy issues could be dealt with through appropriate screening.  The decking does not result in greater privacy loss than the previous situation as the neighbouring gardens were already visible from the conservatory at the rear of the property.  Many properties in the area have decking and retaining walls.  The objections due to noise are not justified as this is a family area.

ANALYSIS

Impact upon Visual and Neighbour Amenity

Paragraphs 56 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework state that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and should be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. Paragraph 17 states that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

Page 70 Policy BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan requires development proposals to be compatible with their surroundings in terms of scale, height, massing, layout, materials and architectural style in order to contribute to the provision of an attractive, safe and accessible built environment. Significant weight will also now be afforded to the emerging Core Strategy policies DM1 and P3.

Policy DM1 states that all development should be compatible with surrounding land uses, both in terms of its impact upon those uses and the impact of the surrounding land uses upon the amenities of future residents / users. Development should not adversely affect the amenity of residents or users through visual intrusion, overbearing impact, overshadowing or loss of privacy.

It is considered that the decking structure is not compatible with surrounding land uses, as required by the above national and local policies. The decking is of significant scale and height and has a considerable and significant detrimental impact on the rear gardens of the neighbouring dwellings, having both an overbearing impact and being a visually intrusive form of development. It also affords the opportunity for elevated overlooking directly into the rear garden and conservatory of 14 Forest View, and also into the rear garden of 60 Fallowfield (although some screening exists on this boundary due to the presence of trees). As such, neighbouring occupants are likely to suffer from both actual and perceived overlooking and loss of privacy.

It is acknowledged that the erection of screen fencing could go some way to protecting the privacy of the occupiers of 14 Forest View, although this would be more difficult in respect of 60 Fallowfield Drive due to the position and height of the decking. In order to be effective as a privacy screen, the height of such fencing would be significant in relation to the natural ground level and would require planning permission in its own right. The impact of such fencing would need to be assessed separately, although it is considered likely that this would exacerbate the visual impact of the existing decking structure due to its overall height and solid appearance. Notwithstanding this, the erection of screen fencing does not form part of the current application and the proposal to retain the decking should be assessed on its own merits, i.e. in the absence of any screen fencing.

As such it is considered that the decking is incompatible with its surroundings in terms of scale, height, massing and layout and is detrimental to the amenity of the occupants of nearby properties. The application is therefore contrary to Policy BE/2 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:-

1. The decking is not compatible with its surroundings in terms of scale, height, massing and layout and has resulted in a visually intrusive form of development. In addition, the decking has resulted in a significant loss of privacy and amenity to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties at 14 Forest View and 60 Fallowfield Drive and is therefore contrary to Policy BE/2 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1 and P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report Author Michael Atkinson-Smith

______

Page 71 Application Number: 16/00691/FUL Ward: Bamford

Proposal: Extension to existing balcony

Site Address: Rochdale Rugby Club Moorgate Avenue Rochdale OL11 5LU

Applicant: Mr Jonathan Rhodes Rochdale Rugby Union Club

RECOMMENDATION:

DELEGATION

The application is presented to the Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee as more than four letters of objection have been received and the recommendation is for approval. The Committee has delegated authority to approve or refuse the application.

SITE

This application relates to the clubhouse building of Rochdale Rugby Club which is located to the north side of the playing field within the Rochdale Rugby Club site. The site is accessed off Moorgate Avenue, with the narrow access road of Clubhouse Close running along the east side of the playing field up to the car park which is located to the east side of the clubhouse. The rear boundary of the dwellings on Broadhalgh Avenue borders on the south boundary of the site, there is some vegetation and a high fence to protect the rear of the properties from balls from the playing field. The clubhouse building was constructed pursuant to planning application 02/D40895 and the building occupies an area of 930 sqm. To the west of the

Page 72 building is a second playing field and the clubhouse has balcony area projecting from the south side of the building to provide a view over the main playing field.

PROPOSAL

This application seeks permission to construct an extension to the balcony area on the south side of the clubhouse building; the applicant has advised the reason for this balcony extension is to provide better and increased viewing points of the two playing fields located to the south and west of the clubhouse.

The balcony extension would measure 5200mm in width, 2000mm in height and would project 2550mm from the existing clubhouse building. It would be constructed in brick and there would be roller shutters at ground level in the balcony structure to allow the area beneath the balcony to be used as a covered viewing area for matches and remain secure when not in use. The shutters would measure 1100mm in height by 2150mm in width and there would be two in the south facing elevation and one in the east elevation. The floor of the balcony would be above the shutters at a height of 1350mm, there would be brick pillars which would project above the garage doors to a height of 2550mm and a metal railing up to a height of 2500mm.

The balcony would be constructed in brick to match the existing balcony walls and the railing would be steel to match the existing balcony railing. The roller shutters would also be steel.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/1 Defined Urban Area

G/G/1 Greenspace G/3 Protection of Existing Recreational Open Space

G/BE1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development

G/LT1 Sport, Leisure and Tourism LT/9 Protection of Existing Built Sports and Recreational Facilities

Page 73 G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking

Emerging Core Strategy:

The Council has now received the Inspector’s final report following the Examination of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy is likely to be adopted by the Council in October 2016 and the Local Planning Authority is now in a position to afford significant weight to the policies. The following policies are relevant:

G6 Enhancing green infrastructure G9 Reducing the impact of pollution C8 Improving community, sport, leisure and cultural facilities P3 Improving design of new development E5 Encouraging the visitor economy T1 Delivering sustainable transport T2 Improving Accessibility

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

09/D52307 Removal Of 3 Existing Lighting Columns And Installation Of 4 X 15M High Lighting Columns – Grant Subject to Conditions

02/D40895 Demolition Of Existing Clubhouse And Erection Of New Clubhouse With Associated Car Parking And Access Road. Drainage And Grading Works To Existing Pitches – Granted Subject to Conditions

00/D37357 Extensions To Existing Club House And Formation Of Additional Car Parking Area – Granted Subject to Conditions

87/D20666 Erection Of Six Floodlighting Columns – Granted Subject to Conditions

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Env Health - Noise/Odours – This section has no objection in principal to the application we would recommend a condition requiring the balcony to not be used after 23:00 on any day. The Public protection service is aware of historical complaints of noise nuisance and investigations have not established a nuisance arising from the club. We have recently received further complaints of noise nuisance; all complainants/groups have been issued with diary sheets to document the problem. To date no logs have been returned, this would suggest that that no nuisance is occurring.

Sport England – Further to Sport England’s holding objection of the 18 July 2016 (below), Sport England has received further correspondence from the RFU. The RFU have received information on the club’s risk assessment and advise Sport England on the basis of this information presented by the club and their ongoing commitment to monitoring the H&S of their players in respect of this project, the RFU does not object to the planning application.

Sport England has considered the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (particularly Para 74) and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy, which is presented within its Planning Policy Statement titled ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England’.

Page 74 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.

Having assessed the application, Sport England is satisfied that the proposed development meets the following Sport England Policy exception:

E2 - The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field or playing fields, and does not affect the quantity or quality of pitches or adversely affect their use.

This being the case, Sport England withdraws its holding objection to this application.

The absence of an objection to this application in the context of the Town and Country Planning Act, does not in any way commit Sport England or any National Governing Body of Sport to support for any related funding application.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours and a site notice displayed.

17 letters of objection have been received, the main points raised within the letters of objection are listed below, the officers response to these points can be read below or in the analysis section of this report (where indicated).

Objection 1 – Social events at the club are already noisy and intrusive, particularly from people on the existing balcony which significantly impacts the amenity of nearby residents.

Officer Response – This point is addressed in the analysis section of this report.

Objection 2 – Rules set by the last planning application/licensing application, are being broken. For example windows are being left open when loud music is being played, also the club are required to undertake noise assessments which are not being done.

Officer Response – These requirements appears to relate to conditions of a license for the premises and are not controlled by the Local Planning Authority. Any conditions and requirements of that license are not material considerations in the determination of this planning application.

Objection 3 – Extending the balcony would increase the number of people outside and therefore the noise as the balcony would be used as an extra drinking and smoking area for the bar.

Officer Response – This point is addressed in the analysis section of this report.

Objection 4 – The balcony extension would increase anti-social behaviour, people who use the facility are constantly changing and when inebriated, are not considerate to local residents. As a result Rochdale Rugby Club is in breach of Human Rights Act Protocol 1 Article 1 by preventing the right to the peaceful enjoyment of residents’ properties.

Officer Response – The resident is advised to seek legal advice in respect of existing issues.

Objection 5 – a nearby Neighbour at 3 Hands Lane was not notified of the planning application.

Page 75 Officer Response – all neighbours who adjoin the application site have been notified in writing of the proposed development and a site notice was placed at the junction of Moorgate Avenue/Broadhalgh Avenue/Clubhouse Lane to inform other nearby residents of the planning application.

Objection 6 – Children of members of the Rugby Club roam around nearby streets climbing on property fences and trees.

Officer Response – This is not a material consideration in determining this planning application.

Objection 7 – There was an event held by the rugby club during the day with loud music running late into the evening. Local residents were not notified of the event and the Rugby Club did not apply to the Council for a licence.

Officer Response – This is not a material consideration in determining this planning application.

Objection 8 – A sound proofing glass screen should be erected on the proposed balcony up to the eaves of the clubhouse building, to protect the amenity of nearby residents.

Officer Response – The impact of the proposed balcony on residential amenity is discussed in detail in the analysis section of this report.

Objection 9 – Several suggestions were made for actions the club could take to reduce the impact of the clubhouse on residents: 1. Erect respect your neighbour signs 2. Introduce more traffic control on Moorgate Avenue 3. Install sets of double doors to the balcony so that one set is always closed to reduce noise transfer. 4. Have only one small door to the balcony which would be easier to keep closed rather than large sliding doors. 5. Create a smoking area at the rear of the building accessed off the main frontage of the balcony. 6. Introduce a legal obligation requiring doors and windows to be closed whilst music is playing. 7. A senior committee member present at all functions to ensure the above obligation is being adhered to.

Officer Response – Many of the above points relate to measures that would form part of the licensing regime and could not be controlled by this application. The impact of the proposed balcony on residential amenity is discussed in detail in the analysis section of this report.

Objection 10 – An objector made reference to extending the licencing hours of the club house.

Officer Response – This is not a relevant consideration in determining this application.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development

Rochdale Rugby Club site is defined as Protected Recreational Open Space by Rochdale UDP Proposals Map. Policy G/3 sets out the requirements when considering developments on land designated for this purpose:

Page 76 The development of public or private recreational open space for any other purpose will not be permitted unless one or more of the following exceptions applies:

a) The development is for a non-commercial community use within a park or other outdoor recreation area, is ancillary to the recreational use of the area, would not lead to a deficiency in recreational open space in relation to present or future needs, and does not harm the recreational, townscape or nature conservation value of the remaining open space; b) Alternative provision is made of at least the equivalent quantity and quality of recreational open space, in a satisfactory location and taking account of local environmental and traffic considerations; c) The development funds improvements to existing outdoor sports facilities within the site or on another site, commensurate with the open space being lost; and d) The development comprises a built recreational facility of greater benefit to the wider community than the open space being lost and does not result in a serious deficiency in open space in the area.

Where exceptions are to be made under (b) and (c) above, the Council may impose planning conditions and/or seek planning obligations under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the suitable replacement or improvement of open space.

With regard to criterion (d), such proposals will only be permitted where no suitable alternative brownfield site exists.

The above policy is to be deleted as part of the adoption of the Core Strategy and replaced by Core Strategy Policy C8.

This application proposes an extension to the balcony of the existing clubhouse at the Rochdale Rugby Club site and would not alter or result in the loss of any recreational open space or sports facilities at the Rochdale Rugby Club site. The principle of the development therefore accords with policy G/3 of the UDP. The proposed balcony would be constructed on an area of hardstanding and a small grassed area in a slight decline leading to the main sports pitch on the site. This area offers now recreation value; currently it is only used as a standing area, with some outdoor bench seating to view the matches on the sports pitch. The development would formalise this as a viewing area by adding the balcony and covered viewing area but would not alter the nature of the use of this area. Policy LT/3 is not directly applicable to this development as the development would not result in the loss of any recreational space or facilities, however it is considered to be the most appropriate policy for the development proposed by this application. When considering the proposed development against UDP policies G/3 and LT/9 the officer concludes the proposal to be acceptable in principle. The proposal would also not contravene the emerging Core Strategy policy G6.

Impact on Surrounding Occupiers

Criterion (a) of Unitary Development Plan Policy EM/3 states that development will not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupants of buildings or users of open space. In addition, criterion (j) of Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2 requires development proposals to minimise their potential environmental impact, including noise, air and water pollution. Policy G9 of the emerging Core Strategy seeks to reduce the impact of pollution, including noise.

The application building at Rochdale Rugby Club operates as a clubhouse for the rugby club, providing facilities for players and spectators on match days and for training. The building also includes a function room which can be used to host parties and events. There is not a condition on the planning permission for the construction of the clubhouse (02/D40895) limiting the hours of operation of the clubhouse. However the hours of operation are

Page 77 controlled through the Council’s licensing service, as are the times music can be played. The licensee also agreed to enter into additional conditions of the license to try and minimise the impact of any parties/social events on the residents close to the application site, these include:

a. All external doors/windows closed when regulated entertainment is being provided after 22:00 except in the event of an emergency. b. The committee shall conduct regular assessments of the noise emanating from the premises on every occasion that the premises are used for regulated entertainment and shall take steps to reduce the level of noise when it is likely to cause a disturbance to local residents. c. Notices to be in place at all exits from the premises in places requiring members and their guests to leave the premises quietly and to leave the area quietly whether on foot or in vehicles. In addition, notices placed at strategic points along the access road requiring all drivers to drive slowly and show respect for the club’s neighbours. d. The hours of supply of alcohol:  Monday – Thursday 11:00 – 00:00 hrs  Friday – Saturday 11:00 – 01:00 hrs  Sunday 11:00 – 23:30 hrs e. The start time for the showing of films, live and recorded music and provision of entertainment facilities be as the hours for the supply of alcohol in section 4 above cease thirty minutes before.

Many of the objector’s points make reference to the licensee’s not adhering to these conditions of the license, which in turn is having a negative impact on the amenity of residents, through noise and disturbance from people leaving events at the clubhouse. As the conditions which the clubhouse may or may not be breaching are on a license and not a planning permission, it is not within the remit of the Planning Service to monitor or enforce against these conditions.

The objector’s letters highlight the disturbance from noise and behaviour of people attending parties at the clubhouse, particularly from people on the existing balcony making noise and leaving the windows open which increases noise from music inside the clubhouse. The officer acknowledges that events at the clubhouse may have a negative impact on the peace and quiet of the area particularly at late hours and in turn a negative impact on the amenity of residents who live the properties which border the rugby club site. However it is the officer’s view that the extension to the balcony area proposed by this application will not exacerbate or intensify any problems currently experienced for residents to the extent that would justify a refusal of planning permission.

The proposed balcony would be used to provide an elevated and ground level covered viewing area for spectators to watch matches on the main playing field at the site and would not be used by people attending functions at the clubhouse in the evening. The applicant has stated that the access between the proposed balcony and the existing balcony which serves the function room would be gated to prevent access from the function room or balcony (plans have been submitted by the applicant to back up this statement). Consequently the only access to the proposed balcony area would be through the members bar to be used by members and not by people attending parties or functions at the clubhouse. The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring this gate to be locked when functions are taking place to prevent people attending functions from accessing the new balcony area.

In addition, the Council’s Environmental Health section have specified that a condition be attached to any permission preventing the use of the extended balcony after 11pm to protect the amenity of nearby residents late in the evening. The applicant has stated that shutter doors would be closed on the building at 11pm to prevent access to the balcony area after this time. Conditions are recommended accordingly.

Page 78 The proposed balcony would be located approximately 120 metres from the rear garden boundary of the neighbouring dwellings. The officer believes that this distance will ensure the amenity of residents is not negatively impacted by the use of the proposed balcony as detailed above. Therefore the proposed development would not increase instances of noise or other disturbance from the clubhouse for nearby residents. Consequently the proposed development would comply with UDP policies EM/3 and BE/2 and the emerging Core Strategy Policy G9.

Design and Appearance

The proposed balcony extension would be compatible with the materials used in the construction of the host clubhouse building and existing balcony area, which the proposed balcony would adjoin. The balcony would be set a significant distance within the site and would be of an appropriate scale, design and materials, so that it would not have a negative impact on the amenity of the host building or surrounding area. There would be a section of roller shutters at the ground level of the balcony which would have a commercial appearance however this is compatible with the nature of the clubhouse and some existing features already on the clubhouse such as the existing solid steel entrance doors in the ground floor below the existing balcony, which provide access to the changing rooms and storage areas beneath the balcony. Therefore the proposed balcony extension would be acceptable in terms of design and appearance and would comply with UDP policy BE/2 and emerging Core Strategy Policy P3.

Access, Highways and Parking

It is not considered that the proposed balcony extension would significantly intensify the use of the clubhouse or increase vehicle movements or parking to the site compared with the existing use. The location of the proposed balcony is a hardstanding area to the west side of the south elevation of the clubhouse, which is away from the car park on site. Therefore the proposed development will not result in the loss of any parking spaces or impact the capacity of the highway network or access road to the clubhouse. The proposal therefore accords with Unitary Development Plan Policies A/9, A/10 and LT/9 and is in accordance with the relevant Core Strategy Policies T1 and T2.

Summary

The proposed extension to the balcony at the clubhouse of Rochdale Rugby club would be acceptable in principle as it would not impact upon the recreational value of the land at the site and would not affect the recreational use of the site. The design and materials of the proposed balcony would be compatible with the host building and existing balcony area, and would not have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the host building and surrounding area. The proposed balcony would only be accessed via the members bar and would create additional viewing space for matches on the main playing field, Therefore there would not be an increase in noise disturbance for nearby residents from events and functions later in the evening hosted in the function room at the clubhouse. Finally the balcony extension would not result in the loss of any parking at the site and would not significantly intensify the use of the site, therefore the capacity of the highway network and parking provision at the site would be unaffected. Consequently the proposed development complies with Rochdale Unitary Development Plan Policies BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development), EM/3 (Noise and New Development), LT/9 (Protection of Existing Built Sports and Recreational Facilities), A/9 (New Development – Access for General Traffic), A/10 (New Development – Provision of Parking) and G/3 (Protection of Existing Recreational Open Space). The proposal would also be in accordance with the emerging Core Strategy Policies C8 (Improving community, sport, leisure and cultural facilities), G6 (Enhancing Green Infrastructure), G9 (Reducing the impact of pollution), P3 (Improving Design of New Development), T1 (Delivering sustainable transport) and T2 (Improving Accessibility).

Page 79 RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. This permission relates to the following plans:-

 Location Plan – Drawing Number AS529-01 – Scale 1:1250  Site Location Plan – Scale 1:2500  Existing and Proposed Block Plans – Drawing Number AS529-02 – Scale 1:500  Balcony Extension to Provide Under Storage – Drawing Number HC-16110-(60)- 001 – Scale 1:50 – Updated plan received 15th September 2016  Balcony Extension to Provide Under Storage Elevations – Drawing Number HC- 16110-(60)-002 – Scale 1:50 – Updated plan received 15th September 2016

and the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground construction works shall take place until samples and / or full specifications of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, emerging Core Strategy Policy P3 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The Balcony Extension hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the fencing/gate which restricts access to the balcony extension via the members bar only has been erected, in accordance with plan refs HC-16110-(60)-001 and 16110-(60)-002 updated plans received 15th September 2016, and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of amenity in accordance with Policies BE/2 and EM/3 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. The balcony extension herby approved is only permitted to be used between the hours of 09:00-23:00 on every day.

Reason: In the interest of amenity in accordance with Policies BE/2 and EM/3 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy G9 of the Emerging Rochdale Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report Author Joseph Nanson ______

Page 80 Application Number: 16/00706/FUL Ward: Spotland And Falinge

Proposal: Proposed development for specialised supported living accommodation (Use Class C2) comprising four self-contained one-bedroom apartments and six en- suite bedrooms, together with communal facilities, ancillary staff accommodation and office, site access, parking and open space.

Site Address: Land At Meadow View Rochdale OL12 7PA

Applicant: C/O Agent HB Villages Developments Limited

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

DELEGATION SCHEME

The application is before the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee as a petition of objection with four or more signatures has been received from owners or occupiers of property in the vicinity of the application site and the recommendation is for approval. Members may grant or refuse planning permission.

SITE

This application relates to an area of land to the west of Beechwood Lodge, which in turn lays to the west of Meadow View, a recently constructed 64-bedroom elderly care home. The site is currently an area of open field, which previously formed informal open space associated with

Page 81 the then adjacent building, Meadow View Home for The Aged (now demolished and re- developed as Beechwood Lodge). A public footpath runs to the south of the site, providing pedestrian access from Meadow View to Caldershaw Primary School.

Beechwood Lodge incorporates a H-shaped layout, comprising three elongated rectangles – one flanking Meadow View to the east, a second flanking the application site to the west and a central section orientated at a right angle linking the eastern and western ‘wings’. The building benefits from a large, 16-space car park in an elongated area of hardstanding parallel to Meadow View itself.

Surrounding buildings also include rows of terraced, two-storey housing occupying an elevated position on the opposite side of Meadow View to the east, a two-storey sheltered accommodation block to the south on Ravendale Close, a row of three bungalows (nos. 2-6 Meadow View) orientated at right angles to the southeast of the site and the grounds of Caldershaw Primary School to the west. The site shares its northern boundary with a large expanse of greenspace allocated as Protected Recreational Open Space and as a Greenspace Corridor on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Proposals Map through which the watercourse of Caldershaw Brook flows (which at this point is designated as a ‘Main River’).

PROPOSAL

The application seeks permission for the erection of a two-storey building containing four self- contained one-bedroom apartments and six en-suite bedrooms with communal lounge, kitchen and dining areas, along with associated staff areas, open space and car parking. The applicant has indicated that the completed scheme would provide Higher Complex Care and Autism services, specifically providing a 24 hour community based care home for adults with learning disabilities and autism, providing a support solution for people who want to live within their local communities but require an enhanced level of day to day care and support in their lives.

The development would be accessed from Meadow View itself, along a new access road to be constructed on the existing strip of land between Beechwood Lodge to the north and Ravendale Close to the south. Parking would be provided within a circulation area to the front (south) of the building with 10 spaces (including 2 disability spaces). A refuse store would be constructed to the south west of the building, with access via paving to the driveway. To the rear (north) of the building would be a communal garden space.

The proposed building would span a total width of 21m, with a depth of 19m. It would be constructed with a pitched roof to a maximum height of 5.5m to the eaves and 9m to the ridge. Internally, on the ground floor, the building would comprise an entrance foyer, office spaces, laundry room and bathroom. Three en-suite bedrooms would benefit from a shared lounge, dining room and kitchen. Within the eastern ‘wing’ of the building would be two self-contained single bedroom apartments. At first floor level the building would comprise further staff facilities (including office space, a locker room and an overnight space with shower facilities). The footprint would follow the same format as the ground floor, with three en-suite bedrooms sharing a lounge, dining room and kitchen in the western ‘wing’ and a further two self- contained apartments, again in an eastern ‘wing’.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

Page 82 The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Policy Guidance

The government published its National Planning Practice Guidance on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the National Planning Policy Framework and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/1 Defined Urban Area

G/H/1 Housing H/3 Residential Developments Outside Allocated Areas H/6 Provision of Recreational Open Space in New Housing Development H/10 Residential Homes, Group Homes and Sheltered Housing

G/G/1 Greenspace G/10 Protection of Urban Amenity Open Space

G/A/1 Accessibility A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People A/8 New Development – Capacity of the Highway Network A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/4 Contaminated Land EM/7 Development and Flood Risk EM/8 Protection of Surface and Ground Water

G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/6 Landscaping Protection and Enhancement NE/8 Development Affecting Trees, Woodlands & Hedgerows

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development BE/8 Landscaping in New Development

Emerging Core Strategy (CS):

The Council has now received the Inspector’s final report following the Examination of the Core Strategy. Once adopted, the Core Strategy will partially replace the 2006 Unitary Development Plan. The Core Strategy is expected to be adopted by the Council in October 2016 and significant weight is now afforded to the policies contained within it. The following policies are relevant:

SO2 Creating successful and healthy communities C1 Delivering the right amount of housing in the right places C3 Delivering the right type of housing

Page 83 SO3 Improving design, image and quality of place P3 Improving design of new development

SO4 Promoting a greener environment G6 Enhancing green infrastructure G7 Increasing the value of biodiversity and geodiversity G8 Managing water resources and flood risk G9 Reducing the impact of pollution

SO5 Improving accessibility and delivering sustainable transport T2 Improving accessibility

DM1 General development requirements

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY & BACKGROUND

The area of land within the current application site boundary previously formed part of the site of the Meadow View Home for The Aged. Planning permission 11/D54978 was granted in March 2012 for the demolition of the building and the redevelopment of the eastern part of the site with a two-storey 64-bedroom care home. This permission has been implemented and completed and is now known as Beechwood Lodge, a specialist elderly care home for those with dementia.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Highways and Engineering – This applicant’s proposal regarding dedicated parking exceeds standards set in the UDP for a development of this size and nature; therefore I have no objections regarding this proposal. The level of traffic this development would generate will not create a significant negative impact upon the existing local highway network. Therefore there would be no capacity issues due to the approval of this residential development; the surrounding highway network will adequately accommodate vehicles from the development.

This development will not have a significant negative impact upon road safety. Ample dedicated parking has been proposed therefore on street parking outside the development will not be an issue. A new access to the highway will be created by this development; the proposed access I sufficient to serve a development of this size & nature. However as the proposed access is on the adopted highway Rochdale Borough Councils Highways Service should be contacted prior to the commencement of access works.

The Highways Service has no concerns regarding refuse collection from this location. This application will not impact upon the highways layout. Highways drainage will not change as a result of this development. No public right of way will be obstructed by this development.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – We are not aware of any significant ecological constraints associated with this site. Risks relating to the proximity to Caldershaw Brook, nesting birds and invasive species can be resolved via condition and or informative.

Caldershaw Brook The site is adjacent to the Caldershaw Brook, that flow into the River Spodden. Measures are required to ensure no breach of the Water Framework Directive i.e. to prevent further deterioration which can include changes to flow pattern, width and depth of channel, sediment availability/transport and ecology and biology.

The main risks associated with this development are increases to run off, sediment load and pollution during and post construction. These risks are generally low as there are no proposed

Page 84 impacts on the Brook or riparian habitat. During construction measures should be put in place to ensure no accidental incidents that impact upon the Brook, such as pollution spills, through siting of compounds and chemical storage areas away from the Brook Corridor. I recommend that this be resolved via a condition along the following lines.

No development, site clearance, earth moving shall take place or material or machinery brought on site until a method statement to protect the Caldershaw Brook from accidental spillages, dust and debris has been supplied to and agreed by the LPA. All measure will be implemented and maintained for the duration of the construction period in accordance with the approved details.

With regards post development impacts please seek clarification that no direct drainage in to the Brook is proposed.

Officer’s Note: Upon receipt of information from the applicant regarding the proposed surface water drainage outfall into the adjacent Caldershaw Brook, further consultation was carried out with the Ecology Unit who confirmed, on the basis of the details submitted, that they have no objection to the drainage proposals.

Nesting Birds There appears to be some nesting habitat lost as a result of this development. All British birds nests and eggs (with certain limited exceptions) are protected by Section 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, as amended. I recommend a condition along the following lines.

No works to trees or shrubs shall occur between the 1st March and 31st August in any year unless a detailed bird nest survey by a suitably experienced ecologist has been carried out immediately prior to clearance and written confirmation provided that no active bird nests are present which has been agreed in writing by the LPA.

Invasive Species The site appears to be primarily amenity grassland. However the proximity to the Caldershaw Brook means that the northern boundary is high risk for species such as Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed. I recommend and informative along the following lines to any permission.

It is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, as amended to introduce, plant or cause to grow wild any plant listed in Schedule 9 part 2 of the Act. Species such as Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam are included within this schedule. If any such species will be disturbed as a result of this development a suitably experienced consultant should be employed to advise on how to avoid an offence.

Net Ecological Impact of the Development Section 109 NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. The proposed development will result in the permanent loss of a small area of amenity grassland and requires the removal of some shrub and potentially two trees on arb. grounds. These losses are small and easily mitigated for through the soft landscape plan. I am happy for the detail of the landscaping to be conditioned along the following lines.

A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA, prior to commencement of development. The content of the plan should include elements to mitigate for loss of trees shrubs and bird nesting habitat. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Environment Agency – Thank you for referring the above application to the Environment Agency. We have no objection in principle, but would wish to make the following comments.

Page 85 We have reviewed the following report with respect to potential risks to controlled waters from land contamination:

• Clancy Consulting Ltd. Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report. Proposed Development Meadow View Rochdale. Client: HB Villages Developments Ltd. Reference: 10/0797/001. Dated: October 2015.

The site is situated in a sensitive location with respect to controlled waters. The drift geology comprises Till (secondary undifferentiated), the solid geology comprises Pennine Lower Coal Measures (Secondary A aquifer) and Milnrow Sandstone (Secondary A aquifer). The Caldershaw Brook is located approximately 122m northwest of the site.

A review of the site history has not identified significant sources of contamination on the site, however the Caldershaw Brook historically flowed through the site. It entered the southwest corner of the site, flowing through the central area and exiting the northeast of the site and was subsequently diverted. It does not appear to have been culverted through the site, therefore infilled material may be present in the vicinity of the historic flow path. We recommend that the status of the infilled brook is confirmed and evaluated by undertaking site investigation and delineation works to confirm whether contaminated material is present and if any preferential pathway exists within the made ground which poses a risk to Controlled Waters.

We note that a Phase 2 site investigation and risk assessment has been recommended. As part of these works soil samples should be retrieved and boreholes may need to be installed for groundwater sampling. If insufficient groundwater is present to sample at the site, leachability testing should be undertaken.

We consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following planning conditions are included as set out below [for the purposes of clarity the recommended conditions are contained at the end of the report, along with the informative notes]. Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment.

United Utilities – No objection. Recommend standard conditions relating to drainage of foul and surface water. Note that a public sewer crosses this site and we will not grant permission to build over or within 3 metres of the centre line of it. The requirement for our permission is detailed within the guidance that supports Part H4 of the Building Regulations.

Design for Security - Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above application, having looked the proposals we would recommend the following:  Side and rear gardens need defensive barriers using walls or fencing to a minimum height of 1.8m  Any new fittings (i.e. shutters, windows or doors) should be certified to Secured by Design standards.  Access to the side and rear of the property should be restricted  Entrance to the building should be a video intercom system  Visitors should be directed/gain entry through the main lobby area, passing the staff office.  Staff should be given the necessary training (i.e lone worker), personal attack alarms should be provided/panic button  Bins should be stored within a lockable enclosure.  Dusk till dawn lighting should be installed to all external doors.  Parking spaces to be clearly demarcated.

Page 86 Public Protection (Environment) – Recommend standard site contamination investigation and assessment condition requiring the submission of a report to the LPA prior to commencement of development.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding properties and a notice displayed in the vicinity of the site. In response to the publicity one letter of support was received, as summarised below:  Support the regeneration of the area and in particular specialise supporting living is needed in Rochdale MBC  Note that local neighbour considerations need to be taken into account e.g. methods of construction, hours of working etc.

Officer Response: Given the proximity of neighbouring residential properties it is recommended that a condition be attached to permission, if granted, requiring the submission of a construction method statement to the LPA prior to the commencement of works.

A 35 signatory petition of objection was received from the Ravendale Tenants Association of the neighbouring sheltered housing scheme which can be summarised as follows:  Volume of traffic, including staff and visitors cars, refuse and delivery lorries etc. using new access road will be disturbing for elderly residents  Concern raised regarding excessive volumes of traffic on Meadow View, in connection with the nearby Tesco Express convenience store and parents dropping off and picking up children from the two nearby schools  Children using the existing footpath to the adjacent school will be affected as the proposed knee-high boundary fence seems inadequate

Officer Response: The building would provide accommodation for a maximum of ten residents at any one time, with a proposed number of five full-time employees. In a ‘worst-case’ scenario, were all residents and employees to have one vehicle each and be present at the same time, this would represent a maximum of only fifteen vehicles. In reality, given the nature of the disabilities of the intended residents, it is unlikely that many of them would operate their own vehicle. Consultation has been carried out with the Council’s Highways Officer, who has raised no objection and considers that the surrounding highway network would adequately accommodate the projected volumes of traffic from a development of this size.

The independent actions of parents who are dropping children off at a school fall outside the control of both the applicant and the Local Planning Authority. Existing ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions are in place on the west side of Meadow View to deter indiscriminate parking.

The maximum parking standards outlined within the UDP for a facility of this nature is 1 parking space per 4 beds, with disabled car parking spaces representing 10% of total capacity. The application has therefore exceeded the maximum standard in this case and no sustainable objection could be raised on these grounds.

The proposed ‘knee-high’ boundary fence is considered to represent an adequate boundary treatment between the footpath and the adjacent driveway. Vehicles would not be travelling at speed when approaching or leaving the development. Furthermore, an existing ‘hooped’ fence is in place on the south side of the footpath – were a similar high fence installed on the side facing the proposed development it would create a ‘closed-in’ effect and it is therefore considered that a more diminutive boundary treatment is more appropriate in this circumstance. Notwithstanding this, a condition is recommended to be attached requiring the submission of full details of all boundary treatments prior to occupation of the building.

Page 87 ANALYSIS

Principle of Development

The application site is allocated as Defined Urban Area under the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan. Policy G/D/1 is therefore relevant to any applications on the site and in the supporting text to this policy it is established that new development should be located in the urban area, so as to support urban regeneration and to protect the countryside.

It is clear that the parts of the housing policies relating to housing supply targets within the adopted Unitary Development Plan are out-of-date. In such cases, paragraph 14 of the NPPF very clearly directs that the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ means planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole; or where specific policies indicate development should be restricted. Having specific regard to residential developments, Chapter 6, paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to “boost significantly the supply of housing”.

The Council is now at an advanced stage in terms of its Core Strategy with the document expected to be formally adopted by the Council in October 2016. The policies within this plan may now be given significant weight in terms of the decision making process. Whilst the latest published information suggests that the Council can demonstrate a five year supply based on the emerging Core Strategy target, this does not preclude the promotion of sustainable development particularly where this can assist in delivering additional housing to meet local needs.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets an important planning context as it promotes a presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’. This approach is mirrored in the emerging Core Strategy. Policy C1 of the CS focuses on brownfield land but acknowledges the potential for sustainable residential development on Greenfield land, specifically where it is demonstrated that the development would have limited adverse impact on green infrastructure or amenity value in and around the site; and green infrastructure is, wherever possible, incorporated into the scheme.

The site in question, although Greenfield, is not protected as recreational open space within the UDP. However, Policy G/10 of the UDP makes reference to the protection of urban amenity greenspace and therefore land does not have to be formally designated in order to have value as greenspace. This approach is reflected in Policy G6 of the emerging Core Strategy which generally seeks the protection and enhancement of valuable green infrastructure.

The site is open, but given its size and location, has very limited or zero value in terms of recreational open space. It has no specific structural value in defining the local community or providing a buffer between incompatible uses. The site previously formed an area of informal space related to the now demolished Meadow View Home for the Aged and appears to have been separated as a ‘leftover’ parcel of land, physically separated by a boundary fence, following the redevelopment on the site with the present care home (Beechwood Lodge).

Whilst the proposal would result in residential development on a Greenfield site, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in all other respects. Given the Government’s desire to provide a more flexible supply of housing land, it is considered that it would not be sustainable to refuse this application specifically on the grounds that the principle of residential development on this Greenfield site is unacceptable.

In light of the above, it is recognised that the proposal would make a valuable contribution to the supply of housing in the borough, especially with regard to the provision of specialist

Page 88 sheltered accommodation. This factor must however be balanced against all other material considerations which are outlined below.

Provision of Recreational Open Space

Policy H/6 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan requires all developments, regardless of scale, to make a contribution to recreational open space provision in the Borough. However, the Policy states that exceptions to the requirement will be made in the case of sheltered housing and other housing developed specifically for elderly persons. No contribution towards recreational open space would therefore be required from this development.

Design, Layout and Scale

Policy BE/2 of the UDP is concerned with design criteria for new development and states that development proposals should demonstrate good design by ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure. The policy requires that schemes should create visual interest in areas lacking character and take opportunities to retain, enhance or create views alongside appropriate treatment of open spaces between and around buildings. Good design includes the retention of key natural features, including trees, as part of the landscaping of the site and should allow for safe and convenient access and circulation.

Policy H/10 of the Unitary Development Plan states that proposals for the provision of residential homes, group homes or sheltered housing schemes where the intended residents are elderly, disabled or otherwise in need of care, will be required to satisfy the following criteria:  The proposal should not have any adverse impact upon the character of the surrounding area or the amenity of residents in any adjoining properties by reason of noise, visual intrusion or loss of privacy;  The proposal should provide adequate areas of private garden/amenity space for residents’ use; and  The proposal should make safe and convenient arrangements for access, parking and servicing including access for people with impaired mobility which will be a matter for negotiation with the applicant.

Paragraph 58 of the NPPF encourages good design by stipulating that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:  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;  establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;  respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;  create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy acknowledges that good design will improve the image and attractiveness of the borough as a place to live, work and visit, and can also improve health, safety and the environment and reduce long-term costs. As such the policy requires all new developments, including associated landscaping, regardless of location in the borough, to adhere to high standards of design.

Page 89 The proposed building has been designed with a prominent double gable frontage, with an eastern ‘wing’ section recessed approximately 3.2m behind the front building line and a second stepped back section 6.4m beyond this. The main front entrance would stand within one of the gable-end sections and would be marked by a small pathway leading up from the car park and a slim corbelled canopy above.

The building would largely reflect the design language of the adjacent Beechwood Lodge, making use of red/brown facing brickwork, reconstituted stone cills and lintels to window and door openings and areas of render. In a slight contrast to Beechwood Lodge, the proposed building would make use of render to create strong vertical elements, primarily within the gable frontages, and in line with the window areas on the adjacent ‘wing’. It is recommended that a standard condition requiring submission of full materials details is attached to any permission, if granted.

The roof of the building would be pitched incorporating a series of gable features and hipped sections to the rear and side. Whilst the overall height of the building would be substantial, it would not appear disproportionate in comparison to the adjacent care home. The surrounding area is characterised by buildings of predominantly two-storey height and the site is viewed alongside the adjacent care home and the block of sheltered housing flats on Ravendale Close to the south. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the building would not be directly visible from Meadow View itself and would be largely screened by Beechwood Lodge.

The design of the proposed development is therefore acceptable in the context of the character and appearance of the site and immediate area, and is in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies BE/2 and H/10, Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact upon Surrounding Land Uses

Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework containing the ‘core planning principles’ advises that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

Criterion (a) of Policy H/10 of the Unitary Development Plan outlines that proposals for the provision of residential homes, group homes or sheltered housing scheme should not have any adverse impact upon the character of the surrounding area or the amenity of residents in any adjoining properties by reason of noise, visual intrusion or loss of privacy.

Policy DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy states that all development must take account of all the relevant policies within the CS and other Local Development Framework documents. However, there are a number of basic planning considerations that apply to all development. All development proposals, including changes of use of land and buildings, extensions and alterations, will be expected to demonstrate, inter alia, that they: i. Are compatible with surrounding land uses, both in terms of its impact upon those uses and the impact of the surrounding land uses upon the amenities of future residents / users; ii. Do not adversely affect the amenity of residents or users through visual intrusion, overbearing impact, overshadowing or loss of privacy; iii. Do not impact on amenity due to noise, air, dust, light and odour pollution, traffic generation or inadequate access; iv. Do not have an adverse impact on health, through its impact or the effect of existing problems e.g. land contamination, or poor air quality;

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ contain a number of guidelines and requirements for the design and layout of new housing in order to preserve the amenity standards for surrounding residents.

Page 90 Included within the above document are the expected space standards for new residential development: i. 21 metres between directly facing principal windows of habitable rooms, at an upper floor level AND 10.5m between a principal window at an upper floor level and a directly facing boundary of the curtilage; ii. 14m between a principal window and any directly facing two storey elevation which does not contain a principal window to a habitable room; iii. 10m between a principal window and any directly facing single storey elevation which does not contain a principal window to a habitable room.

The separation distance from the front elevation of the proposed building to the facing elevation of the Ravendale Sheltered Housing Scheme would stand at a minimum of 28.4m, well in excess of the required distance of 21m and it is not therefore considered that the scheme would result in an undue impact on occupiers of Ravendale by way of having an overbearing effect, loss of privacy or loss of daylight.

A minimum separation distance of 14m would be achieved between the side elevation of the proposed building and the projecting gable section of Beechwood Lodge. With regard to the potential for overlooking and reduction in privacy, it is noted that the windows to be installed in the east side elevation of the building would be obscure glazed (serving kitchens) and a condition would be attached to the permission to re-inforce this requirement, and ensure that the windows are non-opening. It is therefore considered that the two buildings would share an acceptable relationship, in accordance with the requirements of the SPD. There is no other immediately surrounding development to either the west or north of the site.

It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would have no undue impact on the amenity of surrounding occupiers through overlooking, overshadowing, loss of outlook or loss of daylight, and satisfactory separation distances, in accordance with the Council’s Residential Development SPD would be maintained. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of UDP Policies BE/2 and H/10, Policy DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Highways

Policy A/8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that new development will be permitted provided that the additional traffic generated will not be detrimental to the safe and efficient operation of the Highway Network, both adjacent to and further away from the site. Proposals should not: a. Have an adverse impact on the safety of any road users; b. Have an adverse impact on accessibility for pedestrians, including people with restricted mobility, cyclists or users of public transport in the immediate vicinity of the development; c. Substantially increase congestion; d. Divert traffic on to less suitable roads; or e. Cause an unacceptable environmental impact on residential properties passed by traffic associated with the development whilst accessing the principal road network.

Further to this, UDP policy A/9 stipulates that development proposals will be required to facilitate safe and convenient access for general traffic including car, motorcycles and commercial vehicles and relative to the scale, type and location of development, the proposals should ensure that access points to and from premises are safe, convenient and suitable for the volume and characteristics of traffic that will be required to use them and access for emergency and service vehicles is provided.

Page 91 The Council’s requirements for provision of parking are set out within policy A/10, which refers to the Council’s Schedule of Parking Standards – identifying maximum standards for car parking provision and minimum standard for cycle and motorcycle parking.

Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy acknowledges that development that offers greater access for all forms of travel will assist the borough's continuous improvement to becoming more sustainable, healthier, greener and prosperous. Development and infrastructure proposal are required to satisfy the Council’s accessibility hierarchy and in all circumstances, the safety, accessibility and amenity of those who live or have business in the area will have priority, while providing reliable journey times for those travelling through.

Development allocations and submitted proposals are as far as possible required to be accessible for all (including people with impaired mobility), applying the accessibility criteria set out in Appendix 4 of the CS or any future thresholds agreed for Greater Manchester. Developments are required to provide parking in compliance with the Council’s Car Parking Standards as set out in Appendix 5 of the CS.

Consultation has been carried out on the application proposal They note that with the Council’s Highways Service, which has raised no objection. the applicant’s proposal regarding dedicated parking exceeds standards set in the UDP for a development of this size and nature. With regard to parking standards set out in the emerging Core Strategy, the development would also comply.

The Highways consultation response notes that the level of traffic the development would generate would not create a significant negative impact upon the existing local highway network with the surrounding highway network adequately accommodating vehicle movements from the development.

A new access to the highway (Meadow View) would be created by the development; the proposed access is considered sufficient to serve a development of the size and nature proposed. The Highways Service has no concerns regarding refuse collection from the site, and it is noted that the site layout has been designed so as refuse collection vehicles would easily be able to collect from a single refuse collection point.

The proposal is therefore considered to meet the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies A/3, A/8, A/9 and A/10, along with Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Flood Risk and Drainage

Policy EM/7 of the Unitary Development Plan states that development will not be permitted in areas identified as flood plains, or other areas where development could contribute to increased flood risk. Policy EM/8 of the UDP states that development likely to pose an unacceptable risk to surface water and ground water quality, or to water supply will not be permitted and outlines the requirements for disposal of both surface and foul water.

Policy G8 of the emerging Core Strategy sets out the Council’s strategy for managing water resources and flood risk more effectively in the interests of public safety, protecting property and infrastructure and the conservation of the natural environment.

The site falls within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore at a low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 or 0.1% annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year). However, the site is located within 20 metres of the bank top of a main river (Caldershaw Brook) and therefore the Environment Agency has been consulted.

Page 92 The proposed drainage strategy for the site would, in summary, allow for the disposal of foul water via the existing public sewer which crosses the site and for the disposal of surface water via a connection to the existing surface water sewer which crosses the site to an outfall into the Caldershaw Brook to the north. The surface water run-off from hard surfaced areas would pass through permeable block paving prior to entering the below ground network before passing through a silt trap and on to the outfall. During extreme events a throttle system would be activated and an on-site cellular storage system utilised to reduce flows.

Detailed consultation has also taken place with the EA, United Utilities, the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit and the Council’s Drainage consultee, as the Lead Local Flood Authority, who have all raised no objection on the basis of the submitted information subject to conditions. It is therefore considered that, subject to these conditions, the requirements of the above policies have been met.

Contamination

Paragraph 120 of the NPPF states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

Policy EM/4 of the Unitary Development Plan states that where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that land which is the subject of a development proposal has the potential for contamination, the Council will require a detailed survey of ground conditions, details of any proposed remedial treatments and a completion report to establish that the work has been carried out in accordance with the agreed remediation scheme. In considering proposals for new development or change of use, the Council will take account of their potential for contamination of land and will seek to prevent further contamination by refusing proposals likely to give rise to significant contamination or by imposing stringent conditions.

A Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study has been submitted in support of the application which outlines the findings of a desk based study of the site in relation to land use history, environmental setting, geology and hydrology etc. The report concludes that the risk assessment has identified potential contamination sources, pathways and receptors although the likelihood of significant contamination beneath the site is considered very low. The report recommends that a Phase 2 site investigation is required.

The Council’s Public Protection Officer and Environment Agency are satisfied that any issues which may exist on the site can be adequately identified and addressed by the imposition of a condition requiring the submission and approval of a contamination report and implementation of any appropriate remediation measures required, in accordance with the findings of the above report. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the requirements of UDP Policy EM/4, Policy G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Landscaping & Trees

Policy BE/8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that all developments will be required, where appropriate, to incorporate landscape scheme of a high quality. Policy NE/6 states that development will be permitted where it conserves the physical and cultural attributes of the landscape and contributes, as appropriate, to the regeneration, restoration, enhancement or maintenance of the landscape likely to be affected whilst policy NE/8 outlines that development proposals will be permitted that do not adversely affect trees, woodland or hedgerows.

Page 93 Policy G6 of the emerging Core Strategy states that the Council will sustain and enhance a green network to support growth and regeneration in the borough and provide a high quality environment that meets the needs of our community and visitors to the borough. Policy G7 outlines that the Council will ensure that sites and features of biodiversity and geodiversity importance are given full and appropriate recognition and protection. Opportunities for enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity, creating new sites and features of interest and improving opportunities for public enjoyment will be supported.

The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Assessment in support of the scheme, which identified seventeen individual trees and two groups of trees on the site. Six individual trees were recorded as retention category ‘B’ (trees of moderate quality) and a mixture of eleven individual trees and groups of trees were recorded as retention category ‘C’ (trees of low quality). Two individual trees (T2 on the northern boundary and T18 on the southern boundary with Ravendale Close) were classified as retention category ‘U’ (unsuitable for retention).

No trees would be required to be removed to enable the construction of the proposed development, with the exception of the two trees recommended for removal on the basis of their existing condition (category U).

The proposed car parking surface would lie partially within the confines of the RPA to be established around tree T10 – however, the area to be hard-surfaced equates to approximately 11.7% of the total RPA. On this basis, the arboricultural report concludes that the proposed car parking area would have no adverse effect on the health of the tree. Furthermore, the proposed bin store area would partially lie within the RPA for group G6, however, given the young age of the trees it is not considered that the bin store would have any undue negative impact on the vegetation.

No detailed landscaping plan has been submitted with the application. It is noted that an adequately sized private garden or outdoor amenity area is necessary within schemes such as this for the benefit of residents who may be more likely to spend an increasingly large proportion of their time at home. It is therefore recommended that a condition be attached requiring the submission of a full landscaping scheme for the site to the LPA prior to occupation of the building, which should include proposals for the rear garden space and which is also necessary in accordance with the advice of GMEU to enhance biodiversity.

Summary

The proposed development would be compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings in terms of its design – including size, scale, height, massing, layout and materials, especially given the presence of the adjacent care facility recently constructed on the adjacent site. The siting and design of the building would ensure that the development would have no undue impact on the amenity of surrounding occupiers by way of overshadowing, loss of outlook or loss of daylight and a satisfactory level of separation would be achieved between facing residential elevations to ensure no unacceptable impact by reason of visual intrusion or loss of privacy.

The proposal would allow for safe and convenient access and circulation for all modes of transport and includes sufficient off-street parking provision in order to ensure the development would have no detrimental impact on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network either adjacent to or further away from the site. The proposal includes a full drainage strategy for the disposal of foul and surface water from the development which is considered acceptable with regard to potential flood risks on the site. Final details of the landscaping for the site would be required by condition, however, the potential ecological and arboricultural impacts of the scheme are considered acceptable.

Page 94 RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 This permission relates to the following plans/documents:-

- Proposed Site Layout job no. 164108 drawing no. AL-90-100 rev. P7 - Plans, Elevations, Section job no. 164108 drawing no. AL-20-100 rev. P7 - Planning, Design and Access Statement by Peter Brett Associates project ref. 35400 dated June 2016 - Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Godwin's Arboricultural Limited ref. AIA.12501.01

- Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study by Clancy Consulting Limited ref. 10/0797/001

- Crime Impact Statement by Peter Brett Associates - Proposed Site Layout job no. 1/20038 drawing no. EW/001 rev. T1 - Proposed Drainage Strategy job no. 1/20038 drawing no. EW/002 rev. T1 - Drainage Construction Details job no. 1/20038 drawing no. EW/003 rev. T1 - Attenuation Construction Details job no. 1/20038 drawing no. EW/004 rev. T1

and the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground construction works shall take place until samples and / or full specifications of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment (in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall investigate the nature and extent of any contamination on the site (whether or not it originates on the site). The assessment shall be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place.

The submitted report shall include:

i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination

Page 95 ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: o human health, o property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, and service lines and pipes, o adjoining land, o groundwaters and surface waters, o ecological systems, o archaeological sites and ancient monuments; iii) where unacceptable risks are identified, an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s) to form a remediation strategy for the site. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the duly approved remediation strategy and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any of the building(s) hereby approved are first occupied.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policies EM/2 and EM/4 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Further investigation will be necessary prior to commencement of any building or engineering works on site.

5 No development shall take place until details of existing and finished site levels and finished floor levels for the proposed building relative to off-site datum point(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of proper planning, amenity and in compliance with Policy BE/2 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: As the proposals require ground works and engineering works an understanding of site levels will therefore be necessary prior to commencement of any building or engineering works on site. Finished floor levels are intrinsically linked to site levels.

6 No development shall commence on site (including any works of demolition), until a Construction Method Statement, which shall include the following:

a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; e) wheel washing facilities; f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; h) measures for the protection of the natural environment including protection of the adjacent Caldershaw Brook from accidental spillages, dust and debris; and i) hours of construction, including deliveries;

has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved

Page 96 construction method statement without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety, during the construction phase in accordance with Policies BE/2, A/7, A/8, EM/2, EM/3 and EM/8 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies DM1, P3, T2, G8 and G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: As the proposals require ground works and engineering works an understanding will therefore be necessary of what measures will be put in place to protect the amenity of nearby residents prior to commencement of any building or engineering works on site.

7 No development shall take place until full details of the vehicular access onto Meadow View, including construction level drawings showing the levels, drainage strategy, lighting and materials (as necessary) of the access road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The vehicular access shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the building hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of proper planning, the comprehensive development of the site and in order to provide safe, secure access to the development in the interests of public safety, and ensure continued function of the surrounding highway network, in accordance with Policy A/9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: These details are require prior to commencement in the interests of highway safety and in order to ensure adequate access is provided to the site.

8 No clearance of trees and shrubs in preparation for (or during the course of) development shall take place during the bird nesting season (March - August inclusive) unless an ecological survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to establish whether the site is utilised for bird nesting. Should the survey reveal the presence of any nesting species, then no development shall take place during the period specified above unless a mitigation strategy has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which provides for the protection of nesting birds during the period of works on site.

Reason: In order to prevent any habitat disturbance to nesting birds in accordance with Policies NE/3 and NE/4 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies G6 and G7 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 No development or works of site preparation shall take place until all trees that are to be retained within or adjacent to the site, and identified as such within the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment, have been enclosed with temporary protective fencing in accordance with BS:5837:2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations'. The fencing shall be retained throughout the period of construction and no activity prohibited by BS:5837:2012 shall take place within such protective fencing during the construction period.

Reason: In order to protect the existing trees on the site, prior to works taking place, in the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Policies NE/7 and NE/8

Page 97 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies G6 and G7 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The vegetation to be retained is required to be protected before works commence to avoid damage.

10 The car parking, servicing and other vehicular access arrangements shown on the approved plans to serve the development hereby permitted shall be made fully available for use prior to the development being first brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for their intended purpose.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the free flow of traffic and in accordance with Policies A/7, A/9 and A/10 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy T2 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11 The drainage scheme hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the building is first occupied.

Reason: To prevent an increased risk of flooding as a result of the development and to ensure satisfactory disposal of surface and foul water from the site in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy EM/7, policy G8 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

12 Prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted, details of the construction and design of the refuse recycling/bin store as shown on the approved plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved facility shall be provided and made available for use before the first occupation of the building relevant to that facility and the approved facility retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse and in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

13 No external lighting shall be installed on the building or elsewhere on the site unless a scheme for such lighting has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be fully implemented.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in compliance with Policies BE/2 and EM/2 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies P3 and G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14 No part of the development shall be occupied until details of the type, siting, design and materials to be used in the construction of boundaries, screens or retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved structures have been erected in accordance with the approved details. The structures shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in compliance with Policy BE/2 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

15 (a) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the formation of any banks, terraces or other earthworks, hard

Page 98 surfaced areas and materials, planting plans, specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities), existing plants / trees to be retained, a scheme for the timing / phasing of implementation works and elements to include for loss of trees, shrubs and bird nesting habitat.

(b) The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for timing / phasing of implementation or within the next planting season following final occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the sooner.

(c) Any trees or shrubs planted or retained in accordance with this condition which are removed, uprooted, destroyed, die or become severely damaged or become seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development and in accordance with Policies BE/2 and BE/8 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

16 The windows indicated obscure glazed on the eastern side elevation facing Beechwood Lodge on the approved plan reference AL-20-100 rev. P7 shall be fitted with non- opening lights and textured glass which obscuration level is no less than Level 3 of the Pilkington Glass scale (or equivalent), and retained as such thereafter, prior to first occupation of the building hereby approved.

Reason: In the interest of amenity and in compliance with Policies BE/2 and H/10 of the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies P3 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report Author David Allen

______

Page 99 Application Number: 16/00869/FUL Ward: Castleton

Proposal: Construction of new vehicular access to car park on Royle Barn Road

Site Address: Woolworths Plc Royle Barn Road Rochdale OL11 3DT

Applicant: Mr Robert Gibbs Formidable Capital Assets

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

DELEGATION SCHEME

The application is before the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee as four or more objections have been received and the recommendation is for approval. Members may grant or refuse planning permission.

Page 100 SITE

The application relates to a circa 7.5 hectare area of land comprising the site of the former Woolworths headquarters and distribution depot off Royle Barn Road, Castleton.

Planning permission 15/00777/FUL was granted on 30 September 2015 for the raising of the height of the existing main warehouse building to 14m to the eaves and 16m to the ridge/apex. Permission was also granted for the re-cladding of the main building in silver/grey profiled cladding and goosewing grey composite cladding on the roof. These works are nearing completion.

The main vehicular access to the site from Royle Barn Road is currently located towards the northern end of the site, via an “in and out” entrance with security barrier and cabin. Access can also be gained to the rear of the site via Gipsy Lane at the northern end of the site.

Adjoining the northern end of the application building is a leisure use known the Soccer Factory and to the north west of the site, on the opposite side of Royle Barn Road, and to the north east, on the opposite side of Gypsy Lane, are industrial and warehouse premises. The south east boundary of the site adjoins the Manchester to Leeds railway line as well as a builder’s merchants adjacent to Castleton railway station. The south west boundary of the site adjoins the rear elevations of properties on Smalley Street, with the backs of terraced dwellings facing onto the site for around half of its length. The site boundary to the rear of these dwellings is marked by a brick wall.

PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the formation of a vehicular access from Royle Barn Road towards the southern end of the site, to provide a separate entrance for employees travelling by car. Heavy goods vehicles and other commercial vehicles would continue to use the existing site access.

The proposed access is sited slightly to the north of an existing access serving existing commercial business premises on the opposite side of Royle Barn Road. The proposed access road measures 5.5 metres in width and its construction would require the removal of a section of the existing palisade fencing and the creation of a dropped kerb.

The proposed drawings indicate the scale (144 spaces) and layout of the associated car park within the site, although this is purely illustrative. No indication is provided at this stage as to the proposed use of the building lying adjacent to Smalley Street.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been

Page 101 cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/1 Defined Urban Area

G/EC/1 Employment Land Supply EC/2 Primary Employment Zones

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

G/A/1 Accessibility A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking

Emerging Core Strategy:

The Council has now received the Inspector’s final report and main modifications following the Examination in Public of the Core Strategy. Once adopted, the Core Strategy will partly replace the 2006 Unitary Development Plan. The Core Strategy is likely to be adopted by the Council in October 2016 and significant weight is now afforded to the policies contained within it.

SO1 To deliver a more prosperous economy SO2 To create successful and healthy communities SO3 To improve design, image and quality of place SO4 To promote a greener environment SO5 To improve accessibility and deliver sustainable transport

SP3/R The Strategy for Rochdale P3 Improving design of new development T2 Improving accessibility DM1 General development requirements

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

16/00571/FUL - Overclad the north-east, south-east and north-west elevations of existing building on Smalley Street and overclad all elevations of existing security cabin situated at the entrance to the site – Approved.

16/00078/FUL - Erection of 3 external lighting columns to yard (part retrospective) – Approved.

15/01421/FUL – Erection of external loading canopy on Smalley Street elevation – Approved.

15/01382/ANM - Application for non-material amendment to planning permission 15/00777/FUL for installation of facing brickwork to external walls and reduction in number and repositioning of loading doors on Smalley Street elevation – Approved.

15/00777/FUL - Re-cladding and re-roofing of existing unit including an increase in roof height – Approved.

10/D52870 – Change of use of units K & L from warehouse to indoor sports facility – Approved.

Page 102 13/00443 - Application to remove condition 12 of planning permission D53889 (Outline Application Including Access and Scale for Mixed Use Development For A1 (Shops), A2 (Financial And Professional Services), A3 (Restaurants And Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments), A5 (Hot Food Takeaway), B1 (Business), B2 (General Industrial), B8 (Storage And Distribution), C3 (Dwellinghouses) And D1 (Non-Residential Institutions)) in order to allow retention of existing 6953 square metre warehouse to northern end of site for B1/B2/B8 purposes – Approved

10/D53889 – Outline application (including access and scale) for mixed use development for A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking establishments), A5 (hot food takeaway), B1 (business), B2 (general industrial), B8 (storage and distribution), C3 (dwellinghouses) and D1 (non-residential institutions) – Approved.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Public Protection (Noise/Odours) - No objections - moving the point of access should not have an impact on noise levels.

Highways And Engineering - No objections regarding this proposal.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours and a notice was displayed in the vicinity of the site. A total of 5 no. objections have been received, on the grounds listed below. The relevant issues are addressed in the Analysis section of this report.

 There is already a double entrance / exit 100 yards down Royle Barn Road, and another entrance from Gipsy Lane. Just how much traffic going in/out of Tetrosyl are we expecting / forced to put up with?  Increased noise, light and air pollution will cause nuisance to local residents which will affect quality of life and also affect the re-letting of any vacant rental properties.  The site has now been signed over to Tetrosyl and will be used to warehouse and distribute chemicals, some of which can cause chronic, life-threatening conditions like respiratory problems. If a fire should occur, it could result in loss of life or disabling health problems. We don't want chemicals moved yards from houses on Smalley Street.  For over a year Tetrosyl have refused to consult with residents. They have completely disregarded the concerns and objections of residents.  There is no information on how many HGVs and cars and where they will drive - with a nuisance from noise and light.  Royle Barn Road is not a main route, it is a side road and is already heavily used by HGVs and other traffic.  This will cause further obstruction and nuisance to residents and other road users, increase the likelihood of an accident on an already over-used side road and make it difficult for residents to access Royle Barn Road.  Increased risk to pedestrians caused by the addition of another entrance close to the existing entrances to other commercial premises.  Risk to cars parked along Royle Barn Road.  The site owners want to move the entrance so that HGV drivers don't have to travel over the speed humps at the lower end of Royle Barn Road. To avoid these speed humps, HGV's would have to travel through Castleton, which would further increase danger to pedestrians.

Page 103 ANALYSIS

Principle of Development

The NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that for decision-taking, the presumption in favour of sustainable development means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

Two of the 12 core planning principles in the NPPF state that planning should support existing business sectors and proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units that the country needs. Paragraph 18 of the NPPF affirms that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and paragraph 19 of states that “planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.”

As noted above, the site is located within a mixed employment zone and UDP Policy EC/3 lists the types of development that are acceptable within such areas. The use of the site for storage and distribution is authorised in planning terms. However, any proposals for alternative uses on the site, either within the main building or the smaller building adjacent to Smalley Street, may need to be the subject of a separate change of use application.

The application proposes the creation of an additional access to the employment site, to provide dedicated access for employees’ and visitors’ cars, separate from HGVs and other commercial vehicles. The proposal will assist in the successful operation of the site into the future, and is therefore considered to be in accordance with UDP Policy EC/3, emerging Core Strategy policies E2 and E3 and the NPPF.

Highway Safety

It is acknowledged that the proposed access would be sited in close proximity to two existing accesses to commercial premises on the opposite side of Royle Barn Road. However, the applicant has confirmed that HGVs will continue to use the existing access at the northern end of the site, and the width of the proposed access has been reduced to 5.5 metres which is appropriate for the proposed use by cars. It is not therefore considered that the proposed development will result in HGVs using different routes to travel to and from the application site, or cause any increased risk to highway or pedestrian safety.

It is noted that the Highways Engineer has not raised any objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds. It is further noted that the use of the application site within Use Class B8 (storage and distribution) is authorised in planning terms and the proposed new access would not in itself result in any increased traffic movements in the local area.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with UDP policy A/2, emerging Core Strategy policy T2 and the NPPF.

Neighbour Amenity

The application site is surrounded by other commercial premises to the north, east and west. Traditional terraced houses are located on Smalley Street and Royle Barn Road to the south and south-west of the site. The nearest residential property to the proposed access (35 Royle Barn Road) is located at a distance of approximately 117 metres to the south-west, with a blank side gable wall facing the proposed access. It is not considered that the use of the access will result in any significant disturbance to residents of this or other residential properties in terms of noise, light or air pollution.

Page 104 The width of the proposed access has been amended to 5.5 metres and the applicant has confirmed that HGVs will continue to use the existing access to the northern end of the site. The use of the application site within Use Class B8 (storage and distribution) is authorised in planning terms and it is not considered that the proposed new access would in itself result in any increased disturbance to local residents due to traffic noise or light or air pollution.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with UDP policies BE/2 and EM/3, emerging Core Strategy policies G2 and the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. This permission relates to the following plans:-

 Existing and Proposed Plans Drg.No.PP01 Revision B

` and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report Author Alison Truman

______

Page 105 Application Number: 16/00935/HOUS Ward: Norden

Proposal: Two storey side/rear extension and single storey rear extension (resubmission of 16/00525/HOUS)

Site Address: Broad Oaks Norden Road Rochdale OL11 5NT

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Andrew Collins

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

DELEGATION SCHEME

The application is before the Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee as four or more separately addressed letters of support have been received from owners or occupiers of property in the vicinity of the application site and the application is recommended for refusal.

Members have authority to refuse planning permission. If the Committee is minded to recommend the scheme be approved the application would need to be referred to the Planning and Licensing Committee, as the grant of planning permission would be contrary to a previous decision of the Council for a development of the same description and site, and for where there has been no material change of policy or circumstance to justify an alternative decision.

Page 106 SITE

The application relates to a detached bungalow, Broad Oaks, located within the Green Belt as defined under the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The property is accessed via a narrow unmade track which connects in turn to Norden Road to the south east. The property shares its access from the adopted highway with the neighbouring properties at Bamford Cottage, Butterworth Fold Farm and Bamford Chapel.

The neighbouring property to the east (known formally as Bamford United Reform Church) is a Grade II Listed Building formed of a congregational chapel dating from 1801 and a Sunday School dating from 1861. Within the graveyard of the chapel stands the Grade II Listed stone sundial which dates from the early 19th Century.

The subject property is a late 20th Century detached bungalow standing adjacent to a paddock to its eastern side which has a lawful use as part of the curtilage for the dwelling and contains a small, wooden stable block. The site has open fields to the rear (north) whilst Butterworth Fold Farm expands to the west.

PROPOSAL

The application is a direct resubmission of the previously refused application 16/00525/HOUS and proposes the following additions/alterations to the bungalow:

1. Two-storey side/rear extension to accommodate on the ground floor a bedroom, en- suite and rear lounge and at first floor level a further bedroom, dressing room and en- suite bathroom. The extension has a width of 4.3m and a length of 13.6m. It would be constructed with a dual-pitch roof to a height of 7.4m at the peak. 2. Single-storey rear extension abutting the two-storey side/rear extension and spanning across the rear of the bungalow to meet the existing kitchen projection, to provide a dining room area. The structure has a depth of 5.7m and a width of 8.1m with bi-fold sliding doors on the rear elevation and a flat roof to a height of 2.7 containing two glazed lanterns.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Policy Guidance

The government published its National Planning Practice Guidance on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the National Planning Policy Framework and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in the Green Belt - General

Page 107 D/7 Extensions to Residential Properties

G/H/1 Housing H/11 Residential Extensions

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/15 New Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building

Emerging Core Strategy (CS):

The Council has now received the Inspector’s final report following the Examination of the Core Strategy. Once adopted, the Core Strategy will replace the 2006 Unitary Development Plan. The Core Strategy is expected to be adopted by the Council in October 2016 and significant weight is now afforded to the policies contained within it.

SO3 Improving design, image and quality of place P2 Protecting and enhancing character, landscape and heritage P3 Improving design of new development SO4 Promoting a greener environment G4 Protecting Green Belt DM1 General development requirements

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD):

‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ (June 2016)

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY & BACKGROUND

06/D46939 Certificate of lawfulness for the existing use and occupation of the property as a residential bungalow - Granted

16/00525/HOUS Two storey side/rear extension and single storey rear extension – Refused for the following reasons:

It is considered that the extensions are of a scale and appearance which represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building in the Green Belt. In addition, the extensions would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and no very special circumstances have been put forward which would outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt. The proposed development is therefore unacceptable as it is contrary to Policies GD/2, D/4 and D/7 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan along with the guidance of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development' and the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposed development, by virtue of the size, scale, height and massing of the extensions and the design of the external alterations, represent disproportionate and incongruous additions to the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property and the area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies H/11, G/BE/1 and BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development', along with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 108 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Highways and Engineering – No objections.

Conservation and Design – I have considered this proposal for single and two storey extensions to Broad Oaks, a bungalow located adjacent to the Grade II listed Bamford Chapel.

There is a good degree of separation between the chapel and bungalow, and the chapel is surrounded by mature trees which mask the bungalow from view. The only aspect where both buildings may be viewed together is at the rear (north) and as this is the rear and less significant elevation of the chapel I do not consider that the extensions to the bungalow cause any harm to its character and significance. I have no objections to this application.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding properties, a notice displayed within the vicinity of the site and an advert placed in the local press. Five copies of a pro-forma letter of support dated 11th August, signed by the occupiers of nearby properties have been received. The content of the letter states as following:

Would you please note our support for the above planning application as we feel that the proposed alterations and extensions will not be detrimental to our amenity or privacy and will renovate a property which is in need of modernisation and will improve the visual amenity of the area especially considering its location in the Green Belt.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development – Green Belt

Planning law requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one such material consideration and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which it states means:  approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and  where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted (such as the Green Belt).

The application site is allocated as Green Belt in the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan. The NPPF states within Paragraph 87 that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 89 notes that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in Green Belt, although exceptions may be made providing the extension or alteration of a building does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Policy G/D/2 of the UDP is therefore relevant and seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development in order to maintain the framework of open land separating and surrounding the urban areas of the borough, which is broadly consistent with the NPPF and therefore not out-of-date.Policy D/4 of the Unitary Development Plan states that within the Green Belt, approval will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the erection of

Page 109 new buildings unless it is for a number of specific purposes including the limited extension, alteration, or replacement of an existing dwelling in accordance with policy D/7 of the UDP.

Policy D/7 states that extensions to existing residential properties within the Green Belt must be of a scale and character which does not conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and is not visually detrimental by reason of its siting, materials or design.

Policy G4 of the emerging Core Strategy outlines that the Council will continue to protect from development identified areas of Green Belt. Development will be restricted to those limited types of development which are deemed appropriate by national planning policies unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ (adopted June 2016) reinforce that development in the Green Belt is strictly controlled to, amongst other things, safeguard the intrinsic character and openness of the countryside. The document outlines that in determining whether a proposed development satisfies one of the exceptions to the presumption against development in the Green Belt, consideration will be given to whether the siting, height, scale, design and use of materials proposed would preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

The SPD states that within Green Belt locations, extensions that result in up to a 35% increase in floorspace or volume over and above the original dwelling would be considered appropriate and not disproportionate. It notes, however, that the characteristics of properties and proposals will vary significantly and there may be instances when a 35% increase would be considered disproportionate and other occasions when a greater than 35% increase may be considered proportionate.

Therefore, the main consideration in assessing the principle of development is whether the additions to the dwelling would constitute disproportionate additions (nominally greater than 35% of the floorspace/volume of the original dwelling). No figures regarding the existing and proposed volumes or floorspace have been submitted with the application.

The following floorspace calculations were carried out by the case officer for the previous application (16/00525/HOUS):

Existing Additional Total Resultant % Increase 165.6m2 162.3m2 327.9m2 98%

The following the approximate volume calculations have also been carried out:

Existing Additional Total Resultant % Increase 594.96m3 476.68m3 1,071.64m3 80%

As the above figures show, the proposed extensions would effectively double the floor area of the bungalow and would represent an 80% increase in volume, clearly in excess of the guideline 35% figure. This scale of increase is further demonstrated by the existing and proposed elevations, which show the two-storey section having a ridge height which is 1.6 metres taller than the bungalow and an eaves height which is comparable to the maximum height of the bungalow.

It is therefore considered that the extensions are of a scale and appearance which represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building in the Green Belt and therefore considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would also fail to preserve the openness and character of the Green Belt. The proposed development is therefore unacceptable as it is

Page 110 contrary to Policies GD/2, D/4 and D/7 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan along with the guidance of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact upon Visual Amenity

Policy BE/2 of the UDP is concerned with design criteria for new development and states that development proposals should demonstrate good design by ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure. The policy requires that schemes should create visual interest in areas lacking character and take opportunities to retain, enhance or create views alongside appropriate treatment of open spaces between and around buildings. Good design includes the retention of key natural features, including trees, as part of the landscaping of the site and should allow for safe and convenient access and circulation.

Policy P3 of the emerging Core Strategy acknowledges that good design will improve the image and attractiveness of the borough as a place to live, work and visit, and can also improve health, safety and the environment and reduce long-term costs. As such the policy requires all new developments, including associated landscaping, regardless of location in the borough, to adhere to high standards of design. Proposals should enhance the borough’s identity and sense of place having regard to the scale, density, massing, height, layout, landscape, materials and access of surrounding buildings and areas in general.

Paragraph 58 of the NPPF encourages good design by stipulating that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:  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;  establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;  respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;  create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

General principles of design with regard to extensions to residential dwellings outline that the scale and form of extensions are critical to their acceptability. In most cases extensions should appear subservient to the original house and be smaller in width, depth and height than the existing property.

The scheme proposes the addition of a two-storey side/rear extension to an existing bungalow which, by the very nature of the original building, would appear incongruous and represent a poor standard of design. The proposed two-storey section would stand at a height of approximately 1.6m above the ridge line of the existing dwelling, and at a volumetric increase of 80% would fail to appear subordinate to the host property. The form fails to respond to that of the existing house, appearing badly proportioned and forming an unsatisfactory composition with the house and the setting.

As such, the proposed development, by virtue of the size, scale, height and massing of the extensions and the design of the external alterations, represent disproportionate, poorly designed and incongruous additions to the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies H/11 and BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies P3 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’, along with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 111 Impact upon Neighbouring Listed Buildings

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural of historic interest which is possesses.

‘Significance’ with regard to heritage assets is defined by the NPPF as: ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’

The setting of a listed building is defined by the NPPF as: ‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’

Policy BE/15 of the Unitary Development Plan states that development will not be permitted, where through its siting, scale, design or materials, would harm the setting of a Listed Building.

Policy P2 of the Core Strategy acknowledges that enhancing and protecting the borough’s unique character can lead to improvements in quality of life and can also help to boost the visitor economy and inward investment. It states that the Council will protect and enhance the borough’s character, the distinctiveness of its town centres, housing areas and countryside, and the qualities of its landscapes, utilising the considerable potential of these assets in development and regeneration schemes. In order to achieve this, planning decisions will:  Require new development to integrate successfully with the key natural features of the borough, e.g. river valleys and the Pennine landscape;  Protect, enhance and utilise outstanding cultural landscapes and conserve and enhance townscape character;  Conserve, enhance and promote key heritage assets, both statutory and non-statutory, including consideration of their wider settings;

Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:  the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF continues, to states that 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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

The neighbouring Bamford United Reformed Church benefits from a Grade II listing and is formed from a congregational chapel dating from 1801 and an attached Sunday School dating from 1861. The chapel is formed of ashlar with a brick chancel and slate roof and formed of 5-

Page 112 bays, with a triple-gable and advanced triple porch with gables. The Sunday School is 2-bay by 4-bay formed of coursed rubble with slate roof. The listing text notes that the manse house, despite being important to the group, is largely altered and not of special interest.

Within the grounds of the associated graveyard stands the Grade II listed sundial. First listed in 1985, the sundial dates from the early 19th Century and is formed of a stone shaft with metal dial and gnomon (the part of the dial which casts the shadow). The structure has a plain shaft with chamfered corners which runout towards the top to form a square base for the dial.

Consultation has been carried out with the Council’s Conservation and Design Officer who has raised no objection to the application on the basis that there is a good degree of separation between the chapel and the application site. They note that the chapel is surrounded by mature trees which at present mask the bungalow from view. The only aspect where both buildings may be viewed together is at the rear (north) and as this is the rear and less significant elevation of the chapel they do not consider that the extensions to the bungalow cause any harm to its character and significance.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm and would thus preserve the setting of the listed building and the LPA have met the duty of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended). The application meets the requirements of Policy BE/15 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy P2 of the emerging Core Strategy, along with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact upon Residential Amenity

Protection of residential amenity is considered under policy H/11 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, which requires that extensions should not unduly affect the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents through overlooking, overshadowing, loss of outlook or daylight. Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework containing the ‘core planning principles’ advises that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

Policy DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy states that all development must take account of all the relevant policies within the CS and other Local Development Framework documents. However, there are a number of basic planning considerations that apply to all development. All development proposals, including changes of use of land and buildings, extensions and alterations, will be expected to demonstrate, inter alia, that; they are of high quality design and take the opportunity to enhance the quality of the area; are compatible with surrounding land uses, both in terms of its impact upon those uses and the impact of the surrounding land uses upon the amenities of future residents / users; and do not adversely affect the amenity of residents or users through visual intrusion, overbearing impact, overshadowing or loss of privacy.

Further to the above are the considerations of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ which contains a number of guidelines and requirements for the design and layout of new housing and extensions in order to preserve the amenity standards for surrounding residents. Included within the above document are the expected space standards for new residential development: iv. 21 metres between directly facing principal windows of habitable rooms, at an upper floor level AND 10.5m between a principal window at an upper floor level and a directly facing boundary of the curtilage; v. 14m between a principal window and any directly facing two storey elevation which does not contain a principal window to a habitable room; vi. 10m between a principal window and any directly facing single storey elevation which does not contain a principal window to a habitable room.

Page 113 With regard to neighbouring properties, it is noted that the application site benefits from a somewhat isolated position. The proposed additional built form would be concentrated on the north and eastern side of the house and the separation distance to the nearby farmhouse at Butterworth Fold Farm would therefore remain the same as at present. A window would be installed at first floor level in the proposed extension on the western elevation, facing towards the farm, however, at this point it would serve only to overlook the neighbouring agricultural buildings/sheds and would not compromise residential amenity.

Windows to be installed in the eastern side elevation of the extension would serve only to overlook the paddock forming part of the curtilage of the host property, and would have an oblique relationship with the neighbouring Bamford Chapel. The separation distance at this point would stand at a minimum of 20m, which is considered acceptable, especially given the existing mature vegetative screening on the shared boundary.

The proposed development would not therefore be harmful to any neighbouring residential occupiers and accordingly, the proposal accords with policies H/11 and BE/2 of the Unitary Development Plan, policy DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy and the content of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’, along with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Summary

The proposed extensions to the host property would clearly represent disproportionate additions to a building located within the Green Belt, being of an increase in floorspace of 98% and approximate increase in volume of 80%. The proposal comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. By virtue of their size, scale and appearance, the extensions would have an undue detrimental impact to the openness and character of the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been put forward by the applicant that would outweigh the significant identified harm.

Notwithstanding the fact that the property is located within a Green Belt location, the extensions, in particular the two-storey aspect, would be unlikely to be considered acceptable even if they were to be additions to a similar dwelling within the Defined Urban Area, as they represent disproportionate and incongruous additions which would fail to appear subordinate to the relatively modest host dwelling and would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the property and the immediate area.

Government policy in the NPPF very clearly directs that local planning authorities should ensure substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. No very special circumstances exist in this case to outweigh the harm identified and the proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

Page 114 RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development, by virtue of the design, scale, height and massing of the extensions and the design of the external alterations, represent disproportionate and incongruous additions to the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property and the area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies H/11 and BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policies P3 and DM1 of the emerging Core Strategy and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’, along with the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The extensions are of a scale and appearance which represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building in the Green Belt. The development therefore comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is harmful by definition. In addition, the resulting building would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. No very special circumstances exist to outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt and character and appearance of the property and the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies GD/2, D/4 and D/7 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, Policy G4 of the emerging Core Strategy, the guidance of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development' and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report Author David Allen

______

Page 115 Application Number: 16/00947/VRCON Ward: Milkstone And Deeplish

Proposal: Application to vary condition 4 of planning permission 13/01186/FUL in order to amend the opening hours to 11:00 to 12:00 Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to 01:00 Friday to Saturday with additional change in the month of Ramadhan (may/june 2017) 4:00 to 02:00

Site Address: 45 Tweedale Street Rochdale OL11 1HH

Applicant: MR MOHAMMAD NAWAZ Ibrahims Cafe Bar

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

DELEGATION

The application is presented to the Rochdale Township Planning Sub Committee as Councillor Brett has called the application to Committee. If the committee is minded to approve the application, it would be referred to the Planning and Licensing Committee for determination in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, as this decision would be contrary to a previous decision of the Council.

SITE

45 Tweedale Street is a mid-terrace property that is currently used as an ice cream parlour / sandwich shop following the grant of planning permission in 2013 to change the use from A1 retail. The site is sited approximately 20 metres from the Milkstone Road Local Centre and is within an area that is characterised by a mix of commercial and residential uses. The two nearest/adjoining properties are residential in use, but nearby commercial uses include a

Page 116 pharmacy and barbers. There is also a community centre across the opposite side of Tweedale Street and a Mosque on Castlemere Street.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes to vary condition 4 of planning permission 13/01186/FUL in order to amend the opening hours to 11:00 to 24:00 Sunday to Thursday and 11:00 to 01:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. With an additional change in hours in the month of Ramadan to allow opening everyday from 16:00 to 02:00

The opening hours are presently 08:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 21:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

The applicant states that the request to extend opening hours is due to trade increasing after 8pm.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

G/D/1 Defined Urban Area

G/S/1 Hierarchy and Role of Centres S/7 Local Shops and Services S/10 Food and Drink Outlets

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development

Emerging Core Strategy:

The Council has now received the Inspector’s final report following the Examination of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy is likely to be adopted by the Council in October 2016 and the Local Planning Authority is now in a position to afford significant weight to the policies. The following policies are relevant:

E1 Establishing Thriving Town, District and Local Centres G9 Reducing the Impact of Pollution

Page 117 PUBLICITY

Earliest Decision Date: 23 September 2016 Revised Expiry Date: No extension agreed

Site Notice: General Site Notice

Press Advert: N/A Reason: Not required

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

14/01154/VRCON - Application to vary condition 4 of planning permission 13/01186/FUL in order to amend the opening hours to 08:00 to 12:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 11:00 on Sundays and bank holidays - Refused

14/00719/FUL - Installation of roller shutter on front elevation (Resubmission 14/00228/FUL) – Granted Subject to Conditions

14/00229/ADV - One internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated projecting box sign - Approved

14/00228/FUL - Installation of roller shutter on front elevation - Refused

13/01186/FUL – Change of use from shop to ice cream parlour/sandwich bar (use class A3) including a single storey rear extension - Approved

05/D44824 - Change of use from dwelling to shop/dwelling with new shop front – Refused/Appeal Allowed.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Env Health - Noise/Odours – This section cannot support the application, the existing conditioned hours of use safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents and prevent nuisance arising. We would recommend refusal.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours and a notice was placed adjacent to the site, two identical letters of objection have been received from two addresses. A summary of the points raised and the officer’s response can be read below:

 No objection to proposed hours of operation.

 Increase in hours will generate traffic which is already an issue for local residents especially those living on Castlemere Street, particularly during Ramadan when extended prayers and events are held at Castlemere Community Centre. Residents are struggling to park in the evening and some measures should be put in place such as residents permit parking after 18:00.

Officer Response: The officer does not believe that the proposed altered hours of operation, will have a negative impact on parking and the capacity of the highway network in the local area.

Page 118 ANALYSIS

The use of this premise as an ice cream parlour/sandwich bar was approved under application 13/01186/FUL. That application was assessed in respect of policy S/6 of the UDP, which advises that food and drink outlets will be permitted provided they would be compatible with surrounding land uses and not harm local residential and business amenity, by reason of noise, smell, litter and hours of opening. Furthermore, policy EM/3 of the UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby, existing or future occupants of buildings or users of open space.

Through appropriate consultations with Environmental Health, the previous change of use application was considered to be acceptable. However, it is clear in the officer report that the application originally proposed a change of use with opening hours of 08:00 – 24:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 – 22:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. These hours were however not considered to be acceptable by Environmental Health at the time of the application and with the agreement of the applicant, the proposed hours were reduced to 08:00 – 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 – 21:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. These reduced hours were then conditioned on the subsequent approval and the reason for their imposition was in order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents and to prevent nuisance arising.

The owner of the business at the time then submitted an application in 2014 (14/01154/VRCON) to vary the condition controlling the hours of operation of the premises to open until midnight Monday – Saturday and 11pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays. This application was refused by the Local Planning Authority because the extended opening hours would adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding residents through excessive levels of noise and disturbance.

The current application proposes to extend the opening hours beyond those originally applied for and contrary to the advice and concerns that were raised under the change of use application. The applicant is now applying to operate at: 1. 11:00 – Midnight Sunday to Thursday. 2. 11:00 – 01:00 Friday and Saturday 3. 16:00 – 02:00 During Ramadan

To fully assess the acceptability of these new hours the application must be assessed against the policies listed above and consultations have been carried out with Environmental Health. Through this consultation process, Environmental Health confirmed that they cannot support an extension to the approved opening hours as the current hours were imposed to protect the amenity of adjoining residents and prevent nuisance arising.

The application site is located on the periphery of the Tweedale Street Local centre as the uses start to become more residential with less commercial uses, the site is adjoined by residential properties on either side and residential properties close to the rear of the site. In the same terrace block as the application site is 3 dwellings, a pharmacy and a hair dressers, therefore there are no other late night uses in this terrace block. The nearest late night use is a takeaway is on the opposite side of the road and in the local centre at 50 Tweedale Street. This does not adjoin any residential uses and has a condition limiting hours of operation to midnight on every night.

The officer acknowledges the applicants desire for later hours of operation during to increase the success of their business and to serve customers throughout Ramadan during hours of sun down in line with the beliefs of their faith. However this must be weighed against the impact the hours of operation would have on the amenity of nearby and adjoining residents who may not be of the same faith. In this case the officer considers the proposed hours of operation would have a significant negative impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents through excessive levels of noise and disturbance which would outweigh other considerations.

Page 119 The proposed variation of the condition is therefore recommended for refusal with the application contrary to policies S/6, EM/1, EM/2 and EM/3 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, policies E1 and G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:-

1. The proposed opening hours would adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents through excessive levels of noise and disturbance late into the evenings and early mornings. The application would therefore have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity contrary to policies S/6, EM/1, EM/2 and EM/3 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, policies E1 and G9 of the emerging Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report Author Joseph Nanson

______

Page 120 Application Number: 16/00950/WTTPO Ward: Bamford

Proposal: Application for works to trees within Tree Preservation Order no 098 Group G1 works Ta - Sycamore reduce branches, Tb - Birch Fell, T1 Sycamore - Fell, T2 - Sycamore crown lift and T3 Horse chestnut - crown lift no more than 25%

Site Address: Mayroyd Norden Road Rochdale OL11 5PT

Applicant: Mrs Kate Cunningham

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

DELEGATION SCHEME

The application seeks consent for works to three trees and the felling of two trees within Group G1 of Tree Preservation Order No.098. Members may grant unconditional or conditional consent or may refuse the application for consent.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE & PROPOSAL

The application proposes the felling of one Birch Tree (Tb) and one Sycamore Tree (T1) within the curtilage of a property named Mayroyd, which is situated within Tree Preservation Order No. 098. Tree works are also proposed to two Sycamore trees (Ta and T2) and (T3) and also one Horse Chestnut Tree (T3).

Page 121 It is proposed to fell the Birch Tree (Tb) as the tree is leaning over the applicant’s driveway and is showing signs of decay at its base. The tree is located to the south western corner of the site within a group of protected trees (G1).

The Sycamore Tree (T1) is situated within 6 metres of the dwellinghouse within the north western corner of the site. The applicant proposed to fell this tree in order to improve the amount of light into that property as some of the branches of the tree directly overhang the main house.

It is also proposed to carry out works to two other sycamore trees (Ta and T2) to include crown lifting and a reduction in the overhanging branches and also a Horse Chestnut Tree (T3) to include a crown lift of up to 4 metres and the removal of any overhanging branches by 3 metres.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

08/T0016 - Proposed Works To Ash Tree Subject To Tree Preservation Order (TPO 098) - Granted 04/09/2008.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Tree and Woodland Development Officer – No objections to the proposals as set out on the application form and in the accompanying documents. In relation to the proposed felling works, the removal of the birch tree (Tb) is necessary due to its very pronounced lean over the driveway and concern about a significant area of rot at its base.

Although the Sycamore Tree (T1) is a healthy tree it is poorly shaped and growing very close to the house. Reducing the overhanging branches to alleviate the problem would result in a severely misshapen tree and its removal is likely to improve the amenity value of TPO098 by allowing the neighbouring trees to flourish.

All works must be carried out to BS3998 (2010) Tree Work Recommendations standards. Any planning consent should include a condition to replant four replacement trees within the grounds of Mayroyd to offset the trees removed, however the species and location of the tree must be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 122 ANALYSIS

In considering applications for works to protected trees, Government advice in paragraph 90 of the NPPG states: “When considering an application the authority is advised to: • assess the amenity value of the tree or woodland and the likely impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area; • consider, in the light of this assessment, whether or not the proposal is justified, having regard to the reasons and additional information put forward in support of it; • consider whether any loss or damage is likely to arise if consent is refused or granted subject to conditions; • consider whether any requirements apply in regard to protected species; • consider other material considerations, including development plan policies where relevant; and • ensure that appropriate expertise informs its decision.”

In considering whether there has to be an arboricultural need for proposed works to a TPO, paragraph 91 of the NPPG states:

“In general terms, it follows that the higher the amenity value of the tree or woodland and the greater any negative impact of proposed works on amenity, the stronger the reasons needed before consent is granted. However, if the amenity value is lower and the impact is likely to be negligible, it may be appropriate to grant consent even if the authority believes there is no particular arboricultural need for the work.”

With regard to the above, the main considerations in respect of this application are whether the proposal for the felling of the trees is justified in light of the assessment of the amenity value of the trees and whether the reasons for the works are of sufficient standing to warrant the granting of consent for felling.

Paragraph 90 of the NPPG is clear that decision makers should consider whether any loss or damage is likely to arise if consent is refused and ensure appropriate expertise informs its decision. The Tree and Woodland Officer has highlighted the potential for damage to occur should consent be refused and the Committee is therefore advised to endorse the recommendation. To assess the acceptability of the application proposal against the above considerations, consultation has been carried out with the Council’s Tree and Woodland Development Officer who has no objections to the proposal.

To mitigate the impact on the loss of the amenity value of the trees in the event that the Committee agree that it should be felled, the Council’s Tree and Woodland Development Officer recommends their replacement with four new trees, within the grounds of Mayroyd, of a species to be agreed with the Council. In light of the above consultation and assessment, it is considered that the proposed works would not have a significantly negative impact on the amenity value of the woodland and that it is therefore appropriate to grant consent.

Any potential impact on protected species are addressed by the inclusion of Greater Manchester Ecology Unit’s standing advice for protection of protected species when carrying out works to trees, which would be appended to the decision notice.

Page 123 The proposal is therefore considered to be compliant with the guidance contained within the NPPG and as noted above, it is recommended that consent be granted for the proposed works to and the felling of the TPO trees.

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1. The consent hereby granted is valid for a period of two years from the date of this decision.

2. Any trees not within the ownership of the applicant require consultation with the tree owner prior to the commencement of any on site work.

3. All tree works must comply with British Standard 3998 (2010 – British Standard for Tree Work) and the relevant industry codes for safe practice produced by the Forestry & Arboriculture Safety & Training Council (FASTCo).

4. The tree works hereby approved shall be carried out by a contractor the identity of whom shall be agreed in advance by the Council’s Arboricultural Services.

5. No more than 25% of the canopies of the trees shall be removed during the pruning works.

6. Within the next planting season after the felling of the Birch tree (Tb) and the Sycamore tree (T1) hereby approved, a minimum of two replacement trees shall be planted within the site in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If the replacement trees are removed, die, become severely damaged or seriously diseased within five years of planting, they shall be replaced by a tree of similar size and species in order to mitigate for the loss of the existing trees and to protect the visual amenity of the area.

Report Author Callum Coyne

______

Page 124