Woodford Garden Village Supplementary Planning Document
Report of Survey
13 July 2012
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Site Context 2 Introduction 2 Background 3 The Site & Surroundings 3 Land Ownership 8 Planning History 8
3.0 Planning Policy 9 Introduction 9 Sources & Methodology 9 Baseline Information 9 Conclusions & Constraints 20
4.0 Context & Character 21 Introduction 21 Sources & Methodology 21 Baseline Information 21 Conclusions & Constraints 25
5.0 Dust & Air Quality 26 Introduction 26 Sources & Methodology 26 Baseline Information 27 Conclusions & Constraints 29
6.0 Noise & Vibration 30 Introduction 30 Sources & Methodology 30 Baseline Information 31 Conclusions & Constraints 32
7.0 Hydrology & Drainage 33 Introduction 33 Sources & Methodology 33 Baseline Information 34 Conclusions & Constraints 34
8.0 Ground Contamination 35 Introduction 35
2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Sources & Methodology 35 Baseline Information 36 Conclusions & Constraints 40
9.0 Ecology & Nature Conservation 42 Introduction 42 Sources & Methodology 42 Baseline Information 43 Conclusions & Constraints 47
10.0 Cultural Heritage & Archaeology 49 Introduction 49 Sources & Methodology 49 Baseline Information 49 Conclusions & Constraints 53
11.0 Landscape & Visual Amenity 55 Introduction 55 Sources & Methodology 55 Baseline Information 58 Conclusions & Constraints 62
12.0 Transportation 63 Introduction 63 Sources & Methodology 63 Baseline Information 64 Woodford Traffic Generation and Impact 76 Next Steps 82 Conclusions & Constraints 82
13.0 Accessibility Assessment 85 Introduction 85 Methodology & Sources 85 Baseline Information 86 Conclusion & Constraints 97
14.0 Socio Economics 98 Introduction 98 Sources & Methodology 98 Baseline Information 99 Conclusions & Constraints 108
2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figures2
Figure 2.1 Location Plan 2
Figure 3.1 Woodford Aerodrome MEDS 11
Figure 4.1 Settlement Form 22
Figure 4.2 Typical Housing in Woodford 23
Figure 4.3 Typical Housing in Woodford 24
Figure 4.4 Typical Housing in Woodford 24
Figure 4.5 Christ Church, Woodford 25
Figure 11.1 Wider Viewpoint Locations 56
Figure 11.2 Visual Envelope Study Mapping 57
Figure 11.3 Landscape Character Areas 59
Figure 11.4 Historic Landscape Features 61
Figure 11.5 Landscape Character – Field Boundary Elements 61
Figure 12.1 Site Location & Strategic Transport Links 65 Figure 12.2 Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow data from DfT Traffic Counter Sites in the Vicinity of Woodford, 2000 – 2010 (all vehicles) 66
Figure 12.3 Relative Annual Average Daily Traffic Flows (all vehicles) 67
Figure 12.4 Key Public Transport Links 69
Figure 12.5 Personal Injury Collisions Jan 2008- Jan 2011 72
Figure 12.6 SEMMMS Scheme 73
Figure 13.1 Walking Travel Time Isochrones from the site (based on 4.8kph walk speed) 87
Figure 13.2 Cycling Travel Time Isochrones from the site (based on 16kph cycle speed) 88
Figure 13.3 Public Transport Travel Time Isochrones from the site (allowing 1 interchange) 89
Figure 14.1 Walking Travel Times 106
Figure 14.2 Walking Distances to Primary Schools 106
2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Tables2
Table 2.1 Building Footprints 7
Table 5.1 Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations at Local Authority Monitoring Sites within 4km of the Site 28
Table 5.2 Background Concentrations at the Site 28
Table 8.1 Plausible Pollutant Linkages 41
Table 10.1 Designated Heritage Assets 50
Table 10.2 Sensitive Setting of Designated Heritage Assets 51
Table 10.3 Undesignated Heritage Assets 51
Table 11.1 Sensitivity of Viewpoints 57
Table 12.1 Data Sources 63
Table 12.2 Summary of 2012 Traffic Survey Locations 67
Table 12.3 A5102 Chester Road Average Traffic Flows and Speeds 68
Table 12.4 Existing Local Bus Services 70
Table 12.5 Poynton Train Journey Times to Local Destinations 71
Table 12.6 2001 Site Access Surveys 75
Table 12.7 85th Percentile Trip Rates (per unit/ 100 sqm), derived from the TRICs database 78
Table 12.8 85th Percentile Trip Rates (per unit/ 100 sqm), derived from the TRICs database 78
Table 13.1 Journeys towards Stockport & Manchester from Macclesfield (Mon-Fri) AM & PM Peak 91
Table 13.2 Journeys from Manchester & Stockport towards Macclesfield (Mon-Fri) AM & PM Peak 91
Table 13.3 Cost of Season Tickets from Local Rail Stations 91
Table 13.4 Local Retail Facilities in Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton 94
Table 14.1 Population Projections for Cheshire East and Stockport Boroughs 100
Table 14.2 Stockport PCT GP Facilities 105
Table 14.3 Central & Eastern Cheshire PCT GP Facilities 105
Appendices2
Appendix 1 Building Footprints Appendix 2 Planning History
2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Woodford Aerodrome site straddles the administrative boundary between Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [SMBC] and Cheshire East Council [CEC], with the eastern part of the site being within CEC and the western part of the site being within SMBC‟s jurisdiction. In recognition of this SMBC and CEC have worked in partnership with the landowners to prepare a Supplementary Planning Document [SPD] for the site. For the purposes of this document the site will be referred to as the Woodford Garden Village.
1.2 Aircraft were manufactured at the Woodford Aerodrome site since 1924. However, BAE Systems closed the manufacturing facility in March 2011 and it now represents a major redevelopment opportunity.
1.3 The site lies within the Green Belt, as defined by the adopted Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review [UDP] and the Macclesfield Local Plan [MLP]. Two areas of the site within Stockport are allocated in the UDP as Major Existing Developed Sites [MEDS] in the Green Belt, where the principle of infilling and redevelopment accords with national and local planning guidance. The site is identified in the Stockport Core Strategy [SCS] as the Woodford Aerodrome Opportunity Site and the SCS indicates that the Council will prepare a Supplementary Planning Document [SPD] to guide redevelopment of the site.
1.4 The purpose of the SPD is to expand on national and local policies and provide detailed guidance for the future use of the site, including appropriate redevelopment, improving damaged and derelict land, providing opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation, and enhancing landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity. In effect, it will form a development brief for the site. The SPD will, therefore, be an important consideration in the determination of planning applications for development on the site. It will also be used by the landowners to inform the preparation of development proposals.
1.5 This document sets out the results of the survey work undertaken and will be used to formulate the masterplan for the site and Woodford Garden Village SPD. The report sets out the findings in relation to each topic area.
2726511v2 P1
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
2.0 Site Context
Introduction
2.1 This section provides a description of the site and outlines the current land ownerships.
2.2 The site is located on the southern edge of Greater Manchester, approximately 8.3km to the south of Stockport; 4.5km to the east of Wilmslow and 8.3km to the north of Macclesfield. The site lies immediately to the south of the village of Woodford and to the west of the town of Poynton.
2.3 The site benefits from links to the strategic highway network, in particular the A34, M60 and wider motorway network.
2.4 The site‟s location is shown on Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Location Plan
2.5 The site extends to 205ha and is irregular in shape. In terms of topography, the site is generally flat although it slopes gently from north to south and from west to east.
P2 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Background
2.6 The site has a history of aircraft manufacturing dating back to the early twentieth century.
2.7 Avro purchased the site in 1924. It was selected as it had excellent road access, a nearby railway line and was reasonably flat. The aerodrome initially involved the development of hangars and a clubhouse in the southern part of the existing site. The original hangers were relocated from Avro‟s site at Alexandra Park, Manchester. Initially aircraft used a grass strip for take-off and landings.
2.8 The aerodrome underwent significant change and development in the late 1930s. The main factory buildings in the north of the site, known as the „New Assembly‟ were completed in December 1939. The airfield to the south of the New Assembly buildings was acquired by the RAF after the outbreak of WWII. The RAF constructed a new classic „X pattern‟ airfield with surrounding hardstandings and taxiways.
2.9 During WWII Woodford expanded continuously and made a significant contribution to the war effort manufacturing the Lancaster Bomber which was the principal bomber of the RAF.
2.10 After the war, military aircraft continued to be manufactured including the Avro Anson, Avro Shackleton, Avro Lincoln and the Avro Vulcan. In addition, civil aircraft were manufactured at Woodford included the Avro Tudor (Britain‟s first four-jet transport aircraft), BAE 146 four-jet airliner and the Avro 718
2.11 The Woodford site became part of British Aerospace in 1977 following nationalisation. The final contract carried out by BAe Systems was the production of the Nimrod MRA.4 aircraft for the RAF and subsequently the renovation of the MK2 Nimrods. Following the Government‟s Strategic Defence and Security Review (October 2010), the MoD terminated the Nimrod contract and BAE Systems‟ operations came to a close in March 2011.
The Site & Surroundings
The Site
2.12 The site comprises the former BAE Systems plant. This broadly consists of two main developed areas with substantial buildings, which were formally designated as MEDS; one in the north adjoining the built-up area of Woodford and one to the south of the site, along with the runways and associated open areas. The wider site also includes the Avro golf course, underused agricultural land and part of the Adlington Industrial Estate.
2.13 There are two main access points into the site from Chester Road to the north. There are also a number of additional emergency access points around the site.
2726511v2 P3
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
2.14 The site can broadly be disaggregated into the following distinct areas:- 1 The New Assembly Complex; 2 The Lancaster Club; 3 The Airfield; 4 The Southern Complex; 5 The Avro Hangars; 6 The Avro Golf Club; and, 7 The Adlington Business Park Industrial Unit.
New Assembly Complex
2.15 The main developed area to the north comprises the following key buildings:- 1 The New Assembly factory building dominates this area of the site. The building is significant in scale and constructed of brick and corrugated iron with large sliding doors to the east and west elevations. The building was originally constructed in the late 1930s but has been subject to alteration and extension. 2 Avro House, which forms the main entrance building to the site, set back from Chester Road. The building is a 1930s, two storey, brick building which is symmetrical, with two horizontal bands of windows to either side of a central, glazed entrance feature with vertical emphasis; 3 The Avro Heritage Centre, which is a small 1930s, single storey building, positioned to the east of the main entrance to the site from Chester Road. The building is used as a museum documenting the history of the site; 4 A modern, three storey, brick and profiled cladding office building to the south of the New Assembly factory; and, 5 A modern, broadly diamond shaped, single storey research building constructed from brick and profiled cladding with extensive glazing to the south of the New Assembly factory.
2.16 In addition, there are a number of ancillary buildings and structures within the main developed area to the north including:- 1 A group of storage buildings, tanks and utilitarian structures to the south east of the New Assembly factory; 2 A former fire station building with observation platform, storage tanks and other utilitarian structures to the west of the modern office building; 3 A linear group of buildings on the western boundary of the site generally comprising brick and corrugated iron storage buildings and corrugated asbestos sheds, but including a two storey 1960s office block in the north west corner of the site; 4 A group of corrugated iron storage buildings in the north east corner of the site; and,
P4 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
5 Brick security lodge buildings at the main and secondary access points to the site from Chester Road.
2.17 The areas between the buildings within the developed area to the north are hard surfaced, including extensive car parking areas and vehicle circulation areas.
Lancaster Club
2.18 The Lancaster Club is located to the north of the site, to the rear of residential properties fronting Chester Road. This area comprises:- 1 A single storey, brick building with a flat roof, formerly used as a social club for the employees at the BAE Systems plant; 2 An area of hard standing formerly used for car parking; and, 3 A former bowling green and small wooden pavilion.
2.19 This area of the site is accessed from Chester Road. It is currently physically separated from the main site by mature hedge and fence.
The Airfield
2.20 The airfield occupies a large central area of the site and comprises two tarmac runways set out in the classic „X‟ pattern. A short runway, approximately 950m in length runs broadly north to south between the two main developed areas of the site. The main runway is 2,300m in length and runs broadly east to west. Additional hard surfaced strips provide manoeuvring and taxiing space between the runways and hangar buildings, including an extensive hard surfaced area to the south of the site. The runways are surrounded by open grassed areas.
2.21 A control tower is positioned to the north east of the intersection of the runways. It is of brick construction with a glazed observation room. A tower for communications equipment adjoins the control tower.
2.22 There is an area of primarily agricultural land to the south of the main runway, previously associated with Shirdfold Farm. The farm buildings were demolished in 1960 but footings and associated areas of hard surfacing remain. A hard surfaced access road runs from the where the buildings were previously positioned to Adlington Park.
2.23 In terms of landscape features, there are a number of mature trees within this area along with a pond.
The Southern Complex
2.24 The main developed area to the south of the site is dominated by large hangar buildings (Hangars 1-5), constructed from brick and corrugated iron. The buildings were originally constructed in the 1920s but have been altered and have modern brick northern elevations. There is an extensive area of hardstanding between the two main hangar buildings.
2726511v2 P5
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
2.25 There are a number of additional buildings to the south and south-east of Hangars 1-5, primarily of brick and corrugated iron construction, along with a number of tanks, utilitarian structures and areas of hard surfacing.
2.26 A site road runs to the rear of the hangar buildings.
2.27 There are two significant buildings to the north of the main group of buildings comprising:- 1 The Oxford Aviation Academy, which is a large, irregularly shaped building that has recently been extended. The main elevations of the building have industrial cladding. Surface car parking is provided to the north east and south of the building and the academy is set within its own secure perimeter. 2 The Fire Station is positioned to the north of the Oxford Aviation Academy and comprises a rectangular shaped building with large doors to its north and south elevations. There are areas of hard surfacing to the north and south of the building to facilitate vehicle manoeuvring and access to the runways.
Avro Hangars
2.28 The AVRO Hangars are located adjacent to the south west boundary of the site. They are constructed from corrugated iron sheeting, with a small brick outrigger and date from the 1930s. The roof of the hangar building comprises two shallow arches, linked by a pitched section. The front elevation features two large sliding doors. The building is painted green with „A.V.Roe & Co.‟ painted in gold lettering above the doors.
2.29 There is a small, rectangular, single storey building to the north of the Avro Hangar, formerly used as a clubhouse for Woodford Gliding Club. The building is substantially of wooden construction but has been altered with corrugated iron sheeting.
2.30 The group of buildings includes a former agricultural building, which originally formed part of Hall Farm. This brick barn has been substantially altered and extended to provide a clubhouse, including an observation gallery facing the airfield at the front.
Aero Golf Club
2.31 The Aero Golf Club complex is located to the south west of the site. The facility has evolved from a practice course developed for BAE Systems employees. The complex comprises:- 1 A 9 hole golf course; 2 A small clubhouse; 3 Storage buildings; and, 4 A hardstanding car parking area.
P6 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
2.32 The golf club is physically separated from the wider site by a post and wire fence. The club has its own access from Old Hall Lane.
Adlington Industrial Estate Unit
2.33 The site includes a profiled steel clad industrial building with associated hardstanding and access road providing a link to the airfield. A small wooded area, including mature trees lies to the east and an open grassed area lies to the west of the industrial building. There is a vehicular access to the industrial into from Adlington Park.
Building Footprints
2.34 The total footprint of existing buildings on the site is 109,828sq m. Table 2.1 provides a summary breakdown of the total footprint of existing buildings by broad location.
Table 2.1 Building Footprints
Location Northern Southern (Stockport Cheshire Total MEDS MEDS Green Belt) East Footprint (Sq m) 74,809 29,177 1,596 3,986 109,568
2.35 A full schedule of the footprints of each building is provided at Appendix 1.
Building Heights
2.36 The buildings and structures on the site range from 2.4 m to 10.9m in height (internal height measurements). The two boiler house stacks within the site are 21.9m and 29m in height.
The Surroundings
2.37 The area surrounding the site is mixed in terms its character and surrounding land uses. In general terms, the site is bounded:- 1 To the north by the built-up area of Woodford, including existing residential properties and a small group of shops and commercial premises fronting Chester Road. The land to the north of the airfield generally comprises agricultural land. There is also a caravan storage area adjacent to the airfield. 2 To the east by the existing built-up area of Woodford, in particular the primarily residential development on Bridle Road, which broadly contains the northern part of the site. Around the remainder of the eastern boundary is Poynton Brook, the London – Manchester railway line and the existing built-up area of Poynton. 3 To the south by Adlington Golf Centre and Adlington Business Park; open agricultural land, along with some associated farm buildings; and woodland areas which generally contain the main developed area to the south of the site.
2726511v2 P7
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
4 To the west by open agricultural land,associated farm buildings and a small area of woodland.
2.38 The site lies within a relatively flat landscape in its immediate context, though land rises sharply some 3-5 km to the south and west, thus affording elevated views of the former BAE Systems buildings and runway. Further reference to these features and their effects on the immediate and wider landscape character are presented in more detail within Section 11 of this document.
2.39 The long-standing use of the site as an airfield has resulted in it being almost devoid of both tree planting and hedgerows, save for some along the boundaries and margins of the Brook. Many of these will have been removed to create the runway and this is substantiated through the investigation of historic maps of the area.
2.40 In sharp contrast to the site, the surrounding landscape is well treed, with extensive areas of woodland to the west and south-east, and strong, mature hedgerows defining the field boundaries and thus strong contributors to the landscape pattern and character.
Land Ownership
2.41 The site ownership is currently split between Redrow Homes Ltd and Avro Heritage Ltd. Harrow Estates plc (part of the Redrow Group of Companies) has in addition an option to purchase the Avro Heritage Ltd land which enables a comprehensive vision to be considered for the site‟s future. Oxford Aviation has the benefit of a lease. The Aero Golf Course own the golf course on the south-western corner of the site.
Planning History
2.42 The relevant planning history for the site is set out in Appendix 2.
2.43 The planning permissions granted on the site are principally related to the manufacturing requirements of BAE (and the former constituent companies).
2.44 It should be noted that planning permission was granted in 2002 for a new hangar building and a test run area. This involved a new access road to the southern complex of buildings from an access point through Adlington Industrial Estate to the east. The development was not implemented as it was required for a contract that was not awarded to BAE Systems.
2.45 Recently the most significant planning permission relates to the extension of Oxford Aviation‟s Training Facility which is located in the southern area of the site. This planning permission has been partially implemented and remains extant.
P8 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
3.0 Planning Policy
Introduction
3.1 This section outlines the planning policy context for the Woodford Garden Village SPD and the formulation of the development proposals.
Sources & Methodology
3.2 In accordance with Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, the development plan comprises:- Stockport MBC 1 The RSS for the North West, the Stockport Core Strategy and the „saved‟ policies of the Stockport UDP Review; and, Cheshire East Council 2 The RSS for the North West, the Cheshire Structure Plan and the Macclesfield Local Plan.
3.3 Planning policy guidance is provided at national level by the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.4 An analysis of the relevant planning policy guidance has been undertaken. It is not necessary to quote extensively from these documents but the following points are highlighted.
Baseline Information
Statutory Development Plan
RSS for the North West
3.5 The North West of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (September 2008) [RS] is to be rescinded as a consequence of the Localism Act 2011. However, it currently remains part of the statutory development plan.
3.6 The RS [Policies DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4 and DP5] seeks to:- 1 Promote sustainable communities, where people want to live and work; 2 Improve the built and natural environment and conserve the region‟s heritage; 3 Promote sustainable economic development and revive economies; 4 Make the best use of exiting infrastructure and resources through urban concentration and the use of previously developed land, and other land that is well located in relation to services and infrastructure, for development;
2726511v2 P9
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
5 Locate development so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car; and, 6 Promote good quality design.
3.7 RS Policies RDF1 and MCR1 seek to focus development and investment in the Manchester Regional Centre, surrounding inner areas, the towns, cities and accessible suburban centres and other sustainable locations, which accord with general spatial principles.
3.8 RS Policy MCR3 seeks to promote economic prosperity and deliver housing in order to meet identified local needs in sustainable locations.
3.9 RS Policy RDF4 provides that the general extent of the Green Belt will be maintained and establishes a presumption against exceptional substantial strategic change to boundaries in Cheshire and Greater Manchester.
3.10 RS Policies DP5, RT2 & RT9 require new development to be genuinely accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, and to manage overall travel demand.
3.11 RS Policy EM18 requires that all residential developments comprising 10 or more units should secure at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable.
Stockport Core Strategy
3.12 The Stockport Core Strategy (March 2011) [SCS] sets out the spatial strategy and planning policy framework for the development in the borough for the period 2011-2026. It supersedes the broad strategy and spatial policies of the Stockport UDP Review.
Site Specific Guidance
3.13 The SCS [Section 3.3.9] specifically identifies Woodford Aerodrome as an „Opportunity Site‟, in recognition of the opportunity that it presents for redevelopment. The SCS [§3.539] indicates that all 205ha associated with the site lie within the Green Belt, with two areas (extending to 42.1ha) specifically allocated within the UDP as Major Existing Developed Sites [MEDS]. Figure 3.1 provides an extract from the SCS, which identifies the MEDS areas.
3.14 The SCS [§3.542] sets out the Council‟s commitment to ensuring that the redevelopment of the site is carefully planned and advantage taken of the opportunities that the site offers. A comprehensive approach should be taken to the whole site and the SCS [§3.543] sets out the Council‟s position that a more detailed plan for the site can best be achieved through the preparation of an SPD.
3.15 In terms of broad principles for redevelopment, the SCS [§3.544] indicates that consolidation of the two MEDS areas may facilitate a more comprehensive and
P10 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
cohesive development. In any event, the document [§3.545] indicates there should be no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development and that development should not occupy a greater area than existing buildings, unless this would achieve a reduction in height.
Figure 3.1 Woodford Aerodrome MEDS
Source: Stockport Core Strategy [Figure 10]
3.16 In terms of other issues, the SCS provides that:- 1 There are access and sustainability issues to be resolved and, in order to secure sufficient funding for highway and public transport improvements, a significant level of development may be required [§3.546]; 2 A considerable part of the site is undeveloped at present. Acceptable uses for these areas should be open in character for example informal or formal recreation space [§3.548]; and, 3 The potential impact of development upon heritage assets should be assessed [§3.549].
3.17 In terms of potential uses, the SCS [§3.541 & §3.550] indicates that acceptable uses are housing and employment. The guidance [§3.554] indicates that retail, and other town centre uses, other than small scale uses to serve the development, are unlikely to be acceptable.
General Guidance
3.18 SCS Policy CS1 & SCS DM Policy SD-3 seek to ensure development meets an appropriate recognised sustainable design and construction standard where viable to do so in order to address the causes and consequences of climate
2726511v2 P11
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
change and reduce CO2 emissions. Development should seek to achieve a high rating under schemes, such as Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM and Building for Life [SCS DM Policy SD-1].
3.19 SCS Policy CS2 seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality housing with a focus on the effective and efficient use of land in accessible locations. The CS plans to deliver a net additional 7200 dwellings in the period 2011-2026 in accordance with the following trajectory:- 1 450dpa between 2011-2013; 2 495dpa between 2013-2023; and, 3 450dpa between 2023-2026.
3.20 SCS Policy CS2 establishes a general previously developed land target of at least 90%.
3.21 SCS Policy CS3 seeks to deliver balanced communities and a sustainable mix of housing to address up to date evidence of local needs. It sets an overall strategic affordable housing target of 50%, subject to local need. In terms of developer contributions, the SCS [DM Policy H-3] sets a target of 40% affordable housing for sites in Woodford, subject to viability.
3.22 In order to make efficient use of land, SCS Policy CS3 indicates that all housing developments should achieve 30dph (with higher densities of 70dph in central locations).
3.23 In terms of the distribution of housing, the focus of the SCS [Policy CS4] is to make effective use of land within accessible urban areas and housing should broadly be planned in line with the following spatial, priorities:- 1 Up to 50% of provision in the Central Housing Area; 2 At least 35% of provision within Neighbourhood Renewal Priority Areas and within the pedestrian catchment (i.e. up to 800m) of District and Large Local Centres; and, 3 Up to 15% of provision in other accessible locations.
3.24 SCS Policy CS4 states that Green Belt sites will be allocated though the Allocations DPD, if required to meet local needs. The policy provides that any change to the Green Belt boundary must be justified by exceptional circumstances, although this requirement does not apply to Major Existing Developed Sites, or the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt for housing. Where Green Belt release is being considered, regard will be had to the role of the land in fulfilling Green Belt land use objectives.
3.25 SCS Policy CS8 provides broad guidance on a variety of environmental issues, including: - 1 The protection of areas of landscape value and ensuring development is designed and landscaped to a high standard which makes a positive contribution to a sustainable, attractive, safe and accessible built and natural environment. This is supported by SCS DM Policy SIE-3 which
P12 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
requires new development to complement their surroundings and retain trees, woodland and other vegetation which makes a positive contribution to amenity. 2 Development will be expected to make a positive contribution to the protection and enhancement of the Borough‟s natural environment and biodiversity. Areas and features of identified ecological or other environmental benefit or value will be safeguarded. Developments should include mitigation measures that keep disturbance to a minimum and provide alternative habitats to sustain, at least, the current level of population [SCS DM Policy SIE-3(a)]. 3 The principal objective in relation to the historic environment is that proposals should preserve or enhance the character and setting of buildings and spaces which contribute to an area‟s heritage assets. This approach is supported by SCS DM SIE-3(d). 4 Proposals which seek to make environmental improvements and enhancements are encouraged especially where derelict and contaminated land back into safe active use. 5 Proposals that potentially have noise and air quality impacts should be assessed and, where development would create or exacerbate problems, appropriate mitigation should be identified and implemented. This approach is supported by SCS DM SIE-3(b).
3.26 SCS DM Policy SIE-1 requires that proposals demonstrate the highest contemporary standard of design, which pays regard to the built and natural environment within which it is sited.
3.27 SCS DM Policy SIE-2 states that development should take a positive role in providing recreation and amenity open space to meet the needs of uses and occupants. Where appropriate in new development, landscaped amenity areas should be provided, which are necessary and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development.
3.28 The SCS [Policy CS10] identifies two strategic improvements to the transportation network that are relevant to the consideration of the development of the site namely: - 1 A555/A523 Poynton Bypass; and, 2 SEMMMS Relief Road A6 Hazel Grove to M60 Bredbury.
3.29 SCS DM Policy T-1 requires new development to be sustainably located and accessible by public transport, walking and cycling with appropriate improvements required to transportation infrastructure to make the development accessible.
Stockport UDP Review
3.30 The Stockport UDP Review was adopted in May 2006. The SCS supersedes many of the policies of the UDP. The following summarises the relevant policies that continue to apply since the adoption of the SCS.
2726511v2 P13
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
3.31 The western part of the site lies within the Woodford Landscape Character Area. UDP Policy LCR1.1 requires that development within the Landscape Character Areas [LCAs] should enhance the quality and character of the area. The brief appraisal of the Woodford LCA within the UDP [Appendix 12] provides little comment on the contribution that the site makes to the character of this wider designation.
3.32 UDP Policy GBA1.2 sets out the policy presumption against the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt, except in „very special circumstances‟ unless they are for the following purposes:- 1 Agriculture and forestry; 2 Outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries and other uses which preserve openness; 3 Limited extension or replacement of existing dwellings; 4 Limited infilling; 5 Limited affordable housing; and, 6 Development within major developed sites.
3.33 UDP Policy GBA1.5 provides that new residential development in the Green Belt will generally be restricted to:- 1 Dwellings essential for the purposes of agriculture; 2 Re-use of buildings in accordance with Policy GBA1.6; and, 3 Development that meets the requirements of Policy GBA1.7 „Major Existing Developed Sites in the Green Belt‟.
3.34 UDP Policy GBA1.7 supports the redevelopment of designated Major Existing Developed Sites in the Green Belt, provide that it would:- 1 Result in environmental improvement; 2 Have no greater impact than existing buildings on openness of the Green Belt; and, 3 Not result in the loss of features of visual, amenity, ecological, environmental or archaeological importance.
3.35 The policy provides that redevelopment should generally not occupy a larger area of the site than existing buildings, although small increases in site coverage may be acceptable through the use of good design and reduced building heights. The policy states that major redevelopment proposals should be developed in consultation with the Council and key stakeholders.
3.36 UDP Policy L1.7 seeks to protect public rights of way and other recreation routes. Where development affects such rights of way, the UDP [Policy L1.9] indicates that provision should be made for their protection or for a convenient alternative to be provided.
Cheshire Structure Plan
P14 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
3.37 The Cheshire 2016 Structure Plan Alteration [CSP] was adopted by Cheshire County Council in December 2005 and set out the broad planning strategy for the County. The majority of the structure plan was superseded by the RS and none of the „saved‟ policies provide guidance which is directly relevant to the redevelopment of this site.
3.38 However, CSP Policy T4 identifies two strategic improvements to the County transportation network that are relevant to the consideration of the development of the site namely: - 1 A555/A523 Poynton Bypass; and, 2 A555 Manchester Airport Link (Western Section).
Macclesfield Local Plan
3.39 The Macclesfield Local Plan [MLP] comprises the Local Plan (December 1997) as amended by the Alterations (January 2004). Its „saved‟ policies remain part of the statutory development plan for the site.
3.40 In respect of Green Belt, the MLP [Policy GC1] sets out a policy presumption against new buildings, except in „very special circumstances‟ unless they are for a limited range of purposes including agriculture and forestry; outdoor sport and recreation and other uses which preserve the openness of the Green Belt; limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings; limited infilling; limited affordable housing; and, redevelopment within major developed sites.
3.41 MLP Policies NE2, NE3 and NE4 encourage the conservation and enhancement of the rural landscape, including improving derelict, contaminated, vacant or unsightly land.
3.42 Part of the site to the east of the main runway (adjacent to Poynton Brook) falls within a defined „Flood Risk Area‟. MLP Policies NE9 and RT10 encourage the protection of important natural elements of river corridors and areas of water and promote the recreational use of these areas where possible.
3.43 The existing industrial unit to the east of the site is located within a designated Existing Employment Area. The MLP [Policy E1] generally provides that such sites should be retained in employment use to ensure an adequate supply of employment land is available.
Emerging Development Plan Policies
Stockport Allocations DPD
3.44 The Council is in the process of preparing its Allocations DPD. A period of consultation on the first stage of preparing this document closed at the end of November 2011. The document is at an early stage in its preparation and can therefore be given no material weight for the purposes of guiding development on the western part of the site.
2726511v2 P15
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Cheshire East Local Plan
3.45 The Council is in the process of preparing the Cheshire East Local Plan. This will comprise a number of documents including the Core Strategy and the Site Allocations documents.
3.46 Work has commenced on the Core Strategy and a Publication version of the document is scheduled to be prepared for consultation in January 2013. The Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper was issued for consultation in November 2010. It outlined a series of options for the spatial vision for the area and a series of growth options for the housing requirement. All three spatial options focus growth on principal towns, key service centres and to a lesser extent local service centres with the objective of creating sustainable patterns of development.
3.47 In addition, the Council has prepared Snapshot Reports for a number of areas, including Poynton. Consultation on the Poynton report ended in September 2011. This Snapshot Report [§3.1] identifies that the future of the site is a key issue for this area. Further neighbourhood planning consultation for Poynton is to be undertaken this summer.
3.48 Work has also commenced on the preparation of the Allocations document and a Publication version of the document is scheduled to be prepared for consultation in February 2014.
3.49 These Local Plan documents are at an early stage in their preparation and can therefore be given no material weight for the purposes of guiding development on the eastern part of the site.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
3.50 The following relevant supplementary guidance has been prepared by SMBC:- 1 The „Provision of Affordable Housing‟ SPG was adopted in January 2003. Further to the adoption of the LDF Core Strategy in March 2011, the document contains a foreword indicating that it is out of date and that reference should be made to Core Strategy for affordable housing policy requirements and thresholds. 2 The „Design of Residential Development‟ SPD, adopted in December 2007, provides guidance on the design of residential development, promoting high quality inclusive design, raising awareness of good design and expanding on adopted UDP Review policies. 3 The „Recreation and Open Space Provision‟ SPG was adopted in July 2006. Further to the adoption of the LDF Core Strategy in March 2011, the document contains a foreword indicating that it is out of date and that reference should be made to Core Strategy for relevant policy requirements.
P16 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
4 The „Sustainable Design and Construction‟ SPD was adopted in November 2010. The SPD is designed to provide guidance on the sustainable location, layout, design and construction of development.
3.51 The following relevant supplementary guidance has been prepared by CEC:- 1 The „Interim Planning Policy on the Release of Housing Land‟ was adopted in February 2011 and is currently being revised. It sets out the Council‟s policy approach to maintaining a five year supply of deliverable housing land to be used as an interim measure pending the adoption of the Core Strategy.
3.52 Macclesfield Borough Council adopted an SPD for Poynton in June 2007 which reinforced the need to retain the character and separate identity of the village by preserving the Green Belt. None of the other supplementary guidance notes adopted by the former Macclesfield Borough Council are of direct relevance to the consideration of this site.
National Planning Policy Framework
3.53 The National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework] sets out the Government‟s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
3.54 The Framework [§14] establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through plan making and decision taking.
3.55 The Framework [§17] establishes a series of 12 principles, which should underpin plan making and decision taking. In summary, these provide that planning should:- 1 Be plan-led, up to date and provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications should be made; 2 Be a creative exercise in finding ways to improve and enhance places; 3 Proactively support sustainable economic development in order to meet housing, business and other needs; 4 Seek to secure high quality design; 5 Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of urban areas, protecting Green Belts and recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside; 6 Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk, encouraging the reuse of resources and use of renewable resources; 7 Conserve and enhance the natural environment and reduce pollution; 8 Encourage the effective use of previously developed land, provided it is not of high environmental value;
2726511v2 P17
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
9 Promote mixed use developments and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land; 10 Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; 11 Manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus development in locations which are, or can be made, sustainable; and, 12 Take account of strategies to support local health, social and cultural strategies and deliver community facilities to meet local needs.
3.56 The Framework [§18] is committed to securing economic growth. Planning should not act as an impediment to sustainable growth and significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system [§19].
3.57 The Framework [§29] recognises that the transport system needs to give people a choice about how they travel, with encouragement given to sustainable modes that support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion [§30]. However, development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe [§33].
3.58 Developments that generate significant movements should be located where the need to travel is minimised if possible [§34]. For larger scale housing developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be within walking distance of most properties [§38].
3.59 The Framework [§47] seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and LPA‟s should ensure that Local Plans meet full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing; and, identify a rolling 5 year supply of deliverable sites, with an additional buffer of 5% (or 20% where there has been a record of persistent under delivery) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA can not demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable sites [§49].
3.60 The Framework provides that a wide choice of high quality homes should be delivered to increase opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. Where affordable housing is needed, LPA‟s should set policies for meeting this [§50].
3.61 The Framework [§52] makes clear that the supply of new homes can sometimes best be achieved through larger scale development, including new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns [§51].
3.62 The Framework [§56] states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should positively contribute to making places better for people. Design policies however, should avoid unnecessary prescription [§59]. Applicants should work closely with those
P18 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
affected by proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Such development proposals will be looked on favourably [§66].
3.63 The Framework [§79] states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. The Framework [§81] urges LPAs to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, for example by supporting opportunities to provide access; opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or, to improve derelict land.
3.64 The Framework [§87] establishes a presumption against „inappropriate development‟ in the Green Belt. It makes clear that „inappropriate development‟, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt, should not be approved except in „very special circumstances‟.
3.65 The Framework [§89] states that the construction of new buildings generally comprises „inappropriate development‟. Exceptions to this inter alia are:- “Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.”
3.66 The Framework is therefore positive in terms of the redevelopment potential of the site. This is because it:- 1 Supports, in principle, the redevelopment of previously developed sites within the Green Belt; 2 Does not restrict the redevelopment to defined MDS boundaries and refers to previously developed sites, which in the Woodford case would be the whole aerodrome; 3 Introduces a more flexible policy position from that set out in PPG2 through the removal of the guidance in Annex C. It is now open for LPAs to make their own assessment of the impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt and include policies in their Local Plans accordingly; and, 4 Does not preclude LPAs from adopting policies that establish the parameters for the types of development that would be appropriate in land use planning and Green Belt terms based on robust evidence.
3.67 The MEDS boundaries, in relation to the site, are to be updated by SMBC in the preparation of the Allocations DPD and reflect the findings of the SPD.
3.68 However, the requirement that development should not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it remains the crucial test for considering the appropriateness of development on the site.
2726511v2 P19
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
3.69 The Framework indicates that, in determining planning applications, LPA‟s should require the applicant to assess the significance of any heritage assets affected. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance [§128]. When considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be applied to the asset‟s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight [§132].
Conclusions & Constraints
3.70 In accordance with Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, the development plan comprises:- 1 The RSS for the North West, the Stockport LDF Core Strategy and the „saved‟ policies of the Stockport UDP Review for the western part of the site; and, 2 The RSS for the North West, the Cheshire Structure Plan and the Macclesfield Local Plan for the eastern part of the site.
3.71 The main themes of local and national guidance are that the planning system should promote and encourage sustainable patterns of development; promote regeneration; and, secure development that improves the character and quality of an area. Local and national planning policies establish a general policy presumption against new buildings in the Green Belt, except in „very special circumstances‟. Policy support is provided for the redevelopment of previously developed land within the Green Belt, providing that the development has no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing buildings and does not undermine the purposes of including land within it.
3.72 With specific regard to the site planning guidance provides that: - 1 Priority should be given to the release of previously developed land in sustainable locations; 2 The redevelopment of the site as a major regeneration opportunity is encouraged; 3 A sustainable mix of housing should be delivered to meet the needs of the community; 4 A high standard of design, including landscaping should be achieved through development proposals; and, 5 Development should be well designed and make efficient use of land and encourage sustainable travel modes and patterns. 6 Green Belt policies apply and there is scope for redevelopment within the SMBC part of the site in accordance with development plan policies.
P20 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
4.0 Context & Character
Introduction
4.1 One of the key processes in creating a successful new development is a robust understanding of the place as it exists at present. By pealing back the layers of what makes a place the way that it is, the foundations are laid for a development that responds positively and contributes to the existing neighbourhood. This involves not just looking at the site in isolation, but also considering the wider area.
4.2 An analysis has been undertaken of the existing site context in response to this requirement. This analysis considers and assesses what makes Woodford distinctive, including its pattern of development and its building and townscape character. There are distinct and common features running throughout Woodford and these can be a source of inspiration for any new development and its buildings.
Sources & Methodology
4.3 The context and character appraisal has been undertaken through analysis of cartographical information through visits to local archives and record offices. This desktop based work was complemented by photographical analysis of the site and surrounding area. Further analysis will need to be undertaken as the masterplan evolves and begins to emerge.
Baseline Information
Historic Development of Woodford
4.4 Woodford village lies approximately 5.2 miles south of Stockport and to the west of the town of Poynton. The village originated as an area of open agricultural land, with development limited to a small collection of farms linked by a network of country lanes. The farms were spread along the main route that today forms the A5102 Chester Road.
4.5 Historically Woodford was a hamlet within the parish of Prestbury and Woodford‟s Christ Church was completed in 1841 as a chapel of ease to the parish. Woodford remained as this quiet, lightly populated hamlet until the early-twentieth century when the Avro aircraft company of Manchester established the airfield at Woodford. Initially, Avro purchased New Hall Farm in 1924 and constructed small hangars in the south of the site. This was followed by the opening of the aerodrome in 1925, celebrated with an air pageant. The airfield itself was grass.
4.6 At the same time housing development for workers at Woodford began at a dramatic pace, largely based along the main spine road of the village; the
2726511v2 P21
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
factory employed around 3,000 people at its peak in 1944. As a result, the village today has no identifiable centre or defined point of entry and exit.
4.7 From the mid 1930s the aerodrome expanded rapidly, initially building Avro Ansons and from 1941, Lancaster bombers. This involved the construction of new buildings in the north and the south of the airfield, and the construction of paved runways, taxiways and hardstanding. In 1951 the airfield was extended to the east in order to accommodate the Avro Vulcan. Avro House was constructed in 1982, followed by Oxford Aviation‟s building in 1992.
The Form of the Village
4.8 Today Woodford broadly consists of a ribbon of properties concentrated along the A5102 Chester Road and its branch roads. The modern village layout follows the original road pattern but with the majority of the street frontage built upon; Old Hall Lane leads off southeast, through open farmland, whilst Church Lane leads northwest into open countryside, before turning and joining with Moor Lane to the north. Chester Road continues to the north-east forming the main spine road through the village. Moor Lane then branches off to the north whilst the Chester Road continues through the village, past the former BA Factory and Woodford Park Garden centre, before dividing and turning to the north. The A5149 continues northeast towards Poynton and Chester, with Bridle Road turning to the southeast around the edge of the airfield site.
Figure 4.1 Settlement Form
4.9 Today, there is no clear village centre; the village church, often the focus of a settlement, is located on the western edge of the village on the corner of the
P22 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
junction with Old Hall Lane, and is largely surrounded by open fields. Housing then continues westwards on the Wilmslow Road towards Dean Row, with no clear break or definition between the extremities of each village. As the road forks past the junction with Moor Lane, there is a small group of shops and commercial premises located opposite the Garden Centre, but these are not substantial enough to form a real community focus. As the road moves towards the northeast, there is again no clear distinction as to where Woodford village ends.
Buildings and Townscape
4.10 Most properties throughout Woodford were built in the initial period of production at the factory in the late 1920s-30s and beyond. These properties are largely two storey houses or bungalows set in relatively large plots, and generally built in brick and render with occasional examples of half timbering. Behind each area of back garden, land falls away to open countryside.
4.11 Despite their location in the wider rural landscape, most buildings are of a typical suburban character, with houses set in large plots. Most properties have front gardens and large gardens to the rear. Their style and character is therefore comparable with twentieth century examples of garden city developments. Infilling the spaces between these properties are more modern house types, built in the last half of the twentieth century.
Figure 4.2 Typical Housing in Woodford
2726511v2 P23
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figure 4.3 Typical Housing in Woodford
Figure 4.4 Typical Housing in Woodford
4.12 Dotted in-between the stretches of twentieth century housing are a few historic remnants of the original hamlet such as Old Hall Farmhouse (seventeenth century), which was the home of the Davenport family who owned the manor of Woodford. Other properties include Dog Hill Green, an old farmhouse on the
P24 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Woodford Road, and Christ Church, situated on the corner of Old Hall Lane and Chester Road, which is now grade II listed.
Figure 4.5 Christ Church, Woodford
Conclusions & Constraints
4.13 Woodford now consists of a ribbon of properties concentrated along the Chester Road and its branch roads. This form developed from a small collection of farms in open agricultural land, spread along the main road and linked by a network of country lanes. After the development of the factory in the 1920s-30s, land in-between the farms was built upon, creating a continuous building frontage along the road throughout the village.
4.14 The result is that the village today has no clear centre and no defined point of entry and exit. It is therefore considered that any new housing should aim to encourage growth towards a more compact, concentrated village form and create a new focus to the community.
4.15 Given the suburban character and layout of the majority of buildings within Woodford, new development should look to Garden City types for inspiration, echoing the street and plot typologies and building forms whilst reflecting the character and style of the existing buildings but creating a more successful, compact building layout; relatively local examples include Port Sunlight and Bournville.
2726511v2 P25
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
5.0 Dust & Air Quality
Introduction
5.1 This section details the air quality, dust and odour considerations both in terms of potential impacts to future occupiers of the site and the effects of developments on the existing sensitive receptors.
Sources & Methodology
5.2 Existing sources of emission within the study area have been defined using a number of approaches. Industrial and waste management sources that may affect the area have been identified from the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register [E-PRTR] (European Environment Agency, 2011) and the „what‟s in your backyard‟ website (Environment Agency, 2012). Local sources have also been identified through examination of Stockport Metropolitan Borough and Cheshire East Council‟s Air Quality Review and Assessment reports.
5.3 Information on existing air quality has been obtained by collating the results of monitoring carried out by the local authority. The background concentrations across the study area have been defined using the national pollution maps published by Defra (Defra, 2012a). These cover the whole country on a 1x1km grid.
5.4 The locations of potentially sensitive habitat sites within 10km of the proposed development site were determined from the MAGIC website (Defra, 2012b), whilst further details of the sensitivity of the sites was determined from the APIS website (APIS, 2012).
5.5 There are no formal assessment criteria for dust. The risk of dust emissions from a construction site causing health effects is related to: - 1 The activities being undertaken, the duration of the activity; 2 The size of the work site; 3 Meteorological conditions; 4 The proximity of receptors to the activity; 5 The adequacy of mitigation; and, 6 The sensitivity of the receptors to dust.
5.6 Whilst there are areas at the north of the development site that are adjacent to human health receptors, considering the development at a strategic level, construction work in adjacent areas will be able to be adequately mitigated to prevent significant impacts occurring. The exact nature of the required mitigation will need to be assessed as part of an Environmental Statement that will accompany any planning application for the site, but is considered to be eminently feasible.
P26 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
5.7 A number of areas of contaminated land have been identified on the site which will be remediated. Further details will be provided in a site investigation report prepared for the site by BAE Systems Environmental. The main contaminants are aviation fuel, degreasing agents, luminescent paint and asbestos.
5.8 A remediation strategy will be prepared for the site setting out the required measures, and the method of treatment. There is a risk that dust containing contaminants will be generated during demolition / construction activities. However, specific measures, put in place to protect workers when they are carrying out the remediation works, will limit the generation and / or spread of contaminated dust. Asbestos fibre release will be controlled in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (CAR06).
Baseline Information
5.9 The site is not within an Air Quality Management Area [AQMA] although Stockport has declared an AQMA covering sections of major roads within the southern half of the borough for exceedences of the annual average nitrogen dioxide objective. The closest of these to the development site relate to residences adjacent to the A5149 Chester Road just to the north of the site, and the A5102 Woodford Road with the junction of the A555. The closest AQMAs within the Cheshire East area are the Disley and Macclesfield AQMAs, which are located approximately 8km away from the site.
5.10 A search of the E-PRTR and the EA „what‟s in your backyard website‟ did not identify any significant industrial or active waste management sources which would impact air quality for future residents of the site. No existing significant industrial sources have been identified within either local authority area, although the Stockport MBC Progress Report 2011 identified a combined mechanical biological treatment centre, an in-vessel composting facility and a household waste recycling centre at Bredbury Parkway which had recently been constructed. A detailed assessment of the air quality impacts is currently underway by Stockport MBC and other Greater Manchester authorities. Bredbury Parkway is located approximately 9km northeast of the site, and thus any air quality impacts are unlikely to affect future residents. As a Part A process, the site will be the responsibility of the Environment Agency to prevent significant environmental impacts.
5.11 Detailed development related traffic data are not currently available. An assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on air quality at existing residential properties, in particular, within the AQMAs will be required as part of the Environmental Statement. The site itself lies outside of the existing AQMAs, and air quality for future residents as a result of emissions from road traffic is likely to be acceptable.
5.12 There is no monitoring carried out by Stockport MBC or Cheshire East Council in close proximity to the site; data within approximately 4km have been collated, and are presented in Table 5.1. Concentrations are below the annual mean objective at all sites, including roadside sites, apart from the Civic Centre
2726511v2 P27
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
site, which is adjacent to the A6, a busy arterial route into Stockport and Manchester. Concentrations have increased at all sites between 2009 and 2010 (and from 2008, where data are available), and subsequently decreased in 2011 relative to 2010. Overall, concentrations have remained similar over the three (or four) year period.
Table 5.1 Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations at Local Authority Monitoring Sites within 4km of the Site
Annual Mean Concentration ( g/m3) Site Site Type 2008 2009 2010 2011 Civic Centre, Hazel Roadside 42.0 46.0 52.0 45.8 Grove Alderley Close, Hazel Urban Background 13.0 15.0 18.0 14.5 Grove Upton Avenue Urban Background 17.0 19.0 20.0 18.4 A523 London Road Automatic, Roadside - 21.8 33.0 28.2 South 25 London Road Roadside 34.5 35.8 33.7 South, Poynton 48 London Road Roadside - 34.6 36.1 33.7 South, Poynton 183 London Road Roadside - 28.9 31.9 28.6 South, Poynton Objective 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
5.13 Background concentrations within the study area in 2012 are presented in Table 5.2. They are all well below the relevant objectives.
Table 5.2 Background Concentrations at the Site
5.14 NOx NO2 PM10 PM2.5 2012 12.3 – 25.6 9.2 – 17.7 11.3 – 13.0 7.4 – 8.9
Objectives 5.15 40.05.16 40.05.17 25.0
5.18 A search of the MAGIC database (DEFRA, 2012b) identified three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 10km of the site; the Alderley Edge SSSI, the Lindow Common SSSI and the Cotteril Clough SSSI. The Alderley Edge SSSI does not have any critical load data available for the habitats at this location and impacts from the development are thus unlikely; the Cotteril Clough SSSI lies adjacent to Manchester Airport, and at a distance of 9km from the proposed development site; impacts from the proposed development are unlikely to be significant given the existing airport contribution and the distance from the site. Consideration would need to be given to the impact of development related traffic should roads within 200m of the Lindow Common
P28 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
and Cotteril Clough SSSIs experience a significant increase in traffic (based on DMRB criteria).
Conclusions & Constraints
5.19 Air quality for future residents of the site is likely to be acceptable, as the site is not within an existing AQMA, and the majority of the site, and thus the proposed properties, is set back from the closest road. One industrial source is currently being investigated by Stockport MBC, however, based on the distance (~9km), impacts at the site are unlikely.
5.20 The proposed development has the potential to cause temporary dust impacts during construction. However, these impacts can be effectively mitigated; specific consideration will need to be given to mitigation where contamination is present. Development related traffic impacts will need to be considered at the planning application stage, when detailed traffic data are available; consideration will need to be given to the impacts on air quality at existing properties, particularly within the AQMA, and the identified SSSI‟s.
2726511v2 P29
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
6.0 Noise & Vibration
Introduction
6.1 This section outlines the noise and vibration considerations in terms of potential impacts to future occupiers of the site and the effects of the proposed development on the existing sensitive receptors around the site.
Sources & Methodology
6.2 The assessment of the noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed development will fall into three key areas: 1 The suitability of the current noise and vibration climate for the proposed development; 2 Noise and vibration impacts during the demolition, remediation and construction phases at existing receptors; and 3 Noise and vibration impacts during the operational phase at existing and proposed sensitive receptors.
6.3 Existing noise levels in the area will be established by conducting baseline noise and vibration surveys in May-June 2012 (outside school/public holidays). These will be undertaken within the boundaries of the site and residential areas in the immediate surroundings. The survey methodology will be agreed with the EHO at SMBC before the surveys are undertaken. It is expected that they will comprise of an unattended measurement of at least 24 hours. During the same 24-hour period, shorter attended day and night-time measurements will be undertaken at further locations across the site and surroundings. The noise survey will include measurement of a number of parameters, including
LAeq,T, LASmax, LAFmax and LA90,T.
6.4 A computer noise model of the site and surroundings will be prepared using the software SoundPLAN version 7.1. The baseline and future year „with scheme‟ and „without scheme‟ noise levels will be modelled. The modelling will be used to define noise constraints that could affect the development of the site and identify the potential for mitigation requirements.
6.5 The suitability of the noise climate of the site for residential development will be established in accordance with Noise Exposure categories that were included in the now revoked Planning Policy Guidance 241 [PPG24], using the noise survey and modelling data to categorise the site. Stockport MBC Environmental Health have confirmed that residential development would be acceptable in NEC A, B and C areas, although mitigation would be required for
1 DETR 1994. Planning Policy Guidance PPG24: Planning and Noise. (Revoked March 2012).
P30 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
dwellings in NEC B and C. In areas where noise mitigation would be required (NECs B and C), the guidance in BS 82332 will be used to set targets for internal and outdoor space noise levels. The „good‟ standard for resting and sleeping provided in BS 8233 shall be used. Individual external noise events
(measured with F time-weighting) not normally to exceed 45dB LAMAX internally to bedrooms. The desirable design target in BS 8233 for outdoor living space
is that the steady noise level does not exceed 50dBLAeq (07.00 – 23.00). .
6.6 The potential for noise & vibration impacts arising from the demolition, remediation and construction phase of the development will be assessed in accordance with BS 5228:20093. A Scheme for protecting the nearby properties from noise and vibration from demolition/construction works should be submitted to the LPA for written approval prior to commencement of works on site. The proposed methods of remediation may dgenerate noise and it will not be possible to fully define mitigation until the remediation strategy for the site is approved. However, reference will be made to appropriate methodologies to be contained with the Construction Environmental Management Plan that will be prepared for the remediation of the site.
6.7 Where piling and / or power floating is to take place, the piling equipment and piling method should be agreed with the LPA prior to the commencement of site works. It is recommended prior consent is sought under the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
Baseline Information
6.8 The site is currently occupied by the BAE Systems plant, which comprises assembly buildings, hangars and the airfield. Operation of the site ceased in March 2011.
6.9 Noise sources in the area around the site include the A5102 and A5149 to the north and northwest of the site, the A523 and the London-Manchester railway to the east of the site, Adlington Business Park to the South and agricultural activities in the local area.
6.10 The site is located approximately 7km from Manchester International Airport. The noise maps of Manchester Airport4 completed in compliance with the UK government‟s duties under the European Environmental Noise Directive have
2 British Standards Institution, 1999. BS 8233:1999 Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings – Code of Practice. London: BSI
3 British Standards Institution, 2009. BS 5228-1:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites Part 1 Noise. London: BSI and British Standards Institution, 2009. BS 5228-2:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites Part 2 Vibration. London: BSI.
4 http://services.defra.gov.uk/wps/portal/noise/!ut/p/c5/hY1NDoIwGESP9A228rOEYiiKxVhUYEOIGgNRJJFA4PTiAdSZ5cuboZzmNmVf3cquejblnV LKzUIEruRWBIDpJcIgXm645oDAzLPvHOyPfaIUvNC13W7HLo0m0Sf1pKH81bidNqPyz6Pq0t3luD94rti9ukHOTv5r9fP54fgSF6Tk83GljHKrMIPINr wYDuSCIRTJ2nKgGLhBCWUetY9D38oBbzdfXg8!/dl3/d3/L0lDU0lKSmdwcGlRb0tVUm1abUEhL29Kb2dBRUlRaGpFQ1VJZ0FJQUl5RkFNaHdVa FM0SlJFQXdDR2lJQmdBREVRREFBV0lnR0FBY1JBTUFBQS80QzFiOVdfTnIwZ0NVZ3hFbVJDVXdnISEvN182R0w4MUJPMDkwSDIzMElDVEo 3OTBOMzA0MS95bHdXaDIyOTAwMDIvMTk0MjYyMzA3MTk3L2phdmF4LnNlcnZsZXQuaW5jbHVkZS5wYXRoX2luZm8vJTBNYXBQb3J0bGV0T WFwcy5qc3A!/#7_6GL81BO090H230ICTJ790N3041 Accessed 28 March 2012
2726511v2 P31
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
been reviewed and indicate that Woodford is outside of the 55dB Lden contour
and the 50 dB Lnight contour so levels of noise from aircraft may be audible but would be below these noise levels, which would be considered acceptable. This will be confirmed during the noise survey.
6.11 Noise receptors in the area include the built-up area of Woodford to the north and east, and individual dwellings around the site.
Conclusions & Constraints
6.12 The noise and vibration climate is likely to be suitable for residential development. Areas close to roads, the railway and existing or proposed commercial or industrial buildings will require specific noise and vibration assessment to a methodology to be prior agreed with the EHO. The assessment report will determine whether mitigation measures are required to the development.
6.13 New noise sources introduced as part of the scheme will need to be designed so as to restrict noise emissions to existing and proposed dwellings and other noise sensitive receptors.
6.14 The development has the potential to cause temporary noise and vibration impacts during the demolition, remediation and construction phase, and consideration will need to be given to reducing this to an acceptable level having regard to current guidance.
6.15 Development related traffic impacts will need to be considered at the planning application stage, when detailed baseline and future traffic data is available.
P32 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
7.0 Hydrology & Drainage
Introduction
7.1 This section deals with hydrology and drainage considerations.
Sources & Methodology
7.2 The Environment Agency [EA] has been contacted for comments relating to flooding in the vicinity of the site and any flood modelling data for watercourses around the development. From a review of all readily available flood level information for the adjacent Main River systems (River Dean and Poynton Brook), the EA does not hold any modelled information for the small Ordinary Watercourse on the site.
7.3 The site has large areas of positively drained buildings and hardstandings. Whilst the final discharge from the site will need to be discussed with the EA and Local Authority Engineers, it is likely that some form of betterment (reduction in discharge rates) can be provided as a part of the development.
7.4 It is proposed to restrict the drainage discharge rate to the mean annual Greenfield Rate, calculated using the Institute of Hydrology Report 124 - Flood Estimation For Small Catchments. For this site this is 2.57 l/s/ha, for all rainfall events up to and including 100 year return period, with an allowance for climate change. Final site discharge rates will need to be agreed with the EA following a detailed appraisal of development proposals.
7.5 An initial outline estimate, based on an impermeable area of 13ha, gives an approximate quantum of surface water storage required to facilitate the proposed development on the site of 8500m3. Before detailed calculations can be undertaken, an updated masterplan with more precise details of the development proposals will be required to make an accurate estimate of impermeable area for the development.
7.6 Methods of storage will be evaluated during detailed design of drainage but will take the form of a Sustainable Drainage System [SuDS] that may incorporate swales, ponds or wetlands etc. The application of these systems will be assessed using Construction Industry Research and Information Association [CIRIA] best practice guidance on the implementation and design of SuDS.
7.7 As part of the removal of the existing runway it is proposed to investigate the potential to de-culvert the watercourse flowing through the site, which will further reduce the risk of flooding from the development and provide significant potential biodiversity gain as a result of the naturalisation of this system.
7.8 United Utilities plc, the sewerage undertaker for the area, has also been contacted for any information they may have on surface and foul water drainage for the site and copies of records of the existing sewerage arrangements for the site have been requested, along with capacity
2726511v2 P33
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
assessments on existing foul drainage infrastructure. Further consultation with United Utilities will be required to determine what, if any, infrastructure improvements will be required to facilitate the proposed residential development.
7.9 A visual site survey has been undertaken and a photographic record will be required as part of a Flood Risk Assessment.
7.10 Previous Light Detection and Ranging [LIDAR] survey information has been provided and a new topographical survey commissioned to update the information with actual recorded site level – the results of this are awaited before further progress can be made on any detailed analysis.
Baseline Information
7.11 The proposed development site is within the catchments of the River Dean, Red Brook and Poynton Brook systems. A review of the Environment Agency indicative floodplain maps shows the majority of the site to lies outside of both the 1 in 100-year (Flood Zone 3) and 1 in 1,000-year (Flood Zone 2) flood zones. Small areas of floodplain are present on the very periphery of the site, to the east and southwest, but the area of proposed development is to be located on elevated ground to the north of the site. It therefore has a Flood Zone 1 designation.
7.12 There is a small unmapped „Ordinary Watercourse‟ (non Main River) system that runs through the centre of the development site, largely in culvert. An initial appraisal suggests that this watercourse serves a limited catchment and is unlikely to pose any risk to the development. The Flood Risk Assessment will further consider this system and explore opportunities to de-culvert, as discussed in more detail below.
7.13 The development will have an effect on the surface water flows to the watercourse system. The Flood Risk Assessment will further quantify this effect and confirm what mitigation measures are required as part of the development to ensure that there is no increase in flood risk as a result of the development.
7.14 From initial investigation it is apparent that flood risk to surrounding properties will not be increased by the development. However, the development will need to be examined in more detail when an updated masterplan is prepared.
Conclusions & Constraints
7.15 There will be a need for storm water attenuation to be included in the design.
7.16 It is proposed to investigate the opportunity to provide betterment in the form of reduced discharge rates from the site and to de-culvert and naturalise the watercourse through the development.
P34 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
8.0 Ground Contamination
Introduction
8.1 This section provides an initial assessment of the geology and ground conditions of the site. The potential for any contamination sources on the site to adversely affect the surrounding environment and existing and future occupiers of the site is discussed. The initial site assessment is undertaken through establishing the existing baseline ground condition data and then assessing the potential magnitude of impact and impact significance associated with the encountered ground conditions. An initial set of soil and gas monitoring was completed between February and April 2012.
Sources & Methodology
8.2 A Landmark Envirocheck Report was commissioned during the Phase 1 Land Quality Assessment (Desk Study) completed in April 2008. A further Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment [PRA] was also completed on the site in October 2011. The assessments focused upon the known previous and current uses of the site and surrounding area including discharge consents, landfill sites, trade directories as well as a series of historical plans to establish previous uses and features of the site.
8.3 British Geological Survey 1:50,000 Geological Map Sheet No. 98, Stockport, Solid and Drift Edition was examined along with Environment Agency Groundwater Vulnerability Map Sheet No.17, to determine geological conditions and aquifer status beneath the Site.
8.4 A site reconnaissance was undertaken by a geoenvironmental consultant during the 2008 Phase 1 Land Quality Assessment and during the 2011 PRA.
8.5 A preliminary partial intrusive site investigation was carried out by BAE Systems Environmental during January 2012. The investigation aimed to establish an overview of ground conditions for the site and surrounding area. The investigation comprised of seventy seven trial pits and ten boreholes. Six soil-gas and groundwater monitoring visits were also undertaken during the works.
8.6 Two reports have been used to compile information for this section: 1 BAE Systems Environmental. Desk Study for Potential Contamination: Woodford Aerodrome. BAE Systems Operations Ltd. Report reference A0787-00-R2-1, October 2011. 2 BAE Systems Environmental. Phase 1 Assessment of Ground and Groundwater Conditions: Woodford Aerodrome. Avro Heritage Ltd. Report reference A1065-00-R2-1, April 2012.
Information from these two reports is presented below.
2726511v2 P35
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
8.7 Data will be assessed against all current relevant UK guidance documentation and procedure.
8.8 The main legislative framework in the UK is Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Commencement 19) Order 2012. The guidance has recently been updated and revised (April 1 2012) and defines four categories of land with regards to potential impact on human health, as follows: 1 Category 1 – The local authority should assume that a significant possibility of significant harm exists in any case where it considers there is an unacceptable high probability, supported by robust science-based evidence that significant harm would occur if no action is taken to stop it. This land could be designated as Contaminated Land. 2 Category 2 – The land would be capable of being determined as contaminated land on grounds of significant possibility of significant harm to human health although it may be the case that similar land has not caused harm before but nevertheless the Authority considering the evidence suggests there is a strong case for taking action 3 Category 3 – The land would not be capable of being determined on such grounds and regulatory action is not warranted. 4 Category 4 - The local authority should not assume that land poses a significant harm if it considers that there is no risk or that the level of risk posed is low.
8.9 Background contamination levels may be factored into the risk assessment interpretation. As such the presence of contaminants at normal or background concentrations (i.e. those found across the United Kingdom or in parts of the United Kingdom) will ordinarily not result in a site being identified as falling within the Part IIA statutory definition of „contaminated land‟.
8.10 For a risk of pollution or environmental harm to occur, the following are required: 1 a source i.e. a substance that is capable of causing pollution or harm; 2 a pathway i.e. a route by which the contaminant can reach the receptor 3 a receptor (or target) i.e. something which could be adversely affected by the contaminant
8.11 If one of these elements is missing there can be no pollutant linkage present and hence there can be no significant risk of harm. If all are present then the magnitude of the risk is a function of the magnitude and mobility of the source, the sensitivity of the receptor and the nature of the migration pathway.
Baseline Information
Historical Land Use
8.12 Prior to 1921 the site is mapped as farmland. Two Farms (Yewtree Farm and Shirfold Farm) are identified on the 1873 map, located towards the north and
P36 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
north east of the site, respectively. To the north of the site lies farmland and the villages of Woodford and Poynton. The current railway line adjacent to the site‟s eastern boundary is also identified on the 1873 plan. A sand pit is identified to the east of the Site between 1873 and 1897. To the south of the site lies New Hall Farm and Dairy House and Isles Woods.
8.13 The airfield is marked on the 1921 plan, and is understood to have become active in 1924. Plans and historical aerial photographs identify the runway to be a grass airstrip. The airfield is shown to develop between 1938 when the northern and southern buildings are developed and 1976 during the extension of the current airstrip. A second sand pit is shown on the 1935 and 1954 historical maps to the west of the site adjacent to the sand and gravel pit previously identified on the 1873 plan. The villages of Woodford and Poynton have developed to the north and east of the site, with farmland located to the west and south of the site.
8.14 The 1999 historical plan identifies buildings having been developed in the south together with the construction of the former fire station. The main building located within the north of the site has also been developed. Negligible variation from the current layout (2012) and surrounding area, is shown after this date.
Current Site Status
8.15 The majority of the Site is currently vacant.
8.16 It is understood that agricultural fields located in the south of the property are farmed on a tenancy agreement. Oxford Aviation Academy located in the centre of the site remains in use. This facility is used for the training of aviation crew.
Geology
8.17 The British Geological Survey [BGS] map shows the superficial geology at the site largely comprises Glacial Till. Glacial Sand and Gravel and Peat deposits are identified within the centre of the site. Fluvioglacial Gravel Deposits are located to the east and south east of the site. Glacial Sand and Gravel and Alluvium Deposits are mapped adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.
8.18 Solid geology is mapped as “Pebble Beds” to the east and “Upper Mottled Sandstone” to the west. Pebble Beds are typically recorded as a cross stratified fine to coarse grained sandstone with conglomerate pebbles and sporadic siltstones. The Upper Mottled Sandstone is typically recorded as a mottled red, yellow and brown sandstone. Both solid stratum form part of the Sherwood Sandstone Group of Permian Triassic age. Four faults are located across the site, typically running in a north – south direction.
8.19 During the intrusive investigation, soils were found to typically match the mapped geology. Made Ground was underlain by interbedded fine and coarse Glacial Deposits. Owing to historical fluvial mixing process, it was not possible
2726511v2 P37
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
to clearly distinguish individual Glacial Deposit formations. A psuedofiborous peat was also encountered to the west of the site.
8.20 The Sherwood Sandstone, representative of the site‟s solid geology was encountered to the south of the site.
Mining
8.21 The site lies outside of a coal mining area, as defined by the Coal Authority.
8.22 Historical maps indicate that no mineral extraction activity has occurred on the site. A sand pit is indicated on the 1873 plan located adjacent to the south western boundary. This sand pit is not shown on later plans suggesting it may have been infilled. A second sand pit is shown on the 1935 and 1954 historical maps, located adjacent to the sand and gravel pit previously identified on the 1873 plan.
Radon
8.23 The site is located in an area where less than 1 per cent of domestic residences (within a 1 km radius) are above the National Radiolgical Protection Board (NRPB) action level for radon of 200 Bq m-3.
Hydrogeology
8.24 The Environment Agency classifies the mapped granular superficial deposits as a Secondary A aquifer. These deposits are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than a strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flows to rivers. The mapped cohesive deposits (Glacial Till) have not been classified, and are not likely to support significant groundwater recharge.
8.25 Solid geology on site (Sherwood Sandstone Group) is classified by the Environment Agency as a Principal Aquifer. This classification refers to rock deposits that have intergranular fracture and/or fracture permeability, meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage. These deposits may support river base flow on a strategic scale.
8.26 Soils in urban areas are classified as having a high leaching potential due to a general lack of observations; this is a worst case classification used until proven otherwise.
8.27 The site lies within Zone 2 (Outer) and Zone 3 (Total Catchment) of a Source Protection Zone [SPZ]. The SPZ is associated with a water abstraction permit for Sandy Hey Farm located approximately 100m west of the site.
Hydrology
8.28 Shirdfold Farm Brook originates from a spring in Adlington Industrial Estate, adjacent to the site‟s eastern boundary. The Brook is culverted under the main runway, flowing in an east-west direction. The brook subsequently flows
P38 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
adjacent to the site‟s northern boundary, prior to crossing the main runway in a second culvert towards the centre of the site. The Brook runs adjacent to the eastern taxiway confluencing with Red Brook to the south of the southern aircraft hangars.
8.29 Poynton Brook, a tributary of the River Mersey, flows in a northerly direction adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the site.
8.30 The River Dean is located in the southern area of the site adjacent to the Avro Golf Club, flowing in an east – west direction.
8.31 Red Brook, Poynton Brook and the River Dean are all monitored for water quality by the Environment Agency. These surface waters are classified as Grade B suggesting they are of good environmental quality.
Waste Management
8.32 During the operation of the site, three waste storage areas are known to have been operational: 1 a compound was used to store large waste metal items and construction rubble that had been removed from site located adjacent to the north western boundary; 2 a compound processing all factory and office waste, dry hazardous waste, and liquid waste located in the northern area of the site to the east of Building B4. Evidence suggests liquid wastes were normally collected directly from the point of generation and segregated within the hazardous waste compound; 3 an area used for the storage of large metal items which require processing prior to disposal off site was located in the southern area of the Site.
8.33 At the time the Envirocheck Report was commissioned there were no registered landfills or waste management facilities on site. However, previous experience has demonstrated that airfield sites often had specific areas on site for the disposal of site derived waste including scrapped aircraft, aircraft components and luminised instrument dials.
8.34 There is some indication from historical aerial images of disturbance to the south and west of the flight shed in the far southern areas of the site, which may potentially be indicative for the presence of buried waste. The area to the west is currently off-site and is associated with the Aero Golf course.
8.35 Given this evidence the presence of buried waste cannot be discounted from the site. Anecdotal evidence suggests that potentially ammunition storage, anti-aircraft emplacements and waste disposal has previously occurred on site.
2726511v2 P39
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Land Quality
8.36 A preliminary intrusive investigation was undertaken in April 2012. The investigation was designed to provide an outline assessment of ground conditions at the site.
8.37 The investigation comprised of 10 boreholes to a maximum depth of 32.0m below ground level (bgl) and 77 trial pits to a maximum depth of 3.9m bgl. Ninety suitable soil samples were sent to laboratories for an appropriate range of chemical testing. Six gas and groundwater monitoring visits were also undertaken during a three month period in line with CIRIA Report C665. In addition, groundwater and surface water samples were also analysed for an appropriate range of determinands during the investigation.
8.38 Soil analysis results were assessed against conservative human health thresholds for both a residential with plant uptake and residential open space end use. The basis for assessment was made depending on the location of individual exploratory holes in relation to the proposed future land use. Of the ninety samples analysed sixteen were recorded to have elevated concentrations of determinands, representative of fourteen of the eighty seven exploratory holes constructed.
8.39 Elevated determinands identified in soil samples variably included lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and a single volatile organic compound (VOC) (trichloroethene). Elevated results were recorded within both the Made Ground and natural soils, and were located throughout the site.
8.40 Twenty leachability tests were also conducted as part of the testing suite. Elevated leachate concentrations were variably detected above surface water and drinking water thresholds for copper, lead, nickel, vanadium and zinc in nine of the samples of both the Made Ground and natural samples located across the site.
8.41 Detailed geotechnical assessment of the site was not completed as part of the initial outline investigation, owing to the scope of works.
8.42 There are a number of mature trees, present on site which could potentially impact upon the foundation design of buildings constructed in their sphere of influence.
Conclusions & Constraints
8.43 The initial Preliminary Risk Assessment and partial exploratory site investigation identified the presence of elevated concentrations of certain contaminants on the site. However, only where the three elements [source- pathway-receptor] are linked together can a potential risk to the environment or health exist and potential pollutant linkage be created, whereby a receptor is exposed to a contamination source via a pathway.
P40 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
8.44 Data collected during the partial exploratory ground investigation was input into a Conceptual Site Model with the aim of assessing firstly, the plausibility of a pollutant linkage and secondly, its significance. This process is essential in assessing the risks with reference to potential land contamination.
8.45 Six Plausible Pollutant Linkages [PPL‟s] were identified on the Site during the partial exploratory intrusive investigation, as set out in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Plausible Pollutant Linkages
PPL Source Pathway Receptor Ref
1 Elevated concentrations of Direct contact Humans, current or future asbestos, lead, TPH, PAH, 2 Ingestion site workers and future SVOC, VOC in Made residents or neighbours. 3 Ground and natural soils. Inhalation of dusts Movement of elevated gas Humans, current or future 4 Potential gas source concentrations through site workers and future unsaturated soil residents or neighbours.
Elevated leachate Groundwater within Glacial concentrations of copper, Movement of mobile Deposits 5 lead, nickel, vanadium and contaminants through Groundwater within zinc within the Made unsaturated soil Sherwood Sandstone. Ground and natural soils. Surface water. Elevated concentrations of Building materials and asbestos, lead, TPH, PAH, services if susceptible to 6 Direct Contact SVOC, VOC in Made petroleum hydrocarbons Ground and natural soils. and VOCs
8.46 In line with processes set out in CIRIA Report C552 for assessing the level of risk associated with PPL‟s, the level of risk associated with any future development on site potentially varies between very low and moderate. At this time, the site has only been partially investigated and the level of risk may need to be revised as a result of additional site investigations.
8.47 Further ground contamination may be encountered across the site that are associated with both current and historic site activities and features. In addition to the above suggested PPL‟s another 5 PPL‟s require investigation, including the potential for hydrocarbon liquids to be present in underground tanks and near surface contamination associated with historical processes should also be considered in future investigative work.
8.48 Any required remedial works on the site will result in a positive impact on Land Quality at the site and will effectively remove any significant pollutant pathways. At present, based on the sampling data available, there is no evidence that the site in its current status has caused impact either on groundwater or surface water. Any improvement in the Land Quality status of the site will reduce the potential for any existing contamination sources to have a negative contamination impact on Water Quality in the future.
2726511v2 P41
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
9.0 Ecology & Nature Conservation
Introduction
9.1 This section describes the approach followed in the preliminary ecological appraisal for the site. It considers the ecological context of the study area and identifies potential significant ecological constraints. A particularly important element is the early consideration of potential opportunities for biodiversity enhancement that may arise as a result of the redevelopment of the site. Recommendations are made in relation to further detailed survey requirements.
Sources & Methodology
9.2 The appraisal is based upon a combination of desk-based data search, consultation and a preliminary walkover survey.
9.3 Desk-based data sources include the following: 1 Local Plan information on designated site boundaries 2 Cheshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan 3 Cheshire Biodiversity Audit 4 Cheshire Region Biodiversity Partnership website 5 Greater Manchester Biodiversity Project website 6 Greater Manchester Local Biodiversity Action Plan 7 MAGIC web-site 8 NBN (National Biodiversity Network) Gateway website 9 Natural England (Nature on the Map) 10 RECOord website databases (Biodiversity records for Cheshire, Halton, Warrington and Wirral) 11 Various national, regional and county atlases
9.4 In terms of the initial field survey, this broadly followed the standard extended Phase 1 Survey Methodology. This methodology involves surveying the habitats that are present as well as the recording of field signs/evidence indicating the presence/potential presence of species that could constitute a material consideration in planning terms.
P42 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Baseline Information
Designated Sites
Statutory Designated Sites
9.5 There are no statutory nature conservation sites on or in close proximity to the site. In the wider area, the closest designated statutory sites is Lindow Common Site of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI] and Alderley Edge SSSI. Both of these sites are, however, in excess of 5km from the site and are of no relevance to the redevelopment of the site.
Non-Statutory Designated Sites
9.6 In Greater Manchester, non-statutory sites are known as Sites of Biological Importance (SBI). These are classified as Grades A, B or C. Grade A refers to sites which are considered to be of Regional or County importance; Grade B to sites which are of District importance; and Grade C to sites which are of importance within the identified geographical locality.
9.7 Specific to that part of the site within the Greater Manchester area, there are no SBI‟s on or in close proximity to the site. In the wider local area, the closest such site is Carr Wood Park some 2.5km to the north of the site. This is a Grade A, ancient clough woodland site which is also a local nature reserve.
9.8 Within the Cheshire East Council section of site, there are also no SBI‟s on the site. Immediately to the south of the site, Isles Wood is a SBI. The boundary of this site would suggest that this may have covered a more extensive area in the past which extended into the site itself. Wigwam Wood which is approximately 0.5km to the north of the site is a designated SBI; whilst Poynton Brook which borders the site at its eastern side is a further SBI. Further consultation will be required in order to establish the status of these sites and the basis for their designation.
9.9 In terms of other non-statutory designations, there are no parts of the site or surrounding woodlands which are identified on the ancient woodland inventory as being examples of ancient semi-natural or ancient replanted woodland.
Plants and Habitats
9.10 The habitats across the majority of the site are overwhelmingly dominated by grasslands. The majority of these grasslands have been regularly mown and are species-poor examples of low conservation value. Locally, particularly adjacent to the runways, the grasslands appear to have been less intensively managed and adopt a more semi-improved character. Such grasslands are likely to attain a higher species diversity and possibly some local conservation value.
9.11 Trees and woodlands are poorly represented. True woodlands are absent and trees are typically present as small tree groups or individual specimens. These
2726511v2 P43
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
include trees which have been planted in the vicinity of the main buildings as part of general landscaping as well as self-established native species in neglected parts of the site. In the farmland landscape in the south-east of the site, occasional mature oaks are present. These occur within hedgerows and as isolated specimens which delineate where historic hedgerows have been removed.
9.12 Scrub habitats are present rarely within the site, particularly in those parts which are towards the periphery. They are typically of low conservation value and include examples dominated by Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and others with more robust shrubs such as Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna).
9.13 In terms of aquatic habitats, these are limited to two ponds in the eastern parts of the site and to several short sections of ditch. Stream habitats are present on the site boundary with Poynton Brook running along part of the eastern boundary and Red Brook along a short section of the southern. The initial assessment of these habitats would suggest that they support a typical range of marginal and aquatic species with none appearing to represent high value examples of the habitat types.
9.14 In relation to invasive species, whilst these appear to be absent from virtually the entire site, one medium-sized colony of Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) was noted during the initial survey. It should, however, be readily possible to eradicate this population well in advance of any site redevelopment.
European Protected Species
9.15 There is the possibility that several European protected species could be present on or in close proximity to the site. These are particularly with regard to several species of bat and Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus).
Bats
9.16 Whilst no detailed bat surveys have been completed for the site, the initial appraisal would suggest that the site is likely to represent a habitat of limited potential. In general terms, the nature of the buildings across the site is such that potential roosting habitat is limited or unavailable. The majority of the buildings are designed without roof space or other internal voids which could provide potential roosting habitat. Notwithstanding this, it will be important to fully assess the buildings on the site for bats, including detailed internal inspections, where appropriate.
9.17 In relation to trees, these are generally not of sufficient maturity to provide a viable potential roosting habitat. Likewise many are adversely affected by other limiting factors, particularly a high degree of isolation and poor habitat connectivity. In relation to foraging, the open and exposed nature of the site with a general lack of obvious flight corridors suggests that the habitat will be of limited importance.
P44 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Great Crested Newt
9.18 There is a dense network of ponds in close proximity to the site as well as two ponds within the site itself. The ponds associated with land to the north in close proximity to Upper Swineseye Farm were surveyed as part of studies for the South East Manchester Multi Modal Strategy (SEMMMS), yielding negative results. There are records for the species further to north in the vicinity of Walnut Tree Farm albeit any such populations would be isolated from the site by distance, existing development and major barriers such as the A5149. There are no previous records for the species for the ponds within the site or for the network of ponds to the west of the site.
9.19 As part of the initial appraisal, ponds where access was available, were subject to a Habitat Suitability Index Assessment. This included ponds within and to the west of the site. This assessment indicated that the majority of these ponds were a neglected habitat, often in woodland and subject to high levels of shade along with other negative influences such as significant silt accumulation, habitat succession and low macrophyte abundance. In their current state, such ponds are an unsuitable breeding habitat for Great Crested Newt. Notwithstanding this, one more open pond to the west of the site as well as one pond within the site appeared to provide suitable breeding habitat. These ponds were subject to more detailed initial egg search and/or torch survey, these surveys confirming the presence of Great Crested Newt in both ponds.
9.20 Whilst it will be necessary to fully appraise all of the ponds which are potentially relevant to the future development of the site and to completed further more detailed surveys where appropriate, the initial assessment is considered to be robust with Great Crested Newt confirmed as being present but with populations being based upon those small number of ponds providing potentially suitable breeding habitat. This pattern is typical in many parts of the Cheshire and North-west England.
9.21 Despite a dense network of ponds, with changing agricultural practices, field ponds have become a non-essential element of the working farm. As such, the availability of breeding ponds has been significantly reduced through pond infilling and neglect, with many ponds now effectively abandoned and going through a process of habitat succession which deteriorates the habitat for breeding Great Crested Newt and amphibians generally. Also potentially to the detriment of a number of ponds locally is that there is often an associated linking ditch system. In this situation, the risk of major predators, particularly Stickleback Gasterosteus sp. is high.
9.22 Whilst the confirmed presence of Great Crested Newt will necessitate the development of appropriate advanced mitigation measures agreed as part of a formal licence application to Natural England, such mitigation measures are likely to be readily achievable, particularly as occupied ponds are distant from the likely main development zones. More importantly, the presence of this local population provides the opportunity to implement positive habitat creation
2726511v2 P45
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
and enhancement measures which could provide long-term security and enhancement for this species locally.
Other European Species
9.23 Other European species, for example, Otter (Lutra lutra) could utilise habitats such as Poynton Brook or Red Brook. This does, however, remain a rare species in Cheshire. Likewise, streams of this scale are very unlikely to be able to provide sufficient food sources to be able to support Otter on a permanent basis and any such usage would therefore be limited to a very occasional basis only and associated with individuals utilising these watercourse to access parts of a wider territory.
Other Legally Protected Species
Badger
9.24 Whilst there are no records of any Badger (Meles meles) setts on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, evidence of foraging animals was noted during the walkover survey. This included a well-used path crossing the site in approximately its mid-point from Shirdfold Farm northwards as well as latrine sites along this path. This potentially suggests a territorial boundary. In terms of any setts, these are most likely to be associated with undisturbed woodland sites in the wider local area.
Birds
9.25 In relation to birds, it is considered very unlikely that any specially protected species listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) would breed within the site. Some suitable breeding habitat for Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) is present along Poynton Brook which bounds the site in the east. This is, however, a rare species locally. It is also possible that the open grasslands within the main airfield could provide a hunting habitat for Barn Owl (Tyto alba), although again this also remains a rare species locally.
Water Vole
9.26 The rarely occurring pond and ditch habitats provide a potentially suitable habitat for Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris). Although with widespread records in Cheshire and Greater Manchester and this is typically a very rare species which is absent from significant areas. Specific to the local area, there are no modern records for the species in close proximity to the site. The chances of it being present are therefore considered to be extremely remote.
Invertebrates
9.27 With regard to invertebrates, Lesser Silver Water Beetle (Hydrochara caraboides) is a fully protected species which is particularly important in the Cheshire region, being restricted in the UK to Cheshire/North-east Wales and the Somerset levels. In Cheshire, this is a species which favours well-
P46 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
vegetated high quality ponds, particularly those which have survived in traditional farming landscapes. The initial assessment of habitats within the site would suggest that these are very unlikely to support this species and there are no records from the wider local area.
Reptiles
9.28 There is not considered to be any optimum habitat for reptiles within the site. This is a group of species which are generally rare or absent from large parts of Cheshire and Greater Manchester. There are very occasional records of species such as Grass Snake (Natrix natrix) and Slow-worm (Anguis fragilis). However, the habitats within the site are a typically hostile for these species.
Other National and Local Priority Species
Birds
9.29 The initial walkover survey of the site would suggest that the extensive open grasslands could provide a locally important habitat for characteristic farmland ground nesting species, particularly Skylark (Alauda arvensis). Other ground nesting species, for example, Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) could also breed. Both Skylark and Lapwing are priority species in the UK BAP. They likewise fall within a suite of farmland birds which are priorities of both the Greater Manchester and Cheshire BAP‟s.
Mammals
9.30 With regard to mammals, the site is known to support a strong population of Brown Hare (Lepus lepus), several of which were recorded during the walkover survey. This is a priority species of the UK, Greater Manchester and Cheshire BAP‟s.
Conclusions & Constraints
9.31 Detailed ecological surveys will be required to confirm the ecological baseline and to support any future planning applications. However, on the basis of current information, there are not considered to be any significant ecological constraints. Indeed, given the scale of the site and likelihood that there will be substantial areas which are not subject to development, the opportunities for biodiversity conservation and enhancement are significant.
9.32 In terms of utilising existing and potential biodiversity to assist in the development of the Masterplan and site development proposals it is considered that a number of key principles should be followed. These are to: 1 Provide a maintained and, where possible, enhanced habitat for existing species of conservation value. 2 Reduce the isolated and open nature of the site by establishing habitat corridors and linkages.
2726511v2 P47
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
3 Ensure protection and, where possible, enhancement of locally important habitats which are adjacent to the site. 4 Utilise the historic landscape to guide habitat design principles.
9.33 In considering the above further, given that the majority of identified or potential ecological interest is associated with traditional farmland species, the reinstatement of the historical farmland landscape in non-developed areas should provide both for the retention and potential enhancement of local populations of these species. The reinstatement of traditional field boundary hedgerows would likewise remove the negative effects of isolation and serve a linking habitat corridor function.
9.34 In relation to existing locally important habitats adjacent to the site, these are associated with Poynton Brook and Isles Wood. The most appropriate approach to the protection and integration of Poynton Brook is likely to be through the establishment of a protected buffer along the stream corridor. A similar buffer zone would likewise be appropriate for Isles Wood. Alternatively, there could be the opportunity to increase the extent of this habitat through the establishment of a new section of native woodland which reflects its historic boundary.
9.35 Whilst the reinstatement of the historic farmland landscape provides an excellent basis for integrating biodiversity into the development proposals, this broad design principle will provide many opportunities for habitat and species- specific initiatives. Whilst it is inappropriate at this early stage to consider these in detail, the Masterplan should seek to target national and local biodiversity priority habitats and species.
P48 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
10.0 Cultural Heritage & Archaeology
Introduction
10.1 This section details cultural heritage and archaeological considerations. It presents a consideration of designated and undesignated heritage assets on the site and in its vicinity, considers the significance of these assets and identifies opportunities to accommodate heritage issues within the redevelopment of the site.
Sources & Methodology
10.2 Following initial consultations with the relevant local authority archaeological advisors and Conservation Officers, and in accordance with a Brief issued by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit (GMAU) for an archaeological study of the aerodrome, a Heritage Assessment has been prepared for the site and a study area around it. A draft of the Heritage Assessment has been the subject of consultation with the GMAU Archaeological Officer and SMBC‟s Conservation Officer and the assessment expanded to incorporate their observations. In addition, initial consultations have taken place with English Heritage.
10.3 The Heritage Assessment has been prepared in accordance with government policy and the standard and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessments issued by the Institute for Archaeologists.
10.4 The Assessment draws together the available archaeological, historic, topographic and land-use information in order to clarify the heritage significance and archaeological potential of the site. In particular, information on designated heritage assets has been gathered for the study site and a zone 2km around it, and for undesignated assets from 1km around the site, from the Greater Manchester and Cheshire Historic Environment Records [HERs]. Additional historical information has been gathered from the Greater Manchester and Cheshire County Record Offices, the Greater Manchester and Stockport Local Studies Libraries, Greater Manchester Archive Service, Manchester City Library, Stockport Heritage Centre and Avro Heritage Centre. The English Heritage „Heritage Gateway‟ and other on-line sources have been examined in order to establish or confirm the presence/absence and location of designated assets. Site visits were undertaken during February, April and May 2012.
Baseline Information
10.5 There are no designated assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Battlefields or Registered Parks and Gardens of special historic interest) on the site. However, a number of designated assets lie within 1km of
2726511v2 P49
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
the site. These, and a number of undesignated heritage assets on the site, are considered below and are shown on Table 10.1 and Table 10.3.
Designated Heritage Assets
10.6 The Heritage Assessment includes details of designated heritage assets within 2km of the site. However, site inspections indicate that as a result of their distance from the site, their existing settings and an absence of intervisibility between them and the site, impacts to their settings would not arise as a result of the proposed redevelopment. Therefore, although documented in the Heritage Assessment, those assets are not considered further here.
10.7 Table 10.1 indicates designated assets within 1km of the site identified in the Heritage Assessment. These comprise a Grade II* Listed Registered Park and Garden of special historic interest at Adlington Hall and twenty-two Listed Buildings (comprising two Grade II*, eighteen Grade II and two Local). Those in close proximity to the Aerodrome are numbered in the Table below and shown on Figure 10.1.
Table 10.1 Designated Heritage Assets
Ref. on Figure Description of Heritage Asset Significance Adlington Hall Adlington Hall Registered Park and Garden Grade II* Gates piers and gates to north approach of Grade II Adlington Hall Lead statute and carved unicorn‟s head on section Grade II of wall behind fishpond to east of Adlington Hall Sundial at centre of south front lawn at Adlington Grade II Hall Adlington Hall Grade II* Ha ha wall 15 m west of west front of Adlington Grade II Hall and running parallel to Wilderness Garden Bullshead Farmhouse Grade II 2 Barn to south-east of New Hall Farmhouse Grade II 1 New Hall Cottage Grade II* 3 Garden wall to the north and east of New Hall Grade II Farmhouse and New Hall Cottage 26 Old Hall Farmhouse Grade II 25 Barn to north-east of Old Hall Farmhouse Grade II Pear Tree Cottage Grade II Lane Side Farmhouse Grade II 24 Lockstock Hall Farmhouse Grade II Poynton Railway Station Local Church of St George, Poynton Grade II Guide post 18 m north of Church High Lane Grade II Milestone 25 m south of Redcroft Grade II
P50 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Ref. on Figure Description of Heritage Asset Significance 24, 32, 30 & 26 London Road South Local Greenacres / Windle Hey Grade II Milestone 125 m north of Street Lane Farmhouse Grade II Street Lane Farmhouse Grade II
10.8 Examination and consideration of the settings of the Listed Buildings tabulated above indicates that in the majority of instances their existing settings will not be affected by the proposed development. However, in a small number of cases, masterplanning will have to give consideration to the protection of the settings of these assets. In particular, the setting of the assets listed in Table 10.2 require accommodation within any future development proposals
Table 10.2 Sensitive Setting of Designated Heritage Assets
Ref. on Figure Description of Heritage Asset Significance 2 Barn to south-east of New Hall Farmhouse Grade II 1 New Hall Cottage Grade II* 3 Garden wall to the north and east of New Hall Grade II Farmhouse and New Hall Cottage 26 Old Hall Farmhouse Grade II 25 Barn to north-east of Old Hall Farmhouse Grade II 24 Lockstock Hall Farmhouse Grade II
Undesignated Heritage Assets
10.9 Table 10.3 indicates undesignated assets on and bordering the site.
Table 10.3 Undesignated Heritage Assets
Ref. on Figure Description of Heritage Asset Significance 20 Engineering Buildings (1940s) Local 21 Engineering Buildings (1940s) Local 13 Hanger 4 (1938) Local 12 Hanger 3 (1936) Local 11 Hanger 2 (1934) Local 9 Hanger 1 (c. 1924/25 and much modified) Local 27 Lancaster Aero Club House Local 28 Avro Shed (former Lancashire Aero Club Shed) Local 37 Woodford Glider Club Local 6 Site of former woodland copse and former - enclosure landscape 23 Runway (1939/40 and extended 1951) Local 16 Bay Service Buildings (1940s, modified 1960s and Local 90s) 15 Test Facilities Buildings (1940s and subsequently Local
2726511v2 P51
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
modified) 10 Waste Tip (now part of Golf Course) - 17 Avro House (1990s) Local 18 Restaurant Local 29 New Assembly (1939, extended 1943 and Local subsequently) 19 Reception Building (1940s) Local 30 Site of Yew Tree Farm (demolished 1939) Local 7 Site of Swineseye Farm Local 8 Site of Lower Swineseye Farm Local 4 Site of Shirdfold Farm (demolished 2006) and Local nearby Brick Kiln meadows 5 Possible alignment of Roman Road Local 14 Cold War Nissen-type Hut Local 22 Cold War US MU Stores Local 39 Vulcan Bomber Local/National 38 Control Tower Local 35 Pillbox Local 31 Flora Cottage Local 32 Whiterose Cottage (site of) - 33 Moor Cottage Local Not shown on General potential (undefined) for sub-surface plan archaeological evidence
10.10 The built heritage significance of the assets that comprise site are best considered within five main areas (i.e. the main Woodford Aircraft Factory (New Assembly), the Runway and Control Tower, Lancaster Aero Clubhouse and the Avro Hangars, Hangars 1-5, and the remains of the M U Stores).
10.11 The Runway and Control Tower and the remains of the M U Stores are considered to be of local interest, while former Lancashire Aero Clubhouse and Avro Hangars, Woodford Aircraft Factory, and Hangars 1-5 are individually considered to be of local importance. Collectively, based primarily on their contribution to the aerodrome, they are considered to be of regional significance. As industrial archaeology structures they provide a valuable context for the assembly of aircraft within the site which reflects wider national trends, and the history they embody tells an interesting narrative of phased development and adaption of functional buildings to new purposes through time.
10.12 None of the buildings within the site would individually qualify for listed building status, nor are any remarkable for their intrinsic architectural and/or historic merits or their significance in a national context. The completeness (or lack of completeness) of original detailing within buildings on the aerodrome as a result of the continued use of Woodford throughout the 20th century has resulted from the re-use, rebuilding and renovation of many of the earlier
P52 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
buildings on site; many of which although surviving in their original planform have been re-clad and significantly altered to house new technologies and aircraft types.
10.13 It is noted that much of the importance of the site is not embodied in the surviving structures on the site. Rather, much of the interest surrounding Woodford is focused on the aircraft themselves as well as the intangible heritage relating to the achievements of aircraft technology and the related archival material. It is therefore suggested that the uniqueness of the site has been changed, with alteration and removal of the some of the physical remnants of the industry, and that the site as a whole is of regional significance for the information and structures it contains relating to the evolution of aircraft assembly. In this context, the Avro Heritage Centre plays a particularly important role in maintaining the significance of the aerodrome as a heritage asset.
10.14 It is noted that there are no prehistoric or Roman assets on the site and relatively few sites and finds in the vicinity. In part this may be due to a low density of landscape exploitation and settlement in those periods in this particular area, or it may be due to an absence of systematic modern survey, particularly on an operational aerodrome. In this context, the discovery of archaeological evidence at Manchester Airport during its recent expansion is noted. Accordingly, in those areas where development is proposed and which are not currently occupied by buildings, hard standings or runway, a geophysical survey is proposed as the first element of a phased, targeted evaluation strategy which will involve targeted trail trenching.
Conclusions & Constraints
10.15 The Heritage Assessment prepared to inform the preparation of this Report of Survey noted that the site does not contain any designated heritage assets. Although there are a number of designated assets located within a 1km radius of the site boundary, the vast majority of these assets are situated either a good distance from the study site, or are in areas of urban development; therefore no impact on these assets or their settings is identified. However, there is one Grade II* and five Grade II Listed Buildings which are in close proximity to the site boundary; where consideration during the masterplanning process will be required to protect the setting of these buildings.
10.16 The archaeological and built heritage significance of the assets that comprise site have been identified and assessed within 5 main component elements of the historic aerodrome (the main Woodford Aircraft Factory [New Assembly], the Runway and Control Tower, Lancashire Aero Clubhouse and Avro Hangars, Hangars 1-5, and the remains of the M U Stores). The Runway and Control Tower, and M U Stores are considered to be of local interest, while Aero Clubhouse and the Avro Shed, the Aircraft Factory and Hangars 1-5 are individually considered to be of local significance, although collectively the structures forming the aerodrome, together with the documentary and archival
2726511v2 P53
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
evidence maintained by the Avro Heritage Centre and the Vulcan Bomber form a heritage resource of regional importance.
10.17 Accordingly, in order to protect the significance of heritage assets on the site, this Report of Survey concludes that the SPD should secure the following safeguards: 1 A masterplan which protects the settings of nearby Listed Buildings; 2 Further assessment of the historic interest and structural condition of the aerodrome buildings allied to a programme of historic building recording; 3 A programme of archaeological work customised to the proposed development and including geophysical survey and targeted trail trenching; 4 The continued maintenance of the Avro archive within a Heritage Centre on the site 5 The retention of the Vulcan bomber in association with the Heritage Centre; and, 6 A development that reflects the history of the aviation use of the site, including a community heritage project.
P54 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
11.0 Landscape & Visual Amenity
Introduction
11.1 This section details the landscape and visual amenity considerations. It presents a comprehensive baseline of visual analysis that will be used to guide the form of new development and also to assess the impact that the new development will have upon agreed viewpoints around the site.
Sources & Methodology
11.2 The methodology and viewpoint selection was undertaken with representatives and officers from both Stockport and Cheshire East Councils. The preparation of the baseline and subsequent interpretation of the current situation has been carried out in accordance the Landscape Institute - „Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment‟.
11.3 Visual Envelope Mapping has been used as the foundation of the LVIA evidential baseline for the SPD and the emerging masterplan. It will also form the basis of the detailed development proposals which will be subject to EIA in due course. Given the sensitivity of the location, a simple contour mapping and site-based assessment would not have been sufficient to produce a robust evidence base, and therefore detailed computer modeling has been undertaken.
11.4 The following methodology has been applied in compiling existing and proposed ZVI/ Visual Envelope maps: - 1 A 12km x 13km, non site-centered Digital Terrain model has been created, with existing blocks of woodland cover added to a consistent height. This model encapsulates all the viewpoints that have been agreed with Stockport and Cheshire East Landscape Officers; 2 To this, all settlements and major building groups within and around the application site have been modelled in three dimensions and placed within the terrain (primarily the settlements of Woodford; Poynton; Bramhall) so that the screening effect of buildings in the local area can also be considered.
11.5 The outputs of this analysis will be vital in driving the masterplanning process. They will provide clear, empirical evidence on the effects upon landscape character and visual amenity imposed by the current site uses. As a consequence, they will provide clear direction how any proposed development should seek to respond in order to bring forward a positive benefit to both the local and wider landscape and its users
11.6 Using this digital model two sets of Visual Envelopes have been generated: - 1 Firstly, looking at where the largest buildings on the site are visible from NOW – a worse case scenario, but important as the height of the tallest buildings will be a consideration under the Framework. This has
2726511v2 P55
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
highlighted a number of potentially sensitive locations in the surrounding area, that were checked by physically walking the site and surrounding area with Council Officers, and a subsequent photographic record taken. In total, 22 views were chosen that were considered to be of particular significance in terms of providing a range of views from potentially sensitive locations (see Figure 11.1 and Table 11.1), and where the site has the potential to affect the quality of the visual amenity of users of the countryside and the character of that landscape. 2 Secondly, mapping showing views back into the site from the most sensitive key viewpoints. These visual envelopes have then been overlaid onto to provide a graphic interpretation of where visual sensitivity is present within the site. An example of this mapping study is included as Figure 11.2, with the pink areas indicating where the site was „open‟ and visible from the viewpoints. The darker the pink colour, the more viewpoints have views of that area.
Figure 11.1 Wider Viewpoint Locations
P56 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Table 11.1 Sensitivity of Viewpoints
Figure 11.2 Visual Envelope Study Mapping
2726511v2 P57
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
11.7 What this diagram clearly demonstrates is that the open and featureless nature of the current BAE site (in landscape terms), does not contribute positively both to the openness or the landscape quality of the area. One possible approach to adopt in bringing forward a masterplan for the site would be to look to the historic field pattern and reinstate this in some way (either in a literal sense with new planting, or by using the field grain and scale to influence development blocks and infrastructure layout), so as to begin the „repair‟ of the landscape and the re-establishment of openness through a more appropriate relationship between any new development and its landscape setting.
11.8 Rather than look to the re-establishment of field patterns and their associated hedgerows, tree lines and copses, as tools to mitigate development of the site, the adoption of a masterplanning philosophy that seeks to „repair the landscape‟ will result in a much more contextual response to development, and thus one that sits comfortably with its surroundings, without needing to „mitigate‟ in the literal sense.
Baseline Information
Landscape Character
11.9 In 2008, Cheshire East Council produced a document entitled, “Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment”, which identifies a total of 20 landscape character types across the county. The Woodford site lies within Landscape Type 16: Higher Farms and Woods, which extends from Poynton in the north, to Little Moreton in the south. Key characteristics include: 1 Gentle rolling and moderate undulating topography; 2 A mix of medieval and post-medieval reorganised fields (irregular, 3 semi-regular and regular up to 8ha); 4 Hedgerow boundaries and hedgerow trees; 5 High density of woodland – blocks, coverts and riparian; 6 Predominantly low density dispersed settlement; 7 Ponds; 8 Small mossland areas.
11.10 The Stockport UDP contains a number of defined local character areas. The landscape character area definitions have not been superceded following formal adoption of the SCS in March 2011.
11.11 The site lies at the heart of the Woodford Landscape Character Area, and is characterised by: 1 Flat, regular landform, gently sloping down to the River Dean, which runs along the character area‟s south-western boundary; 2 Pastoral land use; 3 Medium sized, even and rectangular field patterns;
P58 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
4 A significant number of field ponds.
These landscape character areas are illustrated on Figure 11.3.
Figure 11.3 Landscape Character Areas
11.12 The character assessment identifies opportunities in the area for the repair and restoration of degraded hedgerows and planting of new areas of woodland, particularly along the urban boundary and along existing and proposed major road lines.
11.13 Key local character areas are as follows: - 1 Woodford Aerodrome The site forms an incongruous element within the wider landscape context. Field boundaries and landscape features common in the surrounding context, along with subtle variations in landform have been removed for the construction of the aerodrome. 2 MEDS (Major Existing Development Sites in the Green Belt) MEDS areas have been defined to the north and south of the site. The built development within these areas is substantial in terms of scale and massing, particularly within the northern MEDS, in order to accommodate existing use. 3 Low-lying River Valley This area is characterised by low, flat ground levels and proximity to the River Dean and, further south, the River Bollin, which wind through the landscape. The course of both rivers are marked by trees and small tree groups. The land largely consists of agricultural land broken down into a small and medium sized irregular field pattern. Field boundaries are
2726511v2 P59
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
typically hedgerows, degraded in some places, with frequent hedgerow trees. 4 Medium-sized Irregular Field Pattern Intermittent patches of medium-sized fields, generally over 5 hectares in size, lie to the east of the site, but are more consistently located to the west of the site. Hedgerow field boundaries are typical, though frequently degraded, and hedgerow trees are common. Small copses and pockets of woodland also form part of the landscape character. 5 Small-scale Irregular Field Pattern Small-scale irregular fields, generally under 5 hectares in size, are located predominantly around the urban edge. The intricate field patterns reflect the historic field pattern of the area. Field boundaries are typically hedgerows, degraded in some places, with frequent hedgerow trees. Field ponds form frequent and important features within the agricultural landscape. 6 Upland Farmland Upland farmland consists of predominantly agricultural land at 100 metres above sea level or above. It is formed from a mix of small and medium-scale irregularly shaped fields, and forms the start of the rise in ground levels towards the Peak District to the east. The area is characterised by frequent streams and brooks, often tree lined. Field boundaries are typically hedgerows, degraded in some places, with frequent hedgerow trees. 7 Wooded River Valley This area lies to the south of the Woodford site, and is characterised by small woodland blocks, loosely associated with the River Dean, and largely within the historic 2000 acre Adlington Hall estate.
Landscape Assessment
11.14 Figure 11.4 illustrates the historic field pattern and landscape features from 1882 overlaid on the modern day aerial image of the site.
11.15 The overlay indicates that the landscape character of the site was formerly in keeping with the surrounding context in terms of landscape character. Field sizes were historically small and irregular on the site, with frequent hedgerow field boundaries, field ponds and pockets of woodland. This character type would have been consistent with the local character areas as identified in the Stockport UDP and Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment documents as „Low Lying River Valley, Small/ Medium Irregular shaped Field Patterns‟ (see
11.16 Figure 11.5).
P60 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figure 11.4 Historic Landscape Features
Figure 11.5 Landscape Character – Field Boundary Elements
2726511v2 P61
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Conclusions & Constraints
11.17 Analysis of the site has identified that the development of the site as an aerodrome has resulted in substantial harm to local and surrounding landscape character within the Green Belt, with the almost complete loss of landscape features typical within the wider landscape.
11.18 The nature of the recently ceased function of the site as an airfield requires it to be open and highly visible. However, ZVI analysis has illustrated that the site is highly visible from some of the most sensitive surrounding viewpoint locations, in particular to the east from the elevated viewpoints around Lyme Park and the foothills of the Pennines.
11.19 The high visibility of the site in its current state is therefore harmful to the identified sensitive viewpoints. Reference to historical mapping shows that re- instatement of the former field boundary structure across the site, would help to mitigate the impact of the existing aerodrome development, and provide a starting point for the appropriate accommodation of new development within the site. A masterplanning approach which adopts the landscape as a key driver, will undoubtedly result in the creation of a more appropriate, contextual response than one which seeks to „impose‟ a character or style from elsewhere.
P62 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
12.0 Transportation
Introduction
12.1 This section provides an overview of transport issues in relation to development of the site. Further technical work will need to be undertaken to prepare detailed transport assessment reports and travel plan(s) to support any future planning applications at the site.
Sources & Methodology
12.2 A range of data and information sources have been used in the preparation of this report and are summarised in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1 Data Sources
Data Sources . Site visits to review site location and access opportunities and the local On-site highway, pedestrian, cycle and public transport network and local observation facilities
BAE historical . Use of plans / drawings to determine points of access and parking records and provision anecdotal . Anecdotal evidence to describe staffing levels, shift patterns, broad daily information traffic movements and parking usage . Use of mapping and aerial photography to inform audit of site access and parking Desktop information . Use of mapping and aerial photography to inform desktop audit of local highway, pedestrian, cycle and public transport network and local facilities . BAE Systems Woodford Aircraft Services Group „Infrastructure Development – Transport Assessment‟ (June 2001, JMP Consultants) Related historical transport studies . BAE Systems Woodford Aircraft Services Group „Infrastructure Development – Travel Survey Results Report‟ (August 2001, JMP Consultants) . May 2001 Traffic Counts (JMP, Cheshire County Council) Available . March 2012 Traffic Surveys (undertaken by TrafficSense) Transport Survey . May 2001 Staff Travel Surveys (JMP) Data . See Travel Survey Results Report‟ (August 2001, JMP Consultants) . 2008-2011 Accident Data (SMBC, GMTU)
12.3 A transport working group has been set up including officers from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [SMBC] and Cheshire East Council [CEC] to agree the scope of transport assessment work that is required to support the development of an SPD for the site, and to identify transport and accessibility principles that will need to underpin future redevelopment at the site.
12.4 Specific technical work that has been undertaken to-date includes: 1 Site Accessibility – a review of accessibility to the site by all modes of transport, based on desktop reviews, accessibility mapping (using Accession software) and site audits. This has included a
2726511v2 P63
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
detailed audit of access to employment, education, shopping and leisure facilities (see Section 13 for more detail). 2 Traffic Baseline – agreement has been reached on an appropriate traffic baseline for Woodford, based on previous traffic generation from the BAE Systems plant when it was fully operational in 2001 (see below for further details). 3 Strategic Traffic Modelling – use has been made of the South East Manchester Multi-Modal Study (SEMMMS) strategic SATURN highways model to test high level development and infrastructure scenarios at Woodford. 4 Trip Generation – a methodology for assessing trip generation from the site, to compare against the 2001 traffic baseline has been developed for agreement by SMBC and CEC. This draws on surveys of similar residential areas, taken from the TRICs database, and then refined taking into national travel survey and local travel to work data; 2001 census data; and likely local travel patterns. 5 Baseline Traffic Flows – traffic surveys were undertaken during the AM and PM peak periods on Wednesday 14th March 2012 by TrafficSense. Manual Classified Counts were undertaken at 10 local junctions from 0700-1000 in the morning peak, and 1600- 1900 in the evening peak. Queue length surveys were also undertaken at 5 of these junctions. 6 Traffic trends have also been analysed for the local highway network, using data taken from DfT Traffic Counters which measure Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows at key points in the vicinity of the site. 7 Public Rights of Way – a review of existing and historic rights of way, and initial meetings with rights of way officers at CEC and SMBC to help identify potential opportunities for improving linkages within and from the site as part of future development proposals. 8 Accident Data Analysis – an analysis of Personal Injury Collisions (PICs) on the highway network in the vicinity of the site was undertaken in 2011and is provided below. 9 Public Transport Review – a detailed analysis of public transport provision to the site has been undertaken, including preliminary discussions with SMBC officers, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and Stagecoach about opportunities to improve public transport links to Woodford.
Baseline Information
Site Access and Local Highway Network
12.5 As illustrated in Figure 12.1, the site fronts onto the A5102 Chester Road which is subject to a 30mph speed limit (this increases to 40mph
P64 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
approximately 260m south west of the Woodford site access junction). The A5102 Chester Road links to Stockport to the north-east and to the A34 via the A555 Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road or via the A538 Prestbury Road to the west. The A34 provides strategic connections to the north (for Manchester and M60 motorway) and south (for Congleton, the M6 motorway and Stoke-on-Trent).
Figure 12.1 Site Location & Strategic Transport Links
12.6 To the east in the direction of Poynton, the A5102 Chester Road feeds into the A5149 and, via the A523 London Road, provides for alternative connections to the north and south (for Macclesfield).
12.7 Access to the site is currently provided by two priority T junctions onto the A5102 Chester Road. The access junctions are spaced approximately 110m apart. The typical width of the A5102 Chester Road in the vicinity of the site access junctions is 7m, with short sections of localised carriageway widening to 8m. In addition to the main site access points there are 8 no. emergency access/egress points along the site perimeter.
Local Traffic Data and Trends
12.8 Across the wider highways network, traffic volumes have broadly declined since 2001. DfT traffic count data5 shows a downward trend at all of the seven closest survey sites to the site within the Borough of Stockport, the most significant of which are on Wilmslow Road and
5 http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/area.php?region=North+West&la=Stockport
2726511v2 P65
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Chester Road in Woodford, which show Annual Average Daily Traffic flows declining by 14 per cent and 15 per cent respectively since peaks in 2006 and 2007 (this is likely to be affected by a decline in activity and subsequent closure of the BAE Systems plant, as well a reflecting a wider trend of declining traffic levels across Stockport since 2006). Cumulatively, traffic at the seven sites has declined by seven per cent since the peak in 2001. This is illustrated in Figure 12.2 and Figure 12.3.
Figure 12.2 Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow data from DfT Traffic Counter Sites in the Vicinity of Woodford, 2000 – 2010 (all vehicles)
P66 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figure 12.3 Relative Annual Average Daily Traffic Flows (all vehicles)
Traffic Survey Data
12.9 Traffic surveys (Manual Classified Counts [MCC] and queue length surveys) were undertaken during the AM and PM peak periods on Wednesday 14th March 2012, at the junctions listed in Table 12.2.
Table 12.2 Summary of 2012 Traffic Survey Locations
Survey Location Type Old Hall Lane/Chester Road/Church Lane MCC Chester Road/Moor Lane MCC & Queue Length Site Access/Chester Road MCC Woodford Road/Bramhall Lane/A5143 MCC & Queue Length Chester Road/Garden Centre MCC Chester Road/Woodford Road Roundabout MCC & Queue Length Chester Road/Bridle Road MCC Chester Road/Woodford Road Priority Junction MCC & Queue Length Woodford Road/Jenny Lane MCC Woodford Road/A555 Roundabout MCC & Queue Length
12.10 Traffic flows have been surveyed for Chester Road outside the site access, and are shown in Table 12.3, together with speed survey data collected in 2009.
2726511v2 P67
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Table 12.3 A5102 Chester Road Average Traffic Flows and Speeds
Westbound Eastbound Two-way
Time Speed Speed Speed Flow Flow Flow (mph) (mph) (mph)
AM (07:00 – 08:00) 718 31.8 485 31.3 1,203 31.5
AM (08:00 – 09:00) 771 31.6 649 31.0 1,420 31.2
PM (16:00 – 17:00) 517 28.6 757 29.0 1,274 28.8
PM (17:00 – 18:00) 533 27.6 953 30.9 1,466 28.8
Notes: Speed = 7 day average speed Flow Data Sourced From Trafficsense Survey (14 March 2012) Speed Data Sourced From NDC Surveys (November 2009)
12.11 Traffic flow and queue length surveys have been undertaken at junctions on the local highway network in the vicinity of the site during the AM and PM peak hours. Whilst full analysis has yet to be carried out on the survey data collected, significant queues have been noted at the Chester Road/Woodford Road roundabout, associated with strategic traffic, travelling from the direction of Poynton, towards Bramhall causing queuing in the morning peak (with the reverse observed in the evening peak and significant queuing to the north-west of the junction on Woodford Road). From strategic modelling undertaken previously, it is clear that delivery of the SEMMMS A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road would address most of the capacity constraints at this junction by removing strategic traffic from the local network before it reaches this roundabout.
12.12 Surveys showing peak time queue lengths were also carried out at the junction of Chester Road and Moor Lane; at the junction of Woodford Road and the A555; at the junction of Woodford Road and Bramhall Lane South, and at the junction of Chester Road and Woodford Road in Poynton. No queues of more than 75m (approximately 15 cars) were observed, with the exception of the junction of Chester Road and Woodford Road in Poynton, where there were long queues of traffic waiting to turn out of Woodford Road, and heading eastbound on Chester Road, in both morning and evening peak times. However, when the surveys were undertaken, traffic management measures were still in place at the Poynton crossroads (Chester Road/London Road/Park Lane) as part of the delivery of the Poynton Village Revitalisation Scheme, which was causing extremely high levels of queuing back along Chester Road; in the absence of these works, it is expected that queues at this junction will be much less significant.
12.13 Further traffic and junction capacity modelling will need to be undertaken to test the impact of the development proposals at the site on key local junctions. Additional traffic surveys may will also need to be undertaken.
P68 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Walking and Cycling
12.14 There is an established network of existing footways and public rights of way local to the Woodford site providing access to local facilities and amenities. Many rights of way end abruptly at the site perimeter, where historic rights of way were interrupted following the opening of the aerodrome in 1924.
12.15 Observations within the local area identified that: 1 The residential areas immediately surrounding the Woodford site benefit from an established network of pedestrian routes on the A5149 and A5102 with footways which are well lit and in a good condition. Other local footway routes exist but are typically poorly lit and there is an absence of formal crossing points; 2 The topography in the vicinity of the site is generally flat and conducive to walking and cycling should local infrastructure (local crossings, signage, etc.) be improved; and 3 The A5102 Chester Road has limited sections of on-road cycleway in the direction toward Poynton. Road narrowing on Chester Road at the existing rail bridge also makes for a less attractive route for cyclists.
Public Transport
12.16 Figure 12.4 provides a strategic overview of key public transport linkages in the vicinity of the Woodford site.
Figure 12.4 Key Public Transport Links
2726511v2 P69
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Bus Provision
12.17 Table 12.4 provides an overview of bus provision to the Woodford site. The main service to the village is the X57 which links Woodford to Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, the Wilmslow Road corridor and Manchester city centre every 30 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes, and every 60 minutes in the evenings and on Sundays.
12.18 This service passes Northern Rail stations at Cheadle Hulme and East Didsbury as well as Manchester city centre termini. One journey per hour on route X57 operates on Chester Road adjacent to the existing entrance to the site serving bus stops in both directions incorporating bus shelters with local timetable information, whilst the other journey operates via Moor Lane and Jenny Lane and do not pass the site directly.
Table 12.4 Existing Local Bus Services
Service Frequency Route Operator Mon – Sat Eve – Sun
X57 / 157 Woodford – Bramhall – Cheadle Hulme – Stagecoach / Cheadle – East Didsbury – Didsbury – 30 mins 60 mins Finglands Fallowfield – Rusholme – Manchester
390 Bramhall – Woodford – Poynton – Hazel 2-3 journeys No service Stagecoach Grove – Stepping Hill – Stockport off-peak
12.19 Service 390, operated by Stagecoach wholly under contract to Transport for Greater Manchester, provides the only direct link between Woodford and Poynton and Stockport. There are two journeys towards Stockport and three journeys towards Woodford during Monday to Saturday off- peak only, with an end-to-end journey time of 50 minutes. This service commences from Bramhall and also serves Poynton, Hazel Grove and Stepping Hill Hospital, and Poynton, Hazel Grove and Stockport rail stations.
12.20 A school service 877 operates between Woodford and Bramhall High School.
Rail Provision
12.21 Poynton and Bramhall rail stations are the closest stations to the site (approximately 2.2km and 2.3km walking distance from the site respectively). Both of these stations are served by Northern Rail services between Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke-on-Trent with a broadly hourly frequency service during Monday to Saturday daytimes and 3-4 trains each way on Sundays. Additional services are available during weekday peak hour periods to facilitate commuter travel (see next section for more detail). The typical journey times by rail to key local destinations are summarised within Table 12.5.
P70 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Table 12.5 Poynton Train Journey Times to Local Destinations
Destination Typical Journey Time from Poynton To/from Manchester Picadilly – calling at: Bramhall 3 minutes Cheadle Hulme 6 minutes Stockport 11 minutes Heaton Chapel 15 minutes Levenshulme 18 minutes Manchester Picadilly 26 minutes To/from Stoke-on-Trent – calling at: Adlington 3 minutes
Prestbury 6 minutes Macclesfield 10 minutes Congleton 17 minutes Kidsgrove 24 minutes Stoke-on-Trent 34 minutes
Accident Data Analysis
12.22 An overview of Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data provided by SMBC covering the immediate local vicinity to the Woodford site was undertaken in 2011. This analysis will be updated for any Transport Assessments associated with future planning applications at the site.
12.23 The study area includes the A5102 Woodford Road, A5102 Chester Road and A5149 Chester Road and covers the site access junctions and A5102/A5149 roundabout junction. PICs have been reviewed for the period between 20th January 2008 and 19th January 2011.
12.24 A total of eleven PIC‟s occurred, of which six involved vulnerable roads users; two of which resulted in serious injuries with the remaining four resulting in slight injuries: 1 Two collisions involved cyclists, two involved pedestrians, and two involved motorbikes; 2 Of the two collisions involving cyclists, both were caused by the cyclist riding on the footway and being struck by a car emerging from the driveway of a private property, one of which resulted in a serious injury, the other slight injury; 3 Of the two collisions involving pedestrians, one occurred when a driver of a vehicle did not see and struck a pedestrian crossing the exit arm of the roundabout junction resulting in serious injury. The other occurred when a child stepped into the road in front of vehicle and resulted in slight injury;
2726511v2 P71
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
4 Of the two collisions involving motorbikes, one involved a motorbike rider tuning right to access a driveway whilst a car tried to overtake causing a collision. The other incident involved a car turning right in front of a motorbike turning into a private access. Both accidents resulted in slight injuries.
12.25 The location of the remaining accidents was spread out across the study area, with various causation factors although a number of accidents were shown to be due to shunts either in queues or when vehicles are turning to/from private accesses.
Figure 12.5 Personal Injury Collisions Jan 2008- Jan 2011
Accident Data Analysis Summary
12.26 The analysis above suggests that there are no significant road safety issues local to the Woodford site. However, a number of accidents involved vulnerable road users and related to access to local properties and localised congestion; these issues would warrant further investigation and would require consideration as part of any potential alterations to the local transport network and site access resulting from any redevelopment proposals at the Woodford site. The proposed site access junctions, and any off-site works, will need to be subject to a safety audit.
Strategic Highways Schemes
A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road (SEMMMS)
12.27 In Spring 2001, the Department for Transport endorsed the South-East Manchester Multi-Modal Study (SEMMMS) strategy, which provided a
P72 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
twenty year framework for addressing transport problems across South Manchester, and included a detailed package of multi-modal transport measures and policy instruments to encourage more sustainable travel behaviour and improve traffic flow.
12.28 The final strategy included a relief road scheme, comprising 21.5km of new road from M60 Junction 25 to M56 Junction 5, of dual carriageway standard, and with two single carriageway link roads (the “Stepping Hill Link” and “Poynton By-pass”). The central 3.9km section of this road has already been constructed as part of the A555 and A34 bypass scheme.
12.29 In July 2007, following a DfT recommendation that the SEMMMS relief road could not be funded as a single scheme, due to the high overall costs, local authorities decided that the priority scheme should be the A6 to Manchester Airport section (without Poynton Bypass), due to the economic importance of improving access to Manchester Airport.
12.30 In 2011, the new SEMMMS relief road proposals were included in the Government‟s National Infrastructure Plan, with a national contribution of £165m secured toward the total £290m cost of delivering the scheme, with the balance being funded from the Greater Manchester Transport Fund.
12.31 The scheme will now be subject to a Major Scheme Business Case appraisal by DfT and a planning application later this year.
Figure 12.6 SEMMMS Scheme
12.32 The SEMMMs relief road will also include a range of complementary measures and schemes, including a segregated footpath and cycleway adjacent to the carriageway, together with access points and improved linkages along the route. This will provide a good quality dedicated cycle route to a number of destinations, notably the large employment area at
2726511v2 P73
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Manchester Airport (including the new Airport City development) and retail and employment opportunities at Handforth Dean.
12.33 It has been agreed that any testing of transport impacts and potential mitigation measures for the SPD will be based on the assumption of the SEMMMS relief road being delivered, and opening in 2017. In the event that the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road is not delivered, developers will need to reconsider the implications of their development proposals on the basis of the existing highway network.
Poynton Relief Road
12.34 The SEMMMS Phase 3: Poynton Bypass scheme provides the possibility of a route connecting with the proposed Phase 1: A6 to Airport link at Chester Road west of Poynton, and follows a safeguarded alignment along the eastern perimeter of the site and linking with the A523 London Road south of Adlington Industrial Estate. The scheme does not form part of the current SEMMMS Major Scheme funding bid and is identified as a local scheme in the current Cheshire East Local Transport Plan. Whilst there is political and local support for the scheme, there is no current programme for delivery.
2001 Traffic Baseline
12.35 When the BAE Systems plant was fully operational, it was a significant generator of traffic, with large numbers of vehicles arriving at and departing the site at shift start and finish times. In the context of the established planning position for the site, there is significant scope for high traffic-generating employment activities to be carried out without the need for new planning permission or any requirement for improvements to access and transportation provision. It is important, therefore, to understand the Lawful Use traffic “baseline” position in terms of how much traffic could be generated under existing permissions. To do this, historic traffic data for the former BAE Systems plant activity has been reviewed.
12.36 BAE Systems submitted a major planning application for a new hangar building, training facilities and an additional car park in 2001. This application was accompanied by the following transport evidence (prepared by JMP Consultants): 1 Woodford site access traffic surveys commissioned on behalf of BAE and presented within the Transport Assessment report (June 2001, JMP Consultants); and 2 Woodford site staff travel survey commissioned on behalf of BAE and presented within the Travel Surveys report (August 2001, JMP Consultants).
12.37 These surveys present the most complete record of site activities in relation to staff and traffic movements into and out of the site at a time when BAE Systems employed approximately 1,780 staff (employee
P74 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
levels have reached over 3,000 in previous years, so 2001 does not represent the highest levels of historical activity at the site). 2001 Census Data provides local demographic and travel data that compliments this site-specific travel and traffic data.
12.38 Through discussions between SMBC and CEC officers and former BAE Systems personnel and consideration of the operational activities at the Woodford site, it has been agreed that 2001 represents an appropriate baseline year.
2001 Site Access Surveys
12.39 Detailed surveys of the site access junctions were commissioned by JMP on behalf of BAE and undertaken by Cheshire County Council on 3rd May 2001. These surveys were undertaken between 05:30 – 22:30 at the main (western) access junction and between 07:00 – 09:00, 13:45 – 14:00 and 16:15 – 17:00 at the secondary (eastern) access junction. A summary of the survey data is set out within Table 12.6.
Table 12.6 2001 Site Access Surveys
Main Access Secondary Access Combined Access Time Two- Two- Two- In Out In Out In Out way way way 05:30 - 06:00 114 19 133 - - - 114 19 133 06:00 - 07:00 327 60 386 - - - 327 60 386 07:00 - 08:00 359 49 408 483 17 500 842 66 908 08:00 - 09:00 201 26 227 122 7 129 323 33 356 09:00 - 10:00 86 34 120 - - - 86 34 120 10:00 - 11:00 76 43 119 - - - 76 43 119 11:00 - 12:00 96 87 182 - - - 96 87 182 12:00 - 13:00 135 114 249 - - - 135 114 249 13:00 - 14:00 153 106 259 0 75 75 153 181 334 14:00 - 15:00 90 86 176 - - - 90 86 176 15:00 - 16:00 44 155 199 - - - 44 155 199 16:00 - 17:00 38 268 305 3 316 319 41 584 624 17:00 - 18:00 30 305 335 - - - 30 305 335 18:00 - 19:00 32 256 288 - - - 32 256 288 19:00 - 20:00 64 138 202 - - - 64 138 202 20:00 - 21:00 57 109 166 - - - 57 109 166 21:00 - 22:00 13 84 97 - - - 13 84 97 22:00 - 22:30 3 16 19 - - - 3 16 19 Total (during survey period -subject to 1,914 1,951 3,865 608 415 1,023 2,522 2,366 4,888 rounding errors) Source: JMP (Cheshire County Council) Traffic Counts (May 2001)
2726511v2 P75
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
12.40 The data shows that the Woodford site had an AM peak hour two-way flow of 908 vehicles between the hours of 07:00 – 08:00. In the PM the site peak hour was between 16:00 – 17:00 with a two-way flow of 624 vehicles.
12.41 The AM peak period was characterised by a very sharp peak hour of activity between 07:00 and 08:00 when 842 vehicles enter the site, with peak flows comparable in the hour‟s before and after with 327 and 323 vehicles respectively. The PM peak period had a flatter profile albeit with a notable peak hour of activity between 16:00 and 17:00 when 624 vehicles exit the site. Traffic movements in and out of the site during the network AM peak period (08:00 – 09:00) were 356. During the network PM peak period (17:00- 18:00) there were 335 traffic movements in and out of the site.
12.42 A significant number of vehicle movements were recorded during the two hour lunch time period (12:00 to 14:00), with 288 vehicles entering and 295 vehicles exiting the Woodford site.
12.43 It is recognised that the site could be re-occupied under established planning parameters without a new planning permission or any requirement for improvements to access and transportation provision. Any such re-occupancy of the site would be likely to fall into one of two broad scenarios: 1 Occupancy by a single large scale operator; or, 2 Multi-tenant occupancy by smaller operators / businesses.
12.44 If the site were to be re-occupied by a single large scale operator it is considered that the traffic profile would not be substantially different to the observed patterns of movement in 2001 and detailed above.
12.45 If the site were to be re-occupied on a multi-tenant basis it is likely that this would generate a different intensity and mix of traffic activity with a less pronounced peak resulting in a flatter profile throughout the course of the day.
12.46 Future development options for the site would require a new planning permission. At this stage development options include a housing led mix of uses that would typically generate the reverse of movement patterns associated with the site‟s established operational activities. A housing led redevelopment would generate higher proportions of outbound movement in the morning and inbound in the evening network peak periods.
Woodford Traffic Generation and Impact
12.47 To inform the preparation of the SPD, and in advance of a detailed transport assessment of the development proposals (which would be needed for a future planning application), the Council has conducted a preliminary examination of the traffic impact of redevelopment of the Woodford Aerodrome. The Council has used the strategic traffic model
P76 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
developed to support the South East Manchester Multi-Modal Study (SEMMMS) and the major scheme business case for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road.
12.48 The modelling has been based on the assumption that the site will be redeveloped for up to 950 dwellings plus a public house and retention of Oxford Aviation on site. The assessment has made use of 85th percentile trip generation rates from the TRICS database (to provide a highly robust assessment), with assignment of the trips using the SEMMMS strategic traffic model.
12.49 A planning application for redevelopment of the site would need to be accompanied by a full transport assessment and travel plan, which would set out measures to improve and promote walking, cycling and public transport access to the site, as well as assessing and mitigating any residual traffic impacts. This strategic modelling work takes no account of such measures to manage traffic impacts of the development and is therefore a worst-case scenario assessment.
Traffic Generation and Method of Analysis
12.50 The basis of analysis of the Woodford site is to establish what is known as the „fallback position‟. This refers, in planning terms, to the former lawful use of the site and what is examined is the potential of the site to generate traffic over and above this permitted level of development.
12.51 The basis of assessment is surveys conducted in 2001 to support a planning application by BAe Systems. At that time the site was engaged in civil and military aviation activity and employed approximately 1,780 staff (as stated previously, the site is known to have employed up to 3,000 staff in previous years, but this 2001 position represents a robust position for the fallback scenario).
12.52 The surveys showed that the site generated considerable volumes of traffic. The peak times of generation were an hour earlier than the normal peak hours due to the shift patterns worked. This meant that the peak time for arrivals at the site was actually 0700-0800 (908 two-way traffic movements) and, for departures, the peak hour of operation was 1600-1700 (624 two-way traffic movements), although significant levels of traffic were generated on either side of these peak periods (see Table 12.7 for further details).
12.53 The Council‟s standard approach is to use the TRICS data base to derive an 85th percentile traffic generation rate. This is the trip generation methodology that the Council has used to test the potential strategic impact of the development for the purposes of the SPD. A full Transport Assessment will be required to support a planning application for new development at the site and appropriate trip rates can be agreed at that time.
12.54 The TRICS database is an industry standard body of data which includes thousands of surveys of traffic and person trip generation for a wide
2726511v2 P77
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
variety of land uses. In this case over 30 sites were found in the database for large (over 100 house) residential areas in suburban locations with not dissimilar levels of public transport access. From these, an 85th percentile traffic generation rate was selected, thereby allowing a near worst-case scenario for traffic generation to be tested. A public house is also proposed on the site and was accounted for using trips rates from TRICs. It is also proposed that Oxford Aviation will remain on the site. As Oxford Aviation has planning permission to increase its current operations, traffic figures from the transport statement submitted with its planning application have been used to ensure a robust assessment of potential traffic impacts. The results are set out in Table 12.7.
Table 12.7 85th Percentile Trip Rates (per unit/ 100 sqm), derived from the TRICs database
85th Percentile Trip Rates (per unit/ 100 sqm) Morning (0800-0900) Evening (1700-1800)
Land Use Arr Dep Tot Arr Dep Tot
Housing 0.20 0.54 0.75 0.51 0.31 0.82
Pub/Restaurant 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 2.89 6.22
12.55 When the traffic generation work was completed it was compared to the surveyed fallback position. This is summarised in Table 12.8.
Table 12.8 85th Percentile Trip Rates (per unit/ 100 sqm), derived from the TRICs database
Trip Generation Estimate
Development Assumption Morning (0800-0900) Evening (1700-1800)
Scenario (sqm/ dwellings) Arr Dep Tot Arr Dep Tot
2001 BAE Systems Surveyed 323 33 356 30 305 335 Aerodrome traffic levels
Fallback Oxford Aviation 6 96 4 100 4 96 100
600 sq m pub 0 0 0 20 17 37
240 houses 49 130 179 122 75 198
Total 145 134 279 146 189 335
Proposed Oxford Aviation 96 4 100 4 96 100 SPD (May 2012)
6 Traffic generation figures are taken from the transport statement submitted with their planning application in 2010.
P78 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Trip Generation Estimate
Development Assumption Morning (0800-0900) Evening (1700-1800)
Scenario (sqm/ dwellings) Arr Dep Tot Arr Dep Tot
600 sq m pub 0 0 0 20 17 37
950 houses 193 516 709 485 298 783
Total 289 520 809 508 412 920
12.56 It is assumed that the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road will be delivered by 2017, and therefore analysis has been carried out using the SEMMMS strategic traffic model, including the new road. The current iteration of the scheme is known as Design Freeze (DF) 5 and this has been used for analysis.
Modelling Methodology
12.57 The Council has commissioned Atkins and TfGM to conduct testing of the traffic impact of the above scenarios. They have conducted tests for 2032 traffic flows (a much more distant future year than would usually be examined for transport assessment work – this being normally 5 years after an application is submitted, or a realistic agreed future year), with the SEMMMS relief road in place, for the AM and PM peak and for the fallback and full development scenarios. They have reported results from the modelling.
12.58 The distribution of the housing-related trips has been based on trip patterns from the adjacent residential zone in Poynton (with the exception of education trips, which are likely to be different due to the differing administrative boundary).
12.59 The site access has been modelled as a single roundabout junction for the fallback analysis and as the roundabout plus an additional priority junction to the west for the full development.
Results of Modelling
12.60 The modelling results show potential impacts in the following key locations in Stockport and East Cheshire. These are all junctions where the impact of the development is most likely to be material. In the event that the assessment was carried out without the completion of the A6 to Manchester Airport relief road the area of impact could be different. 1 Site Access points 2 Chester Road / Woodford Road roundabout 3 Robins Lane / Woodford Road priority junction 4 A555 / Woodford Road signal roundabout 5 Bramhall Village Centre 6 Woodford Road / Chester Road priority junction
2726511v2 P79
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
7 Woodford Road / Lees Lane Roundabout 8 London Road / Chester Road / Park Road shared space effort 9 Dean Row Road Link / A34 Roundabout 10 A555 Link Road / Woodford Road signal junction
Site Access
12.61 In both the fallback and development scenarios, the site accesses are shown to operate within capacity in the AM and PM peaks.
Chester Road / Woodford Road roundabout
12.62 This junction is shown to operate within capacity in both fall back and full development scenarios for both AM and PM peaks.
Jenny Lane / Woodford Road
12.63 This junction is shown as being within capacity in the AM peak in the fallback model and with full development. In the PM peak it is over capacity in the fallback model and slightly more so in the full development model, although the delay to traffic at this junction is less than 15 seconds. This is likely to require further testing in the full transport assessment, however, as the strategic model does not include Moor Lane between Jenny Lane and Chester Road and Church Lane.
A555 / Woodford Road
12.64 This junction is shown as operating within capacity for both peaks for both the fallback and full development scenarios.
Bramhall Village Centre
12.65 The Woodford Road / Bramhall Lane South / Ack Lane East mini roundabout junction is shown as being slightly over capacity in the AM and PM peaks for both the fallback and full development scenarios. Overall flows only increase by 14 trips in the AM peak and 23 trips in the PM peak in the “with development” scenario, and delay to traffic is no more than 90 seconds in any of the scenarios tested.
12.66 The Ack Lane East / Moss Lane junction is shown as operating within capacity for the AM and PM peaks for both the fallback and full development scenarios.
Chester Road / Woodford Road priority junction
12.67 This junction is over capacity for the right turn out of Chester Road onto Woodford Road for the AM and PM peaks and for both the fallback and the full development scenario. The maximum average delay to traffic is less than 15 seconds in the AM peak and no more than 90 seconds in the PM peak in both the fallback and development scenarios.
P80 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Woodford Road / Lees Lane
12.68 This junction is shown as being slightly over capacity in the AM peak for both the fallback and full development scenario, although delay to traffic is less than 15 seconds in all scenarios. It is within capacity in the PM peak for both scenarios. The nearby Adlington Road roundabout is shown as being within capacity for both scenarios for both peaks.
London Road / Chester Road / Park Road
12.69 The model indicates increases in flow at this junction of approximately 50 movements in the AM peak and 30 movements in the PM peak. Increased flow on Chester Road in the AM peak will take the junction close to, but not over, capacity on that arm with some increase in delay although it is still only around 30 seconds. In the evening peak it is shown as well within capacity.
Dean Row Road Link / A34 Roundabout
12.70 The model indicates that the change in traffic flow at this location is less than 10 vehicles per hour in either peak, hence there is no measurable impact in this modelling scenario.
Chester Road / A555 Link signal junction
12.71 The modelling indicatesthis junction is at capacity in the modelling in both the fallback and the full SPD development scenario, although delay is no more than 90 seconds in any scenario. The layout of this junction is, however, subject to review and this will reflect the need to accommodate Woodford traffic.
Junction Modelling
12.72 The Council has tested the traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment of Woodford Aerodrome on the surrounding highway network using a strategic traffic model developed for the South East Manchester Multi- Modal Study (SEMMMS). It has tested a worst-case traffic scenario in 2032 (using robust 85th percentile trip rates) in the morning and evening peak traffic hours, and has assumed that the A6 to Manchester Airport SEMMMS relief road will be in place. The traffic modelling shows that the proposed development will have no detrimental impact on junctions in the surrounding area, compared to the agreed traffic baseline position (equivalent to 2001 traffic levels from the BAE Systems‟ operations).
The Woodford Lanes
12.73 The lanes in Woodford are not currently modelled due to the strategic nature of the SEMMMS model. Whilst this is quite normal for a model designed to produce a business case for a major road scheme. The transport assessment will need to consider the potential impacts of the development on the lanes and suggest mitigation measures, if
2726511v2 P81
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
appropriate, to avoid any detriment to highway safety and the amenity of the residents living on them.
Next Steps
12.74 Full transport assessment (TA) and travel plan (TP) reports will need to be prepared to accompany any planning applications for the proposed development, setting out a detailed assessment of cumulative residual traffic impacts (over and above the agreed 2001 baseline position) and any necessary mitigation measures to address capacity constraints on the highway network. The TA and TP will also need to highlight a range of measures for improving and promoting sustainable travel opportunities at the site to improve the site‟s accessibility and to minimise traffic impacts (see next chapter for more details).
12.75 It is anticipated that planned delivery of the SEMMMS A6 to Manchester Airport relief road (and the range of complementary measures that will form part of the scheme) will help to address many existing constraints on the local highway network by providing a more suitable route for strategic traffic currently travelling through Woodford, Poynton and Bramhall. This will be tested through further strategic modelling.
12.76 The next steps in developing a TA and TP for the site are: 1 Agree trip generation assumptions/methodology for the new development; 2 Undertake more localised junction modelling, as appropriate, to assess the future operation of the site accesses and other critical local junctions; 3 Develop a coherent package of sustainable transport improvements to walking, cycling and public transport provision to improve accessibility of the site (see next chapter for more details); 4 Identify a range of measures for promoting and encouraging sustainable travel behaviour from the outset (see next chapter for more details); and, 5 Establish and agree appropriate travel plan objectives and targets to enable travel behaviour at the site to be monitored following redevelopment.
Conclusions & Constraints
12.77 From the information and analysis presented, the following conclusions have been drawn: 1 The Woodford site has historically been a significant employment site serving a wide geographic area; 2 Generally, traffic volumes on the local network surrounding Woodford have declined since 2001;
P82 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
3 The local topography surrounding Woodford is generally flat and conducive to walking and cycling, but formal cycle infrastructure and pedestrian crossing facilities on routes to Poynton and Bramhall and local rail stations are limited. However, the opportunity to develop more useable sustainable transport links in the area should be explored as part of the development proposals for the site; 4 Woodford is served by a half hourly service to Bramhall, Cheadle and Manchester (X57) as well as the 390 bus service, which provides 2-3 services a day to Bramhall, Poynton, Stepping Hill Hospital and Stockport; 5 Local rail services from Poynton and Bramhall operate on an hourly frequency during weekdays, with more frequent services during peak hours, facilitating access to key employment centres including Central Manchester, Stockport and Macclesfield; 6 The Woodford site is served by two points of access off the A5102 Chester Road; 7 Analysis of local personal injury collision (PIC) data has not revealed any significant local road safety concerns at the access junctions to the Woodford site, although localised issues have been identified on the immediate highway network local to the site, mostly involving more vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists). 8 The proposed SEMMMS A6 to Manchester Airport relief road has now secured funding, and has a planned opening date of 2017. This will help to improve strategic highways and pedestrian and cycle links towards Hazel Grove and Manchester Airport, and will help to remove strategic traffic from the local highway network around Woodford. 9 The proposed Poynton Relief Road has a safeguarded alignment around the eastern perimeter of the site, but currently has no delivery programme or funding in place. 10 2001 has been defined as an appropriate baseline year, in terms of establishing a lawful use “fallback position” for the site; 11 At 2001 levels of site activity, two ways flows in and out of the BAE Systems plant during the network AM peak period (08:00 – 09:00) were 356. During the network PM peak period (17:00 – 18:00) there were 335 traffic movements in and out of the site; 12 Strategic traffic modelling for a 2032 future year, assuming that the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road has been delivered, shows that the proposed development will have no detrimental impact on junctions in the surrounding area, compared to the agreed traffic fallback position (equivalent to 2001 traffic levels from the BAE Systems‟ operations); and, 13 The next steps will be to prepare detailed transport assessment and travel plan reports to support proposed redevelopment at
2726511v2 P83
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Woodford, to assess the potential transport impacts of proposals and to identify a range of transport mitigation measures.
P84 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
13.0 Accessibility Assessment
Introduction
13.1 Most key local services for Woodford, such as schools, shops, employment opportunities, health and leisure facilities are provided in Bramhall to the north and Poynton to the east. This section provides an analysis of accessibility to a range of destinations from the site by different modes of transport.
Methodology & Sources
13.2 Stockport‟s Core Strategy Policy H-2 relates to the phasing of housing delivery within the Borough over the period 2011-2026. The policy states that „planning applications providing additional housing should be on sites within the first and second spatial priorities listed in Core Policy CS4 'Distribution of Housing', or on sites achieving a score of at least 50 when assessed against the Council's accessibility model (see 3.3.1 'Key Diagram' and the Accessibility Appraisal of the Core Strategy). Policy H-2 goes on to state that there are a number of possible exceptions to this policy, notably housing developments which facilitate „the operation of an existing or new community facility (used or to be used for education, leisure or social purposes)‟.
13.3 The Council has an online tool which gives accessibility scores for any selected location across the Borough; this tool shows that the site has an accessibility score of around 30.
13.4 The method by which this score is arrived at is described in the SMBC Local Development Framework: Accessibility Appraisal Consultation Paper7. This uses Accession GIS accessibility mapping software to assess the number of services or quantity of a service accessible from each origin point in the Borough (including services in neighbouring authorities). These services include employment areas, evening economy uses, retail units (including food retail), schools, GP surgeries and hospitals. On this basis, the assessment indicator for the housing assessment is defined as „the level of choice of service perceived by the average person to be accessible from a housing location by public transport and/or walking‟. Details of the destinations considered in this methodology are listed in the appendices of the consultation paper.
13.5 The Consultation Paper also presents a number of maps illustrating accessibility levels across the Borough to various services. Broadly, it can be seen that the locations which score most highly for accessibility are those close to rail stations; with access to services in the regional centre a key component of overall accessibility. Accessibility to primary schools and hospitals is also critical to a site‟s overall score.
7 http://stockport-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/pp/ldfcs/aaconsultation?tab=files
2726511v2 P85
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Baseline Information
Accessibility Mapping
13.6 Figure 13.1, Figure 13.2 and Figure 13.3 highlight travel times to a range of facilities by foot, bicycle and public transport respectively.
Access to Employment Opportunities
13.7 For the future residents of the site, it will be important to facilitate travel to work by sustainable modes wherever possible. Beyond any employment opportunities that may be available on the site and in the immediate surrounding area, key strategic employment locations include: 1 Manchester City Centre 2 Stockport Town Centre 3 Manchester Airport 4 Wilmslow Town Centre 5 Handforth Dean 6 Adlington Industrial Estate 7 Macclesfield Town Centre
13.8 Figure 13.2 shows that only Stockport and Handforth Dean can currently be accessed within a 60 minute total travel time by public transport, and only via interchange in Bramhall. However, because Bramhall and Poynton rail stations are not within a 400m walking distance of the site, and there are no bus services that connect conveniently with rail services, rail services are not highlighted on Figure 13.3. Several peak hour rail services are available from Poynton, Bramhall and Cheadle Hulme to Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on- Trent and Manchester. In particular, there are a number of peak hour train services into Stockport and Manchester that arrive by 9am, making this a potentially attractive alternative to the car.
13.9 Table 13.1 and 13.2 provide an overview of these services, focusing on journeys that arrive at employment locations before 9am, and leave after 5pm on weekdays.
P86 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figure 13.1 Walking Travel Time Isochrones from the site (based on 4.8kph walk speed)
2726511v2 P87
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figure 13.2 Cycling Travel Time Isochrones from the site (based on 16kph cycle speed)
P88 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figure 13.3 Public Transport Travel Time Isochrones from the site (allowing 1 interchange)
2726511v2 P89
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Table 13.1 Journeys towards Stockport & Manchester from Macclesfield (Mon-Fri) AM & PM Peak
MORNING PEAK EVENING PEAK (leaving after 5pm) (arriving before 9am) Stoke-on-Trent 0630 - 0717 - 0757 1658 1758 Macclesfield 0653 0715 0740 0806 0819 1720 1820 Adlington 0700 0724 0747 - 0826 1727 1827 Poynton 0704 0727 0751 0815 0830 1730 1830 Bramhall 0707 0731 0754 0817 0833 1733 1833 Cheadle Hulme 0711 0734 0759 0820 0837 1736 1836 Stockport 0715 0741 0803 0827 0841 1741 1841 Manchester Picc 0727 0756 0821 0842 0856 1756 1856
Table 13.2 Journeys from Manchester & Stockport towards Macclesfield (Mon-Fri) AM & PM Peak
MORNING PEAK (arriving EVENING PEAK (leaving after 5pm) before 10am) Manchester Picc 0748 0848 1717 1748 1848 Stockport 0758 0858 1728 1758 1858 Cheadle Hulme 0802 0902 1732 1802 1902 Bramhall 0805 0905 1735 1805 1905 Poynton 0808 0908 1738 1808 1908 Adlington 0811 0911 1741 1811 1911 Macclesfield 0818 1918 1748 1817 1917 Stoke-on-Trent 0842 0942 1810 1842 1942
13.10 Hence, rail is likely to be an attractive alternative to the car for journeys into Stockport and Manchester and also to Macclesfield. The key issue will be to improve access from the Woodford site to rail stations at Bramhall and Poynton.
13.11 For those making regular rail trips to Manchester or Stockport, it is likely that Bramhall station will be more attractive than Poynton as, despite it being further from the site, fares are significantly lower as it falls within Transport for Greater Manchester‟s administrative boundary (see Table 3.3 below). Similarly, some Woodford residents may prefer to travel further to Cheadle Hulme station to benefit from cheaper fares and the availability of additional services between Crewe and Wilmslow, and Stockport and Manchester.
Table 13.3 Cost of Season Tickets from Local Rail Stations
2726511v2 P91
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Season Ticket Poynton Bramhall Cheadle Hulme Weekly £34.00 £23.80 £21.50 Monthly £130.60 £91.40 £82.60 3 Monthly £391.70 £274.20 £247.70 6 Monthly £783.40 £548.40 £495.40 Annual £1,360.00 £952.00 £860.00
13.12 Passengers travelling from Cheadle Hulme or Bramhall would have the option of purchasing a System One County Travelcard which can be used on any trains and buses within the Greater Manchester area, which costs £95 for a 28 day pass or £950 for an annual pass (i.e. comparable to the equivalent rail- only travel passes). This would help to improve the attractiveness of travelling by bus to Bramhall or Cheadle Hulme rail stations. Alternatively, some passengers may prefer to travel by car or bicycle to the stations. Poynton station has reasonable car parking provision but no cycle parking at present; whereas Bramhall has secure cycle parking provision on the station platforms.
13.13 In terms of bus access to key employment destinations, the X57 provides a 30 minute Monday to Saturday daytime service to Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Didsbury and Manchester. It seems unlikely, however, that many people would use this service to commute to work in Manchester City Centre due to the overall journey times (68 minutes from Woodford to Manchester City Centre in the morning peak), although it may be attractive for those travelling to intermediate destinations en route to Manchester. Bus access to other major employment destinations is currently limited.
13.14 Finally, Figure 13.2 demonstrates that the majority of the employment destinations are within a reasonable cycle distance of the site. All of the key employment destinations, with the exception of Manchester City Centre, could be reached by bicycle within a 40-minute travel time. Implementation of the SEMMMS scheme will further improve cycle access, particularly towards Handforth Dean and Manchester Airport, by providing segregated, high quality cycle and footways along the entire route of the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road. These journey times could be further reduced through improvements to pedestrian and cycle access in and out of the site to facilitate more direct walking and cycling routes to the east, west and south of the site.
13.15 In conclusion, the following sustainable transport options available to the key employment destinations identified: 1 Manchester City Centre – by rail and bus (X57). 2 Stockport Town Centre – by rail and bicycle. 3 Manchester Airport – by bicycle. 4 Handforth Dean – by bicycle and bus, changing in Bramhall. 5 Macclesfield – by rail and bicycle.
P92 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
6 Wilmslow Town Centre – by bicycle only. 7 Adlington Industrial Estate – by bicycle only.
13.16 For all of the above, there are opportunities to improve sustainable travel options by improving walking, cycling and bus links to the rail stations; improving cycle and walking access and permeability within the site to open up more direct routes and to link into wider networks; and, by identifying targeted improvements to local and/or strategic bus services.
Access to Education
13.17 Figure 13.1 and Figure 13.2 show the locations of primary and secondary schools in the vicinity of the site, and demonstrate that there are several schools within walking and/or cycling distance of the site. There are a number of existing primary schools within Poynton and Bramhall, including: 1 Lostock Hall County Primary School, Poynton (1.4km) – 10-20min walk. 2 Queensgate Primary School, Bramhall (1.7km) – c.20min walk. 3 Lower Park School, Poynton (1.9km) 20-30 min walk.
13.18 Whilst all of these schools are already within a reasonable walk or cycle distance of the site, on and off-road walking and cycling routes to these schools may benefit from investment to improve quality and safety.
13.19 There are also several secondary schools in Poynton, Bramhall and Cheadle Hulme. These include: 1 Bramhall High Secondary School (3.5km) – 40-50 minutes walk/ 10-20 minutes cycle. 2 Poynton High School (4.2km) – c. 50 minutes walk/ 10-20 minutes cycle. 3 St James‟s Catholic High School (4km) – 40-50 minutes walk/ 10-20 minutes cycle.
13.20 In addition to the sixth form at Poynton High School, there is Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College (which can be reached via the X57 bus), and Stockport College (which can be accessed by rail and bicycle).
13.21 Again, any improvements to cycle and walking access and permeability within the site to open up more direct routes and to link into wider networks, will help to improve walking and cycling access to schools and sixth form colleges. Any improvements to bus services will also need take into account opportunities to improve access to local schools and colleges.
Access to Healthcare
13.22 There is a number of existing GP surgeries in the centres of both Bramhall and Poynton, many of which are within a 20-30 minute walk time. These include: 1 McIlvride Medical Practice, Poynton (2km); 2 Dr Cheaney, Woodford Road, Bramhall (2.2km);
2726511v2 P93
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
3 Priorsleigh Medical Centre, Poynton (2.6km); 4 Dr Riley, Bramhall Lane South (2.7km); and, 5 Roundway Centre, Bramhall (2.7km).
13.23 The X57 service also provides bus access to surgeries in Bramhall. The nearest hospital is Stepping Hill in Hazel Grove, which can be reached by bus within an hour, with two changes of service. The 390 service also provides two services a day to Stepping Hill Hospital, via Poynton (arriving at the hospital 1104 and 1304, and returning from the hospital at 0951, 1151 and 1351 Monday to Saturday).
Access to Food Shopping
13.24 There is a Budgens supermarket on Chester Road, almost immediately opposite the main site entrance. There are a number of foodstores in the centres of both Poynton and Bramhall. In Poynton, there is a Morrisons, Waitrose, Costcutter and several Co-op stores. In Bramhall, there are two Co- ops, a Costcutter and a small convenience store in the Petrol station. Both centres have a number of smaller stores selling food and convenience goods.
13.25 There is a large Tesco Extra store at Handforth Dean, which is accessible by bus, with a change of service in Bramhall or via the free Tesco bus service which runs twice during the day on Tuesdays and Fridays.
13.26 In summary, there are several places to buy fresh food within walking and cycling distance of the site, and the stores in Bramhall can all be reached via the X57 service. Again, the limited bus services to Poynton restricts the opportunities for people to do their food shopping there (although the 390 does provide a direct bus service, leaving the site at 1038 and 1238 Monday to Saturdays, and returning at 1009, 1209 and 1409), but there are several more accessible food stores in Woodford and Bramhall.
13.27 In terms of other retail opportunities, Table 13.4 below provides a summary of available shopping and banking provision in Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton, demonstrating the range of provision available within local centres.
Table 13.4 Local Retail Facilities in Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton
Woodford Village Bramhall Village Centre Poynton Village Centre (A5102 Chester Road) Local convenience Banks – HSBC, Barclays Bank, Banks – RBS, Barclays, store (Budgens); NatWest, Cheshire Building Society; NatWest; Hair salon; Estate agents; Estate agents; Beauty and tanning General clothing shops; Butchers; rooms; Travel agents; Convenience stores; Bathroom Hair salons; Hair salons; showroom; Grocers DIY centre; Hush – spa and well being; Superdrug; Co-op local store; Woodford Park Dry Cleaners; Charity shops; garden centre. Opticians; Bars and restaurants;
P94 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Bakery/deli; Netto; Charity shops; Electronics shops; Local convenience stores; Travel agents; Butchers; Jewellers; Betting shops; Waitrose supermarket; Petrol station; Boots pharmacy; Boots pharmacy; Coffee shops; Bars and restaurants; Village square shopping centre.
13.28 In addition to the above existing facilities, the SPD will include provision for a convenience store / small supermarket facility in the order of 500sq.m. will also be provided within the site as part of the proposed development, together with up to four other retail units with a total floorspace of 500sq.m. Accessibility to local retail facilities would therefore be greatly improved for local residents, with these facilities being located within a reasonable walking distance.
Access to Leisure Opportunities
13.29 The accessibility maps (Figures 13.1-13.3) show the location of leisure centres and public houses within the vicinity of the Woodford site. The Davenport Arms pub and Olivers restaurant are within a ten minute walk of the site, by the Chester Road/Old Hall Lane priority junction. A number of other pubs and restaurants are available within Bramhall and Poynton. In terms of sustainable transport links, Bramhall is more accessible than Poynton for leisure activities by foot, bicycle and via the X57 service (the last bus back to Woodford from Bramhall leaves at 0004 Monday to Saturday, and 2301 on Sundays) and so is likely to be more attractive to those not using a car.
13.30 Most leisure centre facilities are provided at the local secondary schools (Poynton High School, Bramhall High School and Cheadle Hulme High School) and therefore the analysis above applies.
Potential Measures to Improve Site Accessibility
Provision of New Community Facilities
13.31 The provision of new community facilities within the site will make it inherently more sustainable and will help to significantly boost its accessibility score. Community provision may include: a public house, a small convenience food store and, potentially, a one-form entry primary school, in accessible locations within the site.
Improving Walking & Cycling Links
13.32 The site masterplan should be designed around provision of direct, convenient, safe, secure and attractive pedestrian and cycle links within the site and
2726511v2 P95
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
improvements to permeability of the site from neighbouring areas by linking into existing off-site footpaths and cycleways wherever possible. Secure cycle parking facilities should be provided at key destinations within the site and beyond to encourage sustainable travel by the future residents.
13.33 Opportunities to improve walking and cycling links towards Poynton and Bramhall villages and rail stations, and Adlington Industrial Estates should be a particular focus.
13.34 There may also be opportunities within the site to provide new circular walking and cycling routes to enable the local community to undertake leisure walks and cycle rides within the site to promote healthy lifestyles and access to open space, as well as re-establishing links to the existing wider public rights of way network.
Improving Public Transport Provision
13.35 Based on the analysis of existing public transport provision, key opportunities for improving public transport access to key destinations from the site are as follows: 1 Develop a bus stop within the site, with shelters, seating and easy to read information on bus services and seek to re-route the X57/157 and 390 services into the site. 2 Improve local bus service provision, either via an increased frequency 390 service, to provide an hourly service to Bramhall, Woodford, Poynton Rail Station, Poynton, Hazel Grove and Stockport; or via a flexible Local Link demand responsive service, covering Bramhall, Poynton and Woodford. The Local Link service could be booked through TfGM‟s central booking and scheduling system.
Reducing Car Use
13.36 There is a range of measures that could be introduced at the site to encourage more sustainable travel behaviour from the outset. Community-focused travel planning initiatives might include some of the following: 1 Establish a website with up to date travel information for the site, and news about travel plan initiatives. 2 Offer a free personalised travel consultation to all households on site, to highlight sustainable travel options and to encourage sustainable travel choices. 3 Establish a community car sharing network, where local residents can offer lifts or request lift shares with other residents. 4 Run sustainable travel competitions and community challenges to encourage participation in the travel plan. 5 Work with the proposed primary school to establish a school travel plan and to promote walking and cycling to school.
P96 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Conclusion & Constraints
13.37 The site is reasonably well-located for access to local services and facilities in Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton; with a number of local schools, GPs and food shops accessible by foot, cycle and/or bus from the site.
13.38 However, the Woodford site currently has a relatively low accessibility score of 30, based on SMBC‟s online accessibility score. Any improvements to on-site facilities (such as education provision and local shopping and leisure facilities) will help to boost this score, as will improved bus services to key employment, education, shopping and leisure facilities.
13.39 In terms of walking travel times, there are a number of facilities within Woodford and Bramhall that are less than 30 minutes‟ walk from the site. However, most facilities in Poynton are beyond a reasonable walking distance from the site.
13.40 There is a wide range of employment, education, health, retail and leisure facilities within a 30 minute cycle distance of the site and the local topography is conductive to cycling. However, there is currently limited dedicated cycling infrastructure in the local area, although the SEMMMS relief road will include significant improvements to cycle links towards Hazel Grove and Manchester Airport.
13.41 There is good bus accessibility to local retail, leisure and education facilities in Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme and Manchester; and more strategic peak hour rail links to Stockport, Manchester and Macclesfield, which will deliver good access, particularly to employment opportunities in those locations. Consideration will need to be given to how rail services are accessed, and identifying potential improvements to bus and cycle links, as well as cycle parking provision at rail stations. Public transport access to facilities in Poynton and to Stepping Hill Hospital is also more limited, with the 390 service only providing 2-3 trips per day.
13.42 A range of opportunities for improving community facilities, walking and cycling provision, and bus services have been identified that will help to boost the site‟s accessibility score, together with travel planning measures to promote sustainable travel behaviour to future site residents and employees.
2726511v2 P97
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
14.0 Socio Economics
Introduction
14.1 This section sets out the existing situation in the area to be covered by the Woodford Garden Village SPD plus surrounding areas in relation to the economy, employment, population, deprivation, crime, health, education, housing and leisure and recreation.
Sources & Methodology
Socio-Economic
14.2 The baseline economic position of the local area is establishes using published Government and local authority statistics, and economic strategy documents relating to the area. The latest available data from NOMIS; the ONS Family Spending Survey; BIS Enterprise Directorate Analytical Unit review of SME Turnover; the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings; the 2011 Annual Population Survey; and other published national statistics have also been used.
Healthcare
14.3 It is estimated that the proposed level of housing development at the site will generate approximately 2,500 patients. The capacity of local healthcare facilities to accommodate the proposed development is considered in this context.
14.4 The assessment is informed by initial consultations with Stockport Primary Care Trust [SPCT] and a review of GP practice profile information for local SPCT and Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust [CECPCT] operated facilities. In terms of appropriate GP to patient ratios, evidence indicates that this varies significantly from area to area, depending on local characteristics. Consultations with SPCT and the profile information currently available indicate the following ratios for each PCT:- 1 SPCT – 2,500 patients per full time GP; and, 2 CECPCT – 1,800 patients per full time GP.
Education
14.5 The „home‟ local education authority, now known simply as the local authority following „education‟ and „children‟s services‟ being merged is Stockport Borough Council [SBC]. The neighbour Cheshire East is an interested party because of its proximity, but the location of all the proposed development is entirely within Stockport Borough. The home authority bears all of the duties and responsibilities imposed under the Education Acts.
P98 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
14.6 Each local authority, with education responsibilities, has a target statutory duty to secure sufficient schools for its area (s14 Education Act 1996). The duty constrains geographically the children for whom the local authority is responsible but not the geographic location of the provision. The local authority can make provision outside of its area but that is a matter solely for the local authority and in practice is an exception rather than the rule.
14.7 The development abuts the boundary of Cheshire East, which is a separate education authority. Cheshire East has no obligations towards the proposed residential development.
14.8 On the other hand, state funded schools that have spare places must admit applications irrespective of where the applicant lives. The proximity of its schools at Poynton makes Cheshire East an interested party.
14.9 Statutory provisions (s444 Education Act 1996) require the home education authority to provide or fund transport to and from school where for children who are under the age of 8 years, the nearest available school is more than 2 miles by the nearest available route and for those over the age of 8 years, 3 miles.
14.10 In town planning terms, the recommended distances, on sustainability grounds, from home to school are significantly shorter. The suggested8 acceptable walking distances are: 500m as Desirable; 1000m as Acceptable; and, 2000m as the Preferred Maximum. These recommendations are not age related and what is acceptable (and practicable) for secondary school pupils are clearly not so applicable for 4 year olds. In general, for primary schools, a 10-minute walk time (800m) is considered the maximum and half that desirable.
Other Facilities
14.11 The other community facilities in the area of the site were identified from existing records and site surveys.
Baseline Information
Demographics
9 14.12 The three wards containing the site have a total resident population of 24,767 as of June 2010 (more than half of which relates to West Bramhall to the north). As can be seen in Table 14.1, the site is located in two Boroughs anticipated to experience relatively strong population growth over the coming years: of 47,800 (13% higher than the 2010 figure) for Cheshire East, and 35,100 (12% higher) for Stockport. This rate of growth is similar to the regional average, albeit slightly lower than the national rate of growth.
8 Institution of Highways & Transportation Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot - Table 3.2 for schools
9The three wards comprise Bramhall West, Poynton West and Prestbury
2726511v2 P99
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
14.13 In Cheshire East, natural change is anticipated to be neutral over the next twenty years or so, with the growth in population almost entirely due to net in- migration (both internal and international). Natural change has a more positive role in Stockport‟s growth, although in-migration is a further signification contributing factor over the next twenty years. The number of households is expected to increase at an even faster rate as a result of national trends, with reduced household size as a result of social change, with more people living longer, and alone. There will therefore be a growing need to cater for the residential requirements of this growing population, which the subject area would be well placed to accommodate.
Table 14.1 Population Projections for Cheshire East and Stockport Boroughs
2010 2030
Population Population Growth 2010-2030
Cheshire East Borough 365,700 413,500 +47,800 (+13%) Stockport Borough 285,000 320,100 +35,100 (+12%) TOTAL 650,700 733,600 82,900 (+13%) North West 6,939,000 7,766,200 827,200 (+12%) England 52,213,400 60,409,500 8,196,100 (+16%)
Source: ONS 2010 Sub-National Population Projections
Local Economy and Employment
14.14 Over the last 30 years, the local economy has witnessed significant changes with a surge towards the Financial, Professional and Business Services sectors. This sector is estimated to comprise 26% of all jobs in both Stockport and Cheshire East as of 201010. The wholesale and retail trade is the biggest single sector of the economy in both boroughs, comprising around 17% of all employee jobs in the two boroughs, whilst a further 14% of employees work in the health sector.
14.15 In terms of other economic indicators, in line with the current national position following the economic downturn, levels of unemployment within both Stockport and Cheshire East have increased over the last 3 to 4 years. In September 2008, just 3.8% of residents were unemployed11, compared to 5.4% three years later; Stockport‟s unemployment rates are now even higher, rising from 4.7% in 2008 to 6.8% of economically active residents as of September 2011. It is important to note that both sets of figures remain well below the national (7.9% unemployed as of September 2011) and particularly the regional (8.2%) figures.
10 Baseline projections from the Cheshire & Warrington Econometric Model. Projections were obtained using Cambridge Econometrics/IER LEFM software and are consistent with Regional Economic Prospects, February 2010. Additional data preparation and aggregation by the Policy & Research Team, Cheshire East Council.
11 All people - Economically active - Unemployed (Model Based) - ONS Annual Population Survey (May 2012)
P100 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
14.16 Furthermore, the economic picture is even more favourable at a local level – the number of residents claiming Job Seekers Allowance (as of November 2011) is lower than 1.5% of the resident working age population for all three wards, well below the national average of 4%12.
14.17 The continued use of the site for employment purposes is considered by SMBC to be an acceptable land-use option for the site [SCS §3.550]. However, the evidence collated by SMBC suggests the potential for the site to be used for high quality employment purposes is limited. In particular: - 1 The MIER Brief13 for Stockport indicates that whilst the manufacturing and industrial sectors accounted for almost a quarter of all commercial property take up in 2008, developers remain cautious about industrial and warehouse property, with sustained price slowdowns in the current economic climate. The investment prospects in high quality manufacturing floorspace are therefore limited. 2 The draft Greater Manchester Large Sites Study14 assessed the potential of the site and noted that it scored low both on deliverability and on evidence of market demand. In comparison to other investment opportunities the site is therefore at a serious disadvantage. 3 Manchester Airport provides a good mix of jobs for the south of Greater Manchester and the industries the Airport supports make a significant economic contribution to whole of the city region15. The designation of Manchester Airport City as an Enterprise Zone, together with the accompanying Tax Reliefs, will increase the attractiveness of the Airport as a location for high quality manufacturing and office development, thereby further restricting the demand for employment use on the site.
14.18 As a consequence, SMBC‟s Economic Development Strategy (2012/2017) does not identify the site as a priority for investment. It seeks to encourage employment development in Stockport town centre as well as the other district centres and existing business parks in the borough. This is because there is demonstrable evidence of demand in these locations and they are well related to public transport facilities providing opportunities for the most deprived communities to access jobs.
Deprivation
14.19 The CLG‟s English Indices of Deprivation (2010) provides a composite measure of multiple deprivation at the local authority level, based on indicators such as income, employment, education, health and crime. This indicates that Cheshire East Borough is one of the least deprived Boroughs in the north of
12 NOMIS (May 2012): Benefit claimants - working age clients for small areas 13 Manchester Independent Economic Review (February 2009): Stockport Brief 14 Jones Lang LaSalle (2010): Identification and Market Demand-led Assessment of Large Employment Sites within Greater Manchester
15 New Economy (August 2009): Manchester Airport Impact Study
2726511v2 P101
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
England, with a ranking of 226th out of 326 districts across the country. Stockport‟s ranking is lower, at 151, although this mid-ranking is still higher than many local authorities in the sub-region. However, there are clearly stark contrasts in the general level of affluence for residents within both Boroughs, and those in the vicinity of the proposed development are amongst the most affluent in the region. For example, the bulk of the site is located in Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) Stockport 042C, with an IMD ranking of 28,151 out of 32,482 (i.e. it is amongst the top 15% least deprived areas in the country); areas to the north around Bramhall are even more affluent, with Stockport 042D ranking in the top 0.5% of LSOAs across the country.
14.20 Conversely, there are areas that suffer from high levels of deprivation in close proximity to the development site, including parts of Handforth to the west and particularly Cheadle Heath to the north. Stockport 026B (around Cale Green to the north of the site) is ranked within the top 2% most deprived LSOA in the country. This highlights the need to support private sector housing investment as a means to support future economic prosperity in the wider area.
14.21 Average weekly resident-based earnings in Cheshire East are slightly higher than the national average, at around £513 compared to £503 nationally, and £460 per week for the North West as a whole in 201116. In contrast, Stockport, earnings are slightly less, at around £498 per week for local residents. However, there is a considerable disparity once workplace-based average weekly earnings are analysed – in this instance, the average weekly earnings for Cheshire East-based workers fall to £470 (7% below the national average), whilst Stockport‟s weekly earnings also fall, to £493 per week for local employees. This suggests that people with higher qualifications live in both Boroughs (but particularly Cheshire East), and are travelling into the Manchester Urban Core for higher value work.
Health
14.22 The general health of residents in the area around the proposed development site is generally very good The 2001 census indicates that 76% of all residents in Poynton ward; 75% in West Bramhall ward and 77% in Prestbury ward described themselves as being in good health, compared to 69% nationally and just 69% for the region as a whole. The ward rates are also higher than the figures for Cheshire East (71%) and Stockport Boroughs (69%) as a whole.
14.23 This perception of good health is reflected in the number of people in the local area with limiting long term illness – 13% of residents in Poynton West; 15% in Prestbury; and West Bramhall, compared to a regional average of 21% and a national rate of 18%.
16 Source: ONS annual survey of hours and earnings - workplace analysis (2011)
P102 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Education and Skills
14.24 Overall, the general skill level of local residents in the surrounding area of the proposed development is generally higher than that across the country as a whole. The proportion of residents in West Bramhall Ward with higher qualifications was 34.4% in 2001, compared to 22.1% in Stockport Borough and 20.4% nationally, whilst just 21.4% of residents had no qualifications at all compared to 35.8% nationally. In terms of the two Cheshire East Wards, 28.8% of residents in Poynton West ward and 37.4% of Prestbury residents have higher level qualifications.
14.25 Attainment at GCSE, Key Stage 3 and 4 is generally well above the national average, whilst school age educational achievement in the three wards is also above the levels achieved both regionally and nationally.
Housing
14.26 The three wards accommodating the proposed development site are generally characterised by a very high proportion of owner occupied properties. Across the three wards 8,912 out of a total of 9,914 households are owner occupied, or 90% of the total. This compares with 78% of households in Stockport and Cheshire East Borough and just 69% nationally (and also for the North West region as a whole).
14.27 In the three wards around the proposed development site a high proportion of the dwellings were detached (54%), compared to Cheshire East Borough (36%), Stockport Borough (21%), England (23%) and the North West region (18%). There are comparatively few terraced properties, flats or maisonettes, which indicates a lack of diversity in the housing market. The typical house size in the area is also significantly greater than nationally with 31% of dwellings in the three wards have 8 or more rooms, compared to just over 10% nationally17.
14.28 The high proportion of larger detached properties and the general desirability of the surrounding area has led to high house prices. For example, the average price for a house in Cheshire East as of March 201218 was £145,888, a 31% premium on the North West average (£111,264), whilst the comparable figure for Stockport (£139,588) is also considerably higher than the regional average.
14.29 The Cheshire East Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2010 revealed that across the Borough as a whole there is a net annual shortfall of 1,243 affordable dwellings, of which 555 relates to the former Macclesfield District (which contains the proposed development site). The report concluded that Cheshire East is a high demand area, with a clear need to maintain the delivery of a variety of dwelling types and sizes to reflect the range of demand
17 ONS 2001 Census
18 Source: HM Land Registry 2012
2726511v2 P103
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
for open market dwellings. The comparable need for affordable housing in Stockport (based on the Greater Manchester 2008 SHMA), equates to an annual requirement for 875 units. Both figures are substantially higher than the actual number of affordable homes that have been delivered in recent years.
Leisure and Recreation
14.30 Stockport Council‟s „Sport, Recreation and Open Space Study‟ (2005) shows that the Bramhall Committee Area (which contains Woodford) has a deficiency in park sites, when compared with the borough average, although the quality of those that exist rate highly. The area has a high provision of Green Corridors compared with the borough wide average, though the quality of these is below average. Outdoor sports provision is mixed, with a high provision of golf courses but a deficiency in mini-soccer pitches. The provision of amenity greenspace in Bramhall broadly equates to the borough wide average.
14.31 The Davenport Arms pub and Olivers restaurant are within a ten minute walk of the site, by the Chester Road/Old Hall Lane priority junction. A number of other pubs and restaurants are available within Bramhall and Poynton. Most leisure centre facilities are provided at the local secondary schools (Poynton High School, Bramhall High School and Cheadle Hulme High School).
Retail and Community Services
14.32 There are several places to buy fresh food within walking and cycling distance of the site. There is a Budgens supermarket on Chester Road, almost immediately opposite the main site entrance. In Poynton, there is a Morrisons, Waitrose, Costcutter and several Co-op stores. In Bramhall, there are two Co- ops, a Costcutter and a small convenience store in the Petrol station. Both centres have a number of smaller stores selling food and convenience goods.
14.33 There is a large Tesco Extra store at Handforth Dean, which is accessible by bus, with a change of service in Bramhall or via the free Tesco bus service which runs twice during the day on Tuesdays and Fridays.
14.34 Several major banks are represented in both Poynton and Bramhall village centres. Both villages also have a range of local shops and services, including hair salons, estate agents, pharmacies, DIY shops, coffee shops, bars and restaurants. As the larger centre, Bramhall has a larger number and range of facilities including general clothing shops.
14.35 Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton villages all have a local community centre and both Bramhall and Poynton villages have post office branches and a library. A number of churches, including Church of England, Methodist and Baptist churches are located in Poynton and Bramhall.
Healthcare
14.36 Table 14.2identifies the potential capacity of the nearest SPCT operated practices to the site.
P104 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Table 14.2 Stockport PCT GP Facilities
Practice Staff (No. Total Capacity Current List Size Available Capacity of GP’s) (Patients) (Patients) (Patients) Bramhall Health 8 20,000 13,556 6,444 Centre The Village 3 7,500 4,551 2,949 Surgery, Bramhall Cheadle Hulme 8 20,000 12,244 7,776 Health Centre Wilmslow Rd. 10,554 (over 2 Medical Centre, 6 15,000 4,446 sites) Handforth Source: Practice profile information incl. lists sizes as of 01 April 2011
14.37 Table 14.3 identifies the potential capacity of the nearest CECPCT operated practices to the site.
Table 14.3 Central & Eastern Cheshire PCT GP Facilities
Practice Staff (No. Total Capacity Current List Size Available Capacity of GP’s) (Patients) (Patients) (Patients) Priorslegh Medical 7 12,600 11,369 1,231 Centre, Poynton Mcllvride Medical 4 7,200 6,386 814 Practice, Poynton Handforth Health 7 12,600 9,772 2,828 Centre Source: Practice profile information incl. list sizes as of 01 April 2011
14.38 On the basis of the patient per GP ratios used by the local PCT‟s and the practice profile information available, there is potential for existing GP practices to accommodate the patients generated by the proposed development and have capacity for further increases to patient numbers. The practice profile information available indicates that improvements to some of the existing premises are required to enable them accommodate additional patients.
Education
Primary School Provision
14.39 There are no existing primary schools within the 5-minute or 10-minute walk times. The nearest primary schools fall within the 20-minute walk time (see Figure 14.1 & Figure 14.2). The two schools are Queensgate Primary School (Stockport BC) and Lostock Hall Primary School (Cheshire East Council).
2726511v2 P105
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Figure 14.1 Walking Travel Times
14.40 Queensgate Primary School is operating well over its capacity of 210 with 218 on roll (January 2011). Lostock Hall is a small school with 150 places and 137 on roll (January 2011).
Figure 14.2 Walking Distances to Primary Schools
14.41 Neither school has the capacity to absorb the development. Both schools are beyond the practical limit for walking distance and are orientated to face specific developments and are without easy permeable routes towards the Woodford site. Practicable primary school provision should be made on the development within the plans for the development.
14.42 The completed development is likely to yield around 190 primary school age pupils. This is just under a form of entry (210 pupil).
Secondary School Provision
14.43 Bramhall High School is the closest Stockport secondary school, is within 3 miles at 2.94 miles, estimated distance from the farthest planned dwelling.
P106 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
The school has the Net Capacity to be able to provide places for all applicants from the development without enlargement.
14.44 Poynton High School has a net capacity of 1528. Table 14.4 set out the projected pupil numbers and shows that the school has capacity to accommodate cross boundary pupil movements.
Table 14.4 Poynton High School Projected Capacity
Year Projected Surplus Forecast 2014 1510 18 2015 1485 43 2016 1457 71 2017 1449 79 2018 1440 88
Post-16 Education
14.45 In Stockport, the Further Education Sector provides post-16 education in FE Colleges. Currently some secondary schools are investigating the viability of opening sixth forms.
Early Years Childcare and Pre-school Education
14.46 The proposed scale of residential development suggests that the number of pre-school age children requiring childcare and the number entitled to free part-time preschool education is sufficient to sustain an integrated provision by a private provider in space provided in the District Centre within the development.
Other Facilities
14.47 The Woodford Community Centre situated on Chester Road is run by an independent charity with all profits re-invested into its continued improvement. The centre is available to hire and its facilities include: 1 Large Hall – able to accommodate 150 – 200 people seated, the large hall has a fully marked out badminton court, as well as a licensed bar facility and stage complete with full theatrical lighting and modern sound system. 2 Small Hall – able to accommodate 50 – 70 people seated. 3 Kitchen – accessible for either hall. 4 Outside – car parking is available at the side and a field to the rear (2 acres), which is used to host a variety of events / shows.
Regular users of the centre include Woodford Players, Woodford WI, Wilmslow Dog Training Club, Woodford Badminton Club and Queensgate Badminton Club.
2726511v2 P107
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
14.48 The Woodford Cricket Club has ECB Clubmark status and coaches teams from Under 7‟s up to Senior Teams. It is situated off Moor Lane and the club has its own ground and facilities.
14.49 The Queensgate Juniors Football Club was established 10 years ago the club has FA Charter Standard Community Club status and coaches teams from Under 8‟s to U18‟s playing in the Stockport Metro Junior Football League. At present the club does not have its own ground and facilities.
14.50 The Avro Golf Club was started as Avro Golf Society 1962 by a group of employees, the club now incorporates a 9 hole golf course and clubhouse accessed via Old Hall Lane. The club is open to members and has gents, ladies, seniors and juniors sections.
14.51 The Scout and Guide Headquarters is home to 1st Woodford and 6th Bramhall Scout Group (merged 2004) and 1st Woodford Rainbows and Brownies, the headquarters hosts activities for young people from 6 – 14 years old. It is situated off Moor Lane, adjacent to the Cricket Club, the facilities include a large hall and kitchen area (plus associated car parking) and the hall is available for hire.
14.52 The Woodford & Bramhall Royal British Legion is situated off Moor Lane (opposite the Scout Hall), the Royal British Legion Clubhouse was rebuilt and reopened in 2004. The clubhouse (including two snooker tables) is available to hire and hosts events including a comedy night every month and the weekly snooker team.
14.53 Christ Church is located on Chester Road / Old Hall Lane. The church holds regular church services and has a church hall which hosts a number of groups including the Ladybird Group (for baby / toddlers).
Conclusions & Constraints
Socio-Economic
14.54 The area‟s relative affluence has not been immune to the impacts of the recession and ongoing economic downturn, with rising unemployment and pockets of deprivation in the wider area pointing to a need to support economic prosperity.
14.55 Strong levels of population growth in both Stockport and Cheshire East Boroughs over the next few years means that there will be increasing pressure to provide new housing to accommodate these new households. Furthermore, the very high level of unmet affordable housing need in the immediate area, combined with high house prices and an unbalanced tenure mix, points to a critical need for more affordable housing to create a mixed and balanced community.
P108 2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Healthcare
14.56 There is potential capacity within existing GP practices in the SMBC area to accommodate the patients generated by a development of 950 dwellings. As a consequence, no improvements are required to existing facilities to accommodate the increased patient numbers generated by the development.
Education
14.57 A primary school is needed to serve a development of 950 dwellings which should also serve as a community hub. There is capacity in existing secondary schools to serve the development.
Other Facilities
14.58 There are a wide range of community facilities in the vicinity of the site which meet the existing needs of Woodford and the wider community. It is considered the development should make adequate provision for the community needs of the future residents.
2726511v2 P109
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Appendix 1 Building Footprints
Building Name Footprint sq m Site Designation
Veolia Office Porta-Kabin 26.20 N Ground Support Crew 110.70 N New Assembly - Track 1 to 3 34225.40 N New Assembly - Finals 11297.30 N New Flight Ops 382.90 N Compressor House 253.40 N Front 3-Tier Block 1833.40 N Palm Court Block 350.60 N Occ Health 374.90 N Oil & Paint Store 433.90 N Rear 3-Tier Block 5666.30 N Paintshop, Sun City, ESA 3841.60 N Maintenance, Craft Training 2028.30 N Boilerhouse 824.60 N Restaurant 1520.10 N Avro House 5839.40 N Transport 448.70 N Old Chemi-Lab 357.10 N Archives 420.10 N S & M 1972.80 N Lancaster Club 599.70 N Vacant 119.00 N Vacant 53.40 N Heritage Centre 378.80 N Scrap Compound 169.90 N Air Traffic, Control Tower 166.20 N Vulcan Stores 217.60 N FST 64.10 N WNA Sprinkler Pumpohouse 43.20 N D&S Storage 110.90 N Lancaster Club Bowling Hut 39.60 N Norweb Main Incoming Substation 44.00 N Vulcan Club Barn (XM603) 69.30 N Vulcan Store 25.10 N Bridle Road Substation 28.10 N Cleanaway Storage Compound 123.10 N Substation 'J' 7.70 N Ex - Tank Test Pumphouse 41.80 N Sailing Club Garage 35.00 N Substation 'R' 71.90 N Vulcan Club Barn (XM603) 52.80 N Transco Gas Meter House 25.40 N Cartridge Store 22.10 N Gas Oil Pumphouse 8.90 N Emcor Storage Compound 83.70 N TOTAL FOOTPRINT 74809.00
2726511v2
Building Name Footprint sq m Site Designation
Bird Man Portakabin Oppsite CTC 58.40 S WFS Fuel Farm 33.40 S Hangar 5A, FTS 1,459.90 S Hangar 5, STS 69.60 S Hangar 5/STS 6,558.00 S Hangar 5 Offices 589.40 S Paintshop SFC 3,369.00 S angar 3A 2,764.00 S Hangar 3 2,036.70 S Hangar 2 939.60 S Hangar 1, Iron Bird 1,971.50 S Flight Ops 685.70 S Bird Guns 574.80 S Avionics 688.40 S Garage 593.90 S Flight Sheds Canteen 1,534.10 S Simulators, CTC 2,547.70 S Fire Station 683.90 S ex WFS Maintenance 399.70 S Old Tyre Bay 36.10 S WFS Boilerhouse 285.30 S Fire Station Pump House 20.70 S CTC Pump House 1 21.50 S Substation 'S' 51.10 S Spray Shop Compressor House (Flight Sheds) 37.40 S Storage Garages (Flight Sheds) 113.60 S Boiler House Rear of 47 Building (Flight Sheds) 21.80 S EWS House 'G' 141.20 S Garage Vehicle Compund (Flight Sheds) 270.60 S Adhoc Store 89.30 S Cleanaway Waste Disposal Compactor 38.20 S Sewage Pump House (Flight Sheds) 8.20 S Old Joiners Shop (Flight Sheds) 64.30 S Old Paint Store (Flight Sheds) 251.10 S Hydraulic Pump Room (Flight Sheds) 42.40 S Misc Store (inc with Bu 92) 85.90 S Flight Sheds Boiler House Fuel Pump Room 14.40 S Flight Sheds Boiler House Chemical Store 6.50 S RJX Storage Hut 1 7.60 S RJX Storage Hut 2 12.10 S TOTAL FOOTPRINT 29,177.00
2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Building Name Footprint sq m Site Designation
M.U. 3,894.00 CE Airside Outstation 24.40 CE Mu Garage 56.20 CE Mu Pumphouse 12.00 CE TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3,986.60
Building Name Footprint sq m Site Designation
Avro Flying Club Portakabin 169.60 GB Dengine Run Portakabin 13.80 GB X-Ray 146.20 GB Clubhouse 443.60 GB Avro Hangar 242.60 GB Substation 'D' 69.10 GB Liquid Nitrogen Store (Flight Sheds) 27.30 GB Ground Control Rigs Lean To (Flight Sheds) 157.10 GB Old Garage 35.50 GB Model Aircraft Store 128.80 GB CTC Pump House 2 35.60 GB Veolia Store Hut 14.50 GB Veolia Battery Store 35.30 GB Runway Lights Building 17.80 GB Nimrod Storage Hut 1 North Side Apron 9.30 GB Nimrod Storage Hut 2 North Side Apron 8.70 GB ATP Storage Hut 1 4.30 GB ATP Storage Hut 2 4.20 GB ATP Storage Hut 4.00 GB ATP Storage Hut 3 1.90 GB Veolia Storage Lean-To 27.00 GB TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1,596.20
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 109,568.80
2726511v2
Appendix 2 Planning History
Reference Description of development Date No.
J13803 Development of an avionics office building. 09.11.1978
J13804 Proposed new building for maintenance welding 09.11.1978 and joiners shop.
J18588 Proposed new two floor administration office 26.02.1980 block extension to existing structures and materials and laboratory building.
J18589 Proposed extension to existing vacated chemical 06.03.1980 laboratory building for high altitude test chamber.
J18678 Proposed extension to existing control tower for 06.03.1980 the provision of workshop and storeroom facilities.
J18679 Proposed control room on existing fire station 06.03.1980 building.
J19488 Erection of building to form staff social club 27.03.1980 together with bowling green and putting green (the Lancaster Club).
J40600 Extension to security lodge. 01.12.1987
J41379 New car park at western entrance (including 11.02.1988 landscaping and extension to security gatehouse).
J43474 Oil and parts store. 03.11.1988
J45450 Proposed two storey offices to existing gable of 13.06.1989 hangar.
J47388 Fire pit relocation. 08.12.1989
J50544 Fire test centre. 07.08.1990
J55265 Flight deck simulator building (Oxford Aviation). 21.04.1992
J56621 Erection of fire station. 01.12.1992
J58210 Erection of first floor extension to provide 10.10.1993 ancillary offices (B1).
J65590 Demolition of fire training facility and erection of 30.10.1996 new facility.
J171012 Erection of simulator building adjacent to 15.04.1999 existing deck simulator building and provision of additional parking (oxford aviation)
2726511v2
Woodford Garden Village SPD – Report of Survey
Reference Description of development Date No.
DC/001326 Proposed boundary security fence. 01.08.2000
DC/005848 Erection of a new building to store engines. 14.09.2001
DC/004817 Erection of high hangar building with extension 05.02.2002 to apron area including new test run area. Change of use of hangar 5 to training centre. Construction of additional car parking and landscaping works.
DC/007283 Installation of semi-automatic meteorological 18.04.2002 observing system.
DC/025230 Extension to existing sprinkler pumphouse to 06.03.2007 accommodate additional sprinkler pumps complete with associated sprinkler suction tank and pipework.
DC/044109 Extension to aviation training facility (phase 1 & 08.06.2010 phase 2), with associated alterations and extension to parking area, access alterations, demolition of associated buildings and relocation of training plane.
2726511v2