Application Reference: DC/060009 Location: BREDBURY CURVE, LAND AT FORMER RAILWAY CUTTING TO NORTH EAST OF STOCKPORT ROAD EAST, BREDBURY, STOCKPORT, SK6 2AQ Proposal: Filling of existing railway cutting with inert materials and construction of 60 no. dwellings with associated new highways, junction with Stockport Road East, landscaping, parking and amenities
Type of Application: Full Planning Permission
Registration Date: 16/10/2015 14:21:58 Expiry Date: 11/12/2015 14:21:58 Case Officer: Mark Burgess
Applicant: The Casey Group Ltd. Agent : TADW Architects
UPDATE FOLLOWING WERNETH AREA COMMITTEE MEETING OF 08/02/16
In order to address comments and concerns raised by Members and neighbouring residents at the Werneth Area Committee meeting, it was requested that the applicant provided clarification that the development would achieve the separation distances referred to in the report. Members also requested that the applicant provided a response in relation to the potential for a dual lane exit to serve the development and that the applicant considers the provision of additional displaced parking space for the properties on Stockport Road East. Members of the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee are therefore updated as follows :-
• The applicant has checked the distance of the proposed development from the residential properties on the opposite side of Stockport Road East and has confirmed that the proposed development would be sited between 21.497 metres and 24.096 metres from these properties. For the avoidance of doubt, these dimensions have been included on the submitted proposed site plan appended to the report.
• Two additional parking spaces for use of existing residents on Stockport Road East are now to be provided, which would be accessed from in front of Plot 13 and can be provided by reconfiguring the proposed apartment block car park. The Council Highway Engineer has stated that double yellow lines/a Traffic Regulation Order will be required to ensure that the junction is kept clear of parked cars. Although the exact extent of this will need to be determined at detailed design stage, it is likely that double yellow lines will need to be provided across the frontage of the public open space to the South of the junction and across the frontage of the garden of Number 81 Stockport Road East. Cars would still be able to park in front of Numbers 81-91 Stockport Road East. As previously outlined, parking surveys have suggested that this would result in the displacement of approximately two cars, although occasionally there may be another one to two cars parked in this area. As such, the Highway Engineer considers that providing four visitor spaces to the South of the site should ensure that the displaced parking demand should always be met.
• The applicant has confirmed that it is unfortunately not feasible to create a two lane egress from the site, as requested by Members, as this would affect the level of parking provision and the number of units which is crucial to the viability of the development. The applicant notes that the proposed junction design as submitted has been through a robust consultation process with Highways and has been subject to a road safety audit which has proven it to be suitable for the development. The Council Highway Engineer confirmed as part of the consultation response reported to Werneth Area Committee that the information submitted with the application demonstrates that the proposed development would not have an impact on the local highway network that would justify a recommendation of refusal and the design of the proposed site access was considered acceptable.
COMMITTEE STATUS
Planning and Highways Regulation Committee - Application referred to Werneth Area Committee for comments.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
Full planning permission is sought for the infilling and redevelopment of the 'Bredbury Curve' site to provide 60 no. residential units, with associated access, highways, landscaping, open space and parking areas.
The proposed housing would comprise 1 no. one bedroom bungalow, 2 no. two bedroom wheelchair accessible bungalows, 25 no. two bedroom houses, 18 no. three bedroom houses and 2 no. 4 bedroom houses. Three of the properties (one bungalow and two houses) would be detached, with the remainder laid out in semi-detached and terraced blocks, all of which would have private garden areas and a number of which would have off-road parking spaces. In addition to the proposed bungalows and houses, the proposal includes the erection of 12 no. two bedroom apartments in a three storey block at the entrance to the site and adjacent to Stockport Road East, which would be served by a parking area on the opposite side of the proposed access road. 47 of the proposed houses are to be affordable properties of different types, with the flats and one of the houses to be delivered as market housing.
In addition to the proposed residential units, an area of land to the North of the site would be set aside and safeguarded to enable the potential future construction of a tram/train link between Stockport and Marple. The scheme would also include the provision of two Local Areas for Play (LAP's) to the North and East of the site.
The proposed development would be accessed by way of a new junction which would take access from Stockport Road East. The proposed junction would include a right turn ghost island, a pedestrian refuge, an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing and 'Keep Clear' markings. The development would be served via a single access road that would run through the whole site from South East to North West. The access road would comprise a combination of a traditional tarmac road with footpaths on both sides and block paving with a pedestrian zone. Traffic calming features within the access road would include a raised junction, rumble strips and pinch points.
The existing site is characterised by significant changes in levels and steep embankments down to the existing central railway cutting, which is up to 7-8 metres deep. In order to provide a relatively level site to allow for development, a controlled filling operation is proposed which would include the importation of inert, clean material (uncontaminated excavation and demolition waste) into the existing and prepared voids. It is estimated that 22,000 cubic metres of material will be required for the proposed filling operation. Towards the North Western and North Eastern ends of the site, a retaining wall is also proposed.
The application is supported by the following documents :-
• Planning Statement. • Design and Access Statement. • Affordable Housing Statement. • Viability Report. • Engineering/Infill Specification. • Transport Assessment. • Transport Statement. • Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. • Interim Travel Plan. • Ecological Appraisal. • Bat Survey. • Flood Risk Assessment. • Drainage Strategy Report. • Phase 1 Site Appraisal/Desk Study. • Noise Impact Assessment. • Air Quality and Dust Assessment. • Energy and Sustainability Statement. • Sustainability Checklist. • Crime Impact Statement.
Details of the siting and design of the proposed development are attached to the report.
SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The application site at 'Bredbury Curve', with an approximate site area of 2.0 hectares, is located on the Northern side of Stockport Road East and comprises vacant land in the form of a densely overgrown deep railway cutting and dismantled former railway line which has not be used for a number of years. The site is characterised by significant changes in levels. Other than the existing central cutting, which is between 7.0 metres to 8.0 metres deep, there are further changes in levels and steep embankments towards the site boundaries to the North and East.
The site is adjoined to the North by a rail freight sidings which operates as a commercial line serving the nearby cement works, beyond which are industrial premises. Adjoining the site to the North East of the site is a steep railway embankment and the Sheffield to Manchester railway line. Residential properties fronting onto Stockport Road East and Auburn Avenue abut the Southern boundary of the site, with further residential properties on the opposite side of Stockport Road East. To the South West of the site are industrial units fronting onto Hollingworth Road, with the 'Homebase' store directly adjoining the Western site boundary.
POLICY BACKGROUND
The Statutory Development plan for Stockport comprises policies set out in the Stockport Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Core Strategy DPD), adopted in March 2011 and policies set out in the Stockport Unitary Development Review (Saved UDP) which have been saved by direction under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The application site is allocated within a Policy Guidance Area (PG1.7E Bredbury),as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. The land to the South of Stockport Road East is designated as Green Chain. The following policies are therefore relevant in consideration of the application :-
Saved UDP policies
• NE3.1 : PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF GREEN CHAINS • EP1.10 : AIRCRAFT NOISE • L1.2 : CHILDRENS PLAY • PG1.7 : BREDBURY
Core Strategy DPD policies
• CS1 : OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE • SD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES • SD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN - NEW DEVELOPMENT • SD-6 : ADAPTING TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE • CS2 : HOUSING PROVISION • CS3 : MIX OF HOUSING • CS4 : DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING • H-1 : DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT • H-2 : HOUSING PHASING • H-3 : AFFORDABLE HOUSING • CS8 : SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT • SIE-1 : QUALITY PLACES • SIE-2 : PROVISION OF RECREATION AND AMENITY OPEN SPACE IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS • SIE-3 : PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE ENVIRONMENT • CS9 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT • CS10 : AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT NETWORK • T-1 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT • T-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS • T-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK • T-4 : PROTECTING DISUSED RAIL ALIGNMENTS
Supplementary Planning Documents
• AFFORDABLE HOUSING • DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT • RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS • SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION • SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT • TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
National Planning Legislation
• THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)
The NPPF, issued by DCLG on the 27th March 2012 sets out the Government's planning policies and how they are expected to be applied.
Paragraph 2 states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is in accordance with the requirements of Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Paragraph 6 states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development : economic, social and environmental.
Paragraph 14 states that at the heart of NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means :-
• Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
• Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless :-
- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
- Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, Local Planning Authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
PLANNING HISTORY
• DC013804 : Erection of 40 dwellings with associated roadworks and landscaping : Refused - 16/03/04.
• DC010015 : Residential development consisting of 72 units with associated works : Withdrawn - 05/02/03.
• DC004337 : Variation of planning permission J.67978 : Granted - 31/07/01.
• J.67978 : Infilling of land and formation of access to serve future industrial development units : Granted - 25/11/97.
NEIGHBOURS VIEWS
The owners/occupiers of surrounding properties were notified in writing of the application. The neighbour notification period expired on the 17th December 2015. The application was advertised by way of site and press notice, the consultation periods for which expired on the 23rd November 2016 and the 25th November 2015 respectively.
10 letters of objection have been received to the application from the owner/occupiers of Numbers 81, 85, 97 97A and 196 Stockport Road East, 12 Auburn Avenue, 28 Elm Street, 3 Lyndhurst Avenue, 16 Valley Road and 8 Howard Close. The main causes for concern are summarised below :-
• Over the years there have been several planning applications at the site which have all been refused; • Concerns regarding the involvement of Stockport Homes in the proposal. The submission of an application from Stockport Homes to Stockport Council Planning Department is an unacceptable situation; • Lack on consultation with nearby properties; • Loss of a large quantity of trees within the site; • Adverse impact on extensive and varied wildlife and protected species on the site and their habitat. Work commencing in the springtime when species will be having young is unacceptable; • Loss of green land; • Additional traffic generation will exacerbate existing traffic problems and congestion on Stockport Road East. Knock-on effect on other roads and areas. Increased difficulty in joining Stockport Road East. Increased journey times. Worsened pollution from more standing traffic; • Additional parking problems and loss of parking spaces on Stockport Road East for existing residents; • Concern that only 13 of the properties are for market sale and most would be for shared ownership or rent. There should be smaller houses for first time buyers. This is a money making investment for Stockport Homes; • There would be a high quantity of houses shoe-horned into a small space which is not fitting for the area; • Visual impact of apartment block out of context with other houses in the area; • Loss of outlook from apartment block. This should be re-sited or replaced with houses; • Potential impact on future Metrolink route; • The site would need huge amounts of work to make it suitable for building; • The development would be built on an old coal mine. Danger of old shafts collapsing; • The site has heritage value as an old railway line which could be used as a nature reserve, cycle path or for walks.
One letter of comment has been received to the application from the owner/occupier of Auburn House, Units 1 to 2 Auburn Avenue. No objections are raised to the proposal, assuming traffic flow to Auburn House is not affected, rights of access to the rear are retained and drainage water continues to flow to the soakaway under the land attached to the site or a satisfactory alternative is put in place.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Planning Policy Officer (Housing)
The proposal is for a total of 60 houses, 47 of which are to be affordable properties are different sorts, with the remainder to be delivered as market housing. All but one of the market units will be 2-bed flats, with a further 3-bed dwelling. The affordable units are made up of 1 no. 1-bed house, 27 no. 2-bed houses, 17 no. 3-bed houses and 2 no. 4-bed houses.
The site is located within a Policy Guidance Area which is subject to the saved UDP policy PG1.7 ‘Bredbury’, specifically area PG1.7E. Whilst that policy states that employment uses would be favoured in PG1.7E it also notes that residential development will be permitted subject to the provision of satisfactory living conditions and the addressing of a number of other constraints, such as access, ground conditions, proximity to the railway and industrial and business processes.
In strict housing terms the site is over 800m from the nearest large local or district centre and therefore does not fall within first two spatial priority areas for housing location as set out in Policy CS4 (Distribution of Housing) of the Core Strategy. However, the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply with 4.2 years of supply against a requirement in national policy for at least 5 years. In such situations Policy H2 (Housing Phasing) of the Core Strategy allows for housing development on sites which meet the Council’s accessibility criteria. As would be expected on a site of this size the accessibility score varies across the site but in all cases scores well over 60, which exceeds the current minimum scores of 34 for housing and 45 for flats.
The addition of 60 units to the supply of housing on a brownfield site in Stockport is welcomed in line with Core Strategy Policy CS2 (Housing Provision). This is particularly so given the position of housing under-supply in which the Council finds itself, as noted above.
In terms of density the site area of around 1.99Ha would give a density of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph). This is at the lower of what might reasonably be expected on a site of this size in this area of the borough, as set out in Core Strategy Policy CS3 (Mix of Housing). However, the constraints of the site in respect of the protection of the potential rail/metrolink route mean that the actual developable area of the site is less than that within the red edge. Whilst no figure has been specified for that undevelopable area by the applicant, it appears to be around 0.275Ha. As such a truer density figure for the site is 35 dph. Given the relatively constricted nature of the site this represents a reasonable density of development.
Core Strategy Policy H3 (Affordable Housing) requires 20-25% affordable provision on sites of 15 dwellings or 0.5Ha or more in this area. As the proposal exceeds this threshold a development of 60 units would normally be expected to deliver 12-15 affordable properties, which would need to be split 75/25 between shared ownership and social rented units. In this case the proposed scheme offers 16 shared ownership units and 31 affordable rent units. Affordable and social rent are not the same thing, with ‘affordable rent’ operating at a higher rental level. Consequently whilst the number of affordable units exceeds the minimum number required by policy, there is no provision for social rented units in the scheme. The applicant has submitted a statement, backed with evidence from Stockport Homes, which outlines the background to the scheme in this regard. In order to obtain the funding needing to deliver affordable housing from the Homes and Community Agency (HCA) a requirement is that the tenure of the rented units must be affordable rent. The HCA does not support social rented units through its funding mechanisms.
For the avoidance of doubt, for now this does not mean that on other sites social rented units cannot be delivered through s.106 agreements. Most of the Registered Providers (RPs) in the Stockport Housing Partnership are willing and able to operate those where developers are able to transfer them through that s.106 process. However, in this case the scheme is reliant upon HCA funding to come forward and therefore the affordable provision will not include social rent.
To conclude on the matter of affordable housing, Policy H3 allows for the delivery of the relevant levels of such provision subject to viability. In this case, with the scheme relying on HCA funding and the consequential impact on the tenure of the properties it is recommended that the lack of social rent units should not be used as a reason to refuse the scheme. Indeed, whilst the tenure mix is not as set out in policy, the scheme delivers 47 affordable units (around 78% of the scheme) which will be a significant help to the delivery of such units required to meet the identified affordable housing need in Stockport.
The type and location of the site and the number and mix of the units means that the proposal accords with Core Strategy Policies CS2, CS3 and CS4. Whilst the affordable mix does not strictly comply with the basic requirements of Policy H3, the applicant has submitted information which sets out what amounts to a viability case for that position. This should also be weighed against the total affordable provision which is significantly greater than that which is required by policy and consequently the proposal is considered to comply with Policy H3 of the Core Strategy.
Planning Policy Officer (Open Space)
Provision of Play Space
A per Dev Man Policy SIE 2 from the Core Strategy, residential development is required to include for provision for recreational and amenity open space to serve the occupants. The policy requirements of Dev Man Policy SIE 2 from the Core Strategy and the Recreational Open Space Provision SPG, indicate that 2 Local Areas of Play (LAP) should be provided on site. As per Table 3: ‘Play facilities’ from the Core Strategy every 50 persons require the consideration of a LAP and be within a walking distance of 100m of all homes. A LAP should be at least 400m2 (within which a minimum 100m2 ‘activity zone’. The plan indicates that 2 LAPS have been provided onsite. This site has particular constraints owing to the exclusion zone for the possible construction of a tram line between Marple and Stockport, the required buffer zone for the 2 LAPs is therefore not being provided. Both of the LAPS are situated off the road that passes through the site and the LAP to the South West of the site has four car parking spaces which abut the buffer zone. Policy SIE2 stresses the need for the safety and security of children at play to be an important design consideration. We would want to be assured therefore that there would be no conflict with the moving traffic and the residents using the open space. The Policy also suggests that where limited space is available for the design of play; safer streets should be encouraged through the Home zones. It is therefore suggested that consideration is given to Core Policy CS 10 ‘An Effective and Sustainable Transport Network’.
Note on ‘On site LAP’
I would recommend that the applicant take on this maintenance of the onsite LAP. Par 3.337 under Dev Man Policy SIE 2 does not state that the Council should take on the maintenance , it is for the council and the applicant to come to an agreement. If the applicant agree to taking on the maintenance, I would suggest putting a condition on the planning permission (in the event it is granted) that covers future maintenance of on-site open space in perpetuity, a ‘submitting details of the management arrangement for the future maintenance’ type condition.
Commuted Sums
Based on the number and type of housing to be provided, this gives a population capacity of 201, taking into account the onsite play space provision this would leave the needs of 87 persons to be provided for (1 LAP satisfies 57 persons). The proposed development is within an area, which meets section 106 requirements for off-site contributions to be sought for play provision; therefore contributions would be sought to cater for the residual amount. In this event the sums would be as follows for Children’s Play space;
Provision 87x £167.31 = £14,555.97 Maintenance 87 x 7(sqm) x £11.86 = £7222.74 £21,778.71
Core Strategy Policy DM SIE 2: ‘Provision of Recreation and Amenity Open Space’ indicates that residential schemes are expected to provide 1.7 ha per 1000 population for formal recreation. As mentioned above the requirement of the Core Strategy policy is for as much as possible of the open space to be provided on-site. The commuted sums for Formal recreational provision to serve the future occupants would be as follows;
Provision 201 x £198.35 = £39,868.35 Maintenance 201 x 17(sq.m) x £11.86 = £40,525.62 £80,393.97
Planning Policy Officer (Energy Efficiency)
Comments of 23/11/15
Part L 2013 is not equivalent to a 44% improvement over Part L 2006. Part L 2013 requirements result in the need for a further 13% carbon reduction to be achieved to deliver Stockport’s minimum carbon reduction target on domestic developments of more than 10 dwellings (40% improvement over 2006 Part L). The original proposed Part L 2013 (which was equivalent to the energy elements of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4) was going to be a 44% improvement over Part L 2006 but the Government rolled back on this requirement.
The energy statement therefore needs to be revised to include a clear statement that the additional 13% improvement in carbon emissions is required and how it will be achieved. This can be delivered through design improvements or through renewable energy – it is up to the applicant to state how it will be achieved.
In addition the following further amendments should be made to a revised energy statement to ensure it complies with SD3 policy requirements:
• Average wind speeds for the site according to the DECC wind speed database are 4.3 metres / second • The GSHP statement on insufficient area should be supported with the following information: site area 19900 sq m divided by 60 dwellings = 332 sq m / dwelling minus average house footprint (80 sq m) = 251 sq m area which is below the 300 sq m minimum area for a 3 bed house to support GSHP. • Air source heat pumps need to be considered within the technology list.
Comments of 22/12/15
The original energy statement erroneously named the Building Regulations Part L being complied with as 2012 when the current Part L Building Regulations that are in place are for 2013. Stockport’s Core Strategy domestic carbon reduction target of a 40% minimum reduction refer to Building Regulations Part L 2006 which equates to a 13% reduction over Part L 2013. The revised energy statement promises more than a 14% improvement which ensures compliance with Stockport’s carbon reduction target.
Highway Engineer
Comments of 26/11/15
This application seeking permission for the filling of an existing railway cutting with inert materials and the construction of 60 dwellings and associated works has been submitted following pre-application discussions with this department. The development will served by a new access road which will take access from Stockport Road East to the east of its junction with Lower Bents Lane and parking will be provided within the development for a total of 101 in a mixture of private driveways and parking areas. As part of the scheme, land to the north of the site is proposed to be set aside / safeguarded to enable the future construction of a tram- train route between Stockport and Marple. After reviewing the submitted drawings and documents, including a Transport Statement, Interim Travel Plan and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit for the proposed junction and highway, I would make the following comments:
• Tram / Train route protection
The site was previously a railway cutting that accommodated a rail line (the "Bredbury Curve") which linked the Glazebrook to Godley Line to the Ashbury Junction to New Mills Junction line. Development Management Policy T-4 'Protecting Disused Rail Alignments' states that "the Council will not permit development which would inhibit future transport use of disused rail alignments unless it can be demonstrated that there is no realistic possibility of such use". The applicant has therefore been in discussions with the Council with respect to this matter and has designed the scheme in such a way that a corridor will be retained along the northern corner of the site that would enable a tram / train line to be constructed between the Ashbury Junction to New Mills Junction line and Whitefield Road and then onwards towards Stockport Town Centre (the form and route of the rail line based on current thinking).
Examination of the submitted plan concludes that the area of land proposed to be retained / protected for a future tram / train link should be sufficient to allow a tram / train line to be constructed from the Ashbury Junction to New Mills Junction line to Whitefield Road, having regard to the conclusions of a report prepared by consultants AECOM for the Council (based on the assumptions made in that report). As such, I would conclude that the proposal should not prejudice future provision of a tram/train link through the site and therefore the proposal would not be contrary to Policy T-4.
Details of how the land to be retained / protected for the future tram / rail link, including how the land will be filled, levelled and landscaped will need to be agreed, although this can be dealt with by condition. The submitted plans, however, show 4 visitor parking spaces and a LAP to be constructed within the land to be protected for the tram/train corridor and, as such, there is a potential that these would be lost to enable the link to be constructed. Depending on the final design, however, it may be possible for some form of replacement parking and LAP to be provided, although this would need to be determined as part of the design exercise for the tram / train link. Finally, with respect to the detailed design of the tram / train link, the design of this, including details of earthworks, structures and boundaries, would obviously be carried out at the time that TfGM were to progress with proposals for such a scheme and therefore do not need to be considered as part of this proposal.
• Access and impact on the highway network
The development is proposed to be accessed from Stockport Road East (A560), which forms part of the Borough's Strategic Road Network, and carries large volumes of traffic, particularly at peak time when queuing occurs at all the major junctions, including Lower Bents Lane, resulting in traffic backing up past the site. A traffic survey carried out for the development recorded flows of 812 (westbound) and 903 (eastbound) in the morning peak and 650 (westbound) and 802 (eastbound) in the evening peak. It also shows that flows remain fairly high throughout the day, with hourly flows during the afternoon actually higher than during the PM peak, and vehicle speeds are within the 30mph speed limit (with 85%ile speeds recorded at 28mph).
The Transport Statement, however, does not include a detailed assessment of the impact of the development on the highway network, nor a junction assessment to demonstrate that the proposed site access will function in a safe and practical manner (it should be noted that the applicant was advised to agree the scope of the TS with the Council but this did not occur). Instead, it simply outlines that the development would be expected to generate around 42 two- way vehicle movements at peak time and that such a level of vehicle movements would have a de minimis impact on the local highway network.
Noting that the existing network already suffers from congestion and there is need to ensure that the site access will function in a safe and practical manner, I would conclude that there is a need to carry out a full assessment of traffic generation and impact of the development with this including:
1) A detailed estimate of the traffic generation of the development (using the TRICS database) 2) A PICADY junction assessment of proposed site access 3) A review of how queuing from the adjacent junction will affect the access (which shall be based on queue surveys) 4) A more detailed descriptive assessment of the wider impact
As such, I would recommend that the application be deferred to allow this work to take place.
Notwithstanding the above, examination of proposed access concludes that it will benefit from an acceptable level of visibility (although the sight lines indicated on the plan are less than those required having regard to MfS2, a greater level of visibility will actually be able to be achieved with 2m wide footways provided across the site frontage) and, in general, its geometry complies with design standards. The exact layout of the junction (including the exact layout of the ghost island and lane widths), as well as matters of detailed design (including how the road will be widened taking into account the historic bridge structure) will need to be determined and developed at detailed design stage, however, and a Traffic Regulation Order will be required to ensure the junction is kept clear of parked cars (this issue was identified in the Road Safety Audit). Implementation of a TRO will require the payment of a financial contribution of £3000 to the Council / Highway Authority. This, however, will mean that cars will no longer be able to park on Stockport Road East in front of the side garden of No. 81. Based on parking surveys, this will result in the displacement of approx. 2 cars. Noting that on-street parking in the area is at a premium (and to reduce the likelihood of objections to the TRO), I would conclude that a replacement parking facility should be provided and therefore I would recommend that a 2-car parking bay is provided on the first part of the site access road to accommodate this displaced parking. In addition, it is considered that a pedestrian refuge should be provided to the east of the access to assist pedestrians crossing the road in the vicinity of the site, together with an uncontrolled crossing at the site access. As such, I would recommend that the application is also deferred to allow the submission of a revised plan which shows a car parking bay on the site access road (in the vicinity of Plot 13), a pedestrian refuge at the site access and an and uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on Stockport Road East.
• Construction / filling operation
Before the dwellings and associated access road and parking facilities can be constructed, the existing railway cutting, which is up to 7-8m deep, will need to be filled and this is proposed to be carried out using inert graded granular fill (uncontaminated excavation and demolition waste) which will be tipped and dozed in 300mm layers. The applicant estimates that approx. 22,000 cubic metres of material will be required. The vehicle movements associated with this, together with that associated with the construction of the development in general, could have a significant impact on the local highway network, unless they are spread over a reasonable period of time, are scheduled to avoid peak periods and a suitable access is provided. Although, such matters could theoretically be dealt with by condition, I would requirement that the applicant is requested to provide some additional information regarding the filing operation to enable this to be fully assessed, including:
1) Details of the approx. number of vehicle movements 2) The timescale for the filling operation 3) The number of vehicle movements each day 4) The type of vehicles to be used 5) Details of how the site will be accessed during the filling operation 6) Details of what waiting and turning facilities will be provided for vehicles
As such, I would recommend that the application is also deferred to allow the submission of this information.
• Site layout
The development is proposed to be accessed via a single access road that will run through the whole site. The first section of the access road will be in the form of a traditional tarmac road, with footways on both sides, terminating in a block-paved square. Beyond that, the road will continue as a block-paved road, with a pedestrian zone on one side, terminating at a second square / turning area. Due to the shape of the site, the road is fairly straight in alignment and therefore a number of traffic calming features, including a raised junction, rumble strips and pinch points are proposed to try and ensure vehicle speeds are not excessive.
Examination of the layout concludes that, whilst the overall layout is considered acceptable and the proposed traffic calming features will assist in reducing speeds, due to the relatively straight alignment of the road, is considered that some amendments are required to the proposed traffic calming to ensure that speeds are kept to a low level, notably in the location of the LAPs). In addition, it is considered that some other matters of detail require minor amendment (e.g. areas to be adopted highway will need to be hard landscaped, rather than soft landscaped). I would therefore recommend that the layout is amended along the lines indicated on the attached plan.
Finally, with respect to boundary treatments, although I consider the majority of the proposed boundary treatments indicated on drawing 30 Rev P1 generally acceptable, the fence adjacent to access road in front of Plots 12-16 will be too close to the carriageway and the type of fence proposed to be erected in front of Plots 19-21 (Type C) is not acceptable (although it is assumed that the plan may be incorrect). These issues therefore need to be addressed.
As such, I would recommend that the application is also deferred to allow the submission of a revised plan.
• Parking
Car parking is proposed to be provided for a total of 101 cars, which equates to a level of parking of 168%. This will be provided as follows:
1) An 18-space car park is proposed to be provided for the apartments (150% provision) 2) 20 houses will have 2-spaces (200% provision) 3) 27 houses will have 1-space (100% provision) 4) 15 spaces visitor parking spaces will be provided around the site
This level of parking is in line with the adopted parking standards and should also meet demand (noting that the local car ownership level is around 130%). Cycle parking, however, also needs to be provided, although this could be secured by condition.
• Accessibility
Consideration of the site's accessibility concludes that it scores 62-66 on the Council's accessibility model, which considers a site's accessibility in relation to employment, retail, schools, health centres, hospitals and evening economy uses, which indicates a reasonable level of accessibility and a level of accessibility which is in excess of the current threshold for where dwellings are permitted. In addition, the site is situated close to Bredbury Station, adjacent to the Stockport-Hyde bus corridor and is within reasonable walking distance of Woodley Local Centre, St. Mark's Primary School, a large food store and other local facilities. The site is also within reasonable cycling distance of Stockport Town Centre, various shops and services, as well as places of employment. In addition, nearby bus stops benefit from boarding platforms and shelters, there is a Puffin Crossing to the east of the site and there are uncontrolled pedestrian crossings at the junctions of the side roads along Stockport Road East within the vicinity of the site.
The footway along the north side of Stockport Road East across the site frontage and under the adjacent railway bridge, however, is significantly sub-standard in width (approx. 0.9-1.1m) and most of the arms of the junction of Stockport Road West / East with Lower Bents Lane don't have controlled crossing facilities. In addition, there are no cycle routes within the immediate vicinity of the site and neither Stockport Road West / East or Lower Bents Lane have cycle lanes / paths and are of a nature that would deter less confident or younger cycles from using them. As such, I would recommend that the footway below the railway is widened slightly(as well as across the site frontage), a pedestrian refuge is installed in the right-turn ghost island and the existing path that runs through the public open space between Stockport Road East and Redhouse Lane is widened and improved so as to form a hard-surfaced pedestrian / cycle path so as to link the development with the advisory cycle route that runs along Redhouse Lane and links up with National Cycle Network Route 55 and the route which provides access to Arden, St. Mark's, Werneth and Harrytown schools. Whilst the provision of the path can be dealt with by condition, I would recommend that the site layout plan is amended to show the provision of a pedestrian refuge to the east side of the right-turn ghost island and the widening of the footway on the north side of the Stockport Road East in the vicinity of the railway bridge. As such, I would recommend that the application is also deferred to allow the submission of a revised plan.
Finally, the Interim Travel Plan that has been submitted in support of the application. This includes much of the information that was included in the Transport Statement with respect to the site's location and accessibility, but also provides some information on travel plan measures that would be implemented as part of the development, such as providing travel welcome packs, providing an information notice board and encouraging car sharing. The plan, however, is fairly generic in places, includes some incorrect information, does not include some key information (e.g. details of cycle parking) and is not very specific in places. In addition, I would consider that additional travel plan measures should be considered. These issues, however, could be addressed through further development of the Travel Plan, which can be secured by condition. Finally, in order to ensure that the travel plan achieves its aims and objectives, the travel plan outlines it will be subject to annual review and as part of this, £2500 has been allocated to fund the Council's costs to monitor the review, which I would consider acceptable. The need to be collected by means of a Section 106 Agreement.
• Drainage
Information submitted in support of the application outlines that ground conditions should be suitable for soakaways, which would enable the site to be drained using a SuDS drainage system, in line with Policy SD-6 ‘Adapting to the impacts of Climate Change’. Whilst I assume that the Council's Drainage Engineer and the Environment Agency will wish to comment on this in detail, the requirement to design and implement a suitable drainage system can be dealt with by condition.
• Conclusion
Whilst I have would have no objection to the proposal in principle, consider the proposed level of car parking acceptable and consider the proposed access arrangements and layout acceptable, in principle, it is considered that there is a need for the applicant to carry out some junction modelling work so as to demonstrate that the proposed access will operate in an acceptable manner and that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the local highway network. In addition, further information on the proposed filling operation is required so as to allow the full impact of this to be assessed. Finally, it is considered that some minor amendments are required to the proposed layout and access. As such, it is recommended that the application is deferred to allow this additional work to be carried out and the required information and revised plan to be submitted.
Recommendation: Defer to allow for the submission of:
1) A revised plan of the proposed junction / works on Stockport Road East 2) A revised site layout plan, with amendments to the proposed access road 3) Additional information on the filling operation 3) The results of further junction / highway assessment work
In the event that the revised plan/s are considered satisfactory and the submitted information demonstrates that the proposed access will operate in an acceptable manner and that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the local highway network, I would recommend that any approval granted was subject to conditions and the payment of £3000 to fund a Traffic Regulation Order / parking restrictions on Stockport Road East and the site access road and £2500 to fund Travel Plan monitoring.
Comments of 06/01/16
I write with reference to the additional information that has been submitted in respect to this application, namely:
1) A revised site plan (drawing 12 Rev P9) 2) A revised boundary treatments plan (drawing 30 Rev P6) 3) A revised Transport Assessment (TA) 4) A revised plan of the proposed access (drawing J578/Access/Fig1 Rev A) 5) Additional information on the filling operation
After examining the information, which has been submitted to address the issues raised in my previous Consultation Report, I would make the following comments:
• Access and impact on the highway network
The TA includes the results of a further work that has been carried out to determine the expected traffic generation of the development and the impact that this will have on Stockport Road East. This includes a detailed junction assessment. This work outlines that the development is expected to generate approx. 33 vehicle movements during the AM peak and 35 during the PM peak (approx. 1 vehicle every 2 minutes) and that the proposed junction would have the capacity to accommodate this, with minimal queuing. The TA, however, outlines that queue surveys that have been carried out identify that traffic queues extend past the site (from both the Lower Bents Lane junction and the nearby pedestrian crossing), which could affect the operation of the proposed access. As such, the TA recommends that "Keep Clear" markings are provided at the junction so as to ensure that queuing vehicles do not block right-turning vehicles.
A revised plan for the site access has therefore been submitted which shows the provision of keep clear markings. In addition, it shows the provision of a pedestrian refuge and an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at the site access (as was requested) to assist pedestrians at the junction. In addition, the applicant has outlined that 2 visitor parking spaces to be provided by Plots 1-12 will be available for use by occupiers of dwellings on Stockport Road East who presently park on Stockport Road East opposite the site (where parking restrictions will need to be provided).
After considering the TA and reviewing the revised plan, I would conclude that the proposal will not have an impact on the local highway network that would justify a recommendation of refusal, or justify other off-site highway improvements, and subject to detailed design and the provision of parking restrictions and Keep Clear markings, the site access should allow the site to be accessed in a safe and practical manner.
The detail design of the junction will need to be developed at detailed design stage (which can be dealt with by condition), but the provision of parking restrictions at the junction will require the payment of £3000 to fund a Traffic Regulation Order.
• Construction / filling operation
As previously outlined, before the dwellings and associated access road and parking facilities can be constructed, the existing railway cutting, which is up to 7-8m deep, will need to be filled. Although the applicant had outlined that this would require approx. 22,000 cubic metres of material being bought to the site, little information had been provided on this and therefore further information was requested. The applicant has subsequently provided the following additional information on this operation:
1) The operation will require approx. 2200 one-way vehicle movements 2) The operation will take three months, with an average of 31 loads per day 3) Material will be transported using 8 wheeled tipper wagons 4) The proposed access road will be constructed (in part) and will be used for HGV access (including turning and vehicles waiting).
Consideration of this additional information concludes that whilst vehicles should be able to safely access the site to tip their material (using the new access), the number of vehicles proposed could have a material impact on the highway network, notably at peak time and school pick-up time. As such, I would conclude that the operation should be extended so as to allow the number of vehicle movements to be slightly reduced and ensure that deliveries do not take place during peak hour (when there is already up to 50 HGV movements on Stockport Road East each hour) or school pick-up time. There will also be a need to agree how material to allow the access to be constructed will be brought into the site and how the site clearance operation will be carried out. These matters, however, can be dealt with by means of a Construction Method Statement and therefore I would recommend that any approval granted is subject to a condition requiring the production and implementation of such a Statement.
• Site layout
Examination of the revised site layout and boundary treatment plans (drawings 12 Rev P9 and 30 Rev P6) concludes that they have been amended to take into account the issues that I have previously raised. As such, subject to matters of detail (which can be addressed at detailed design stage / by condition), I consider the revised layout acceptable.
• Accessibility
As previously outlined, although the site is reasonably accessible, the junction in its original form did not benefit from pedestrian crossing facilities, the footway along the north side of Stockport Road East is sub-standard in width and the site is not well connected to nearby cycling routes. As such, it is was recommended that these issues were addressed as part of the development.
Whilst the proposed junction has been amended to include pedestrian crossing facilities, the applicant has outlined that the location of services may make the widening of the footway under the railway bridge cost-prohibitive and that the cost of providing a path from Stockport Road East to Redhouse Lane would make the scheme unviable. With respect to the latter, I will leave it to others to comment on the viability issues of the scheme, but if it is concluded that the provision of the path would make the scheme unviable, I would recommend that the requirement to provide the path (or contribute to its future provision) in the event that the financial viability of the scheme changes during the course of the development is secured by means of a Section 106 obligation. With respect to the widening of the footway under the railway bridge, this may be able to be carried out without the need to divert services and, in such a case, would not be cost-prohibitive to carry out. As such, I would conclude that the requirement to widen the path should be secured by condition (as part of the overall highway works), but with the proviso that the works are limited to those which did not require the diversion of services (that would make it cost-prohibitive).
• Conclusion
The information contained in the revised Transport Assessment and information on the filling operation demonstrate that the development (and its construction) will not have an impact on the local highway network that would justify a recommendation of refusal, subject to matters of detail which can be dealt with by condition. In addition, the revised plans address the issues previously raised in respect to the site layout and the design of the proposed site access. As such, I raise no objection to this application, subject to conditions and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement relating to:
1) the payment of £3000 to fund a Traffic Regulation Order / parking restrictions on Stockport Road East / the site access road 2) the payment of £2500 to fund Travel Plan monitoring 3) the requirement to provide a lit, hard-surfaced path (or contribute to its future provision) between Stockport Road East to Redhouse Lane in the event that this is financially viable.
• RELEVANT CONDITIONS / REASONS / INFORMATIVES
Condition : No development shall take place until a method statement detailing how the approved filling / site levelling operation will take place has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include: 1) Details of traffic management arrangements 2) Details of vehicle routing 3) Details of site access arrangements 4) Details of haul roads, vehicle waiting areas and turning / loading / unloading areas to be provided within the site 4) Details of how project shall be managed to ensure that vehicles do not have to wait on the highway to enter the site 5) Details of hoardings, fencing, signage and access controls 6) Details of parking arrangements for contractors (including a plan outlining where contractors will park) 7) Details of the maximum number of the number of vehicle movements each day 8) Details of proposals to manage vehicle movements so that they do not take place at peak hour or school pick-up time and to ensure that vehicles do not arrive at / depart from the site together 9) Details of how the works will take place to minimise the likelihood of material being carried unto the public highway (including details of wheel wash facilities to be provided) 11) Details of how plant will be brought to / from the site 12) Details of the material to be imported to the site and how it will be laid / compacted The approved filling / site levelling operation shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved method statement.
Reason: To ensure that the approved development will take place in a safe way and in a manner that will minimise disruption during construction, in accordance with Policy T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.
Condition : No development (other than the filling / site levelling operation) shall take place until details of how the development will be constructed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall include details on access arrangements, turning / manoeuvring facilities, deliveries, vehicle routing, traffic management, signage, hoardings, scaffolding, where materials will be loaded, unloaded and stored, parking arrangements and mud prevention measures. Development of the site shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved method statement.
Reason: To ensure that the approved development is constructed in a safe way and in a manner that will minimise disruption during construction, in accordance with Policy T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.
Condition : No development shall take place until full details of how the area to be retained within the site to allow for the possible future construction of a tram / train link, as indicated on drawing 12 Rev P9, will be filled, levelled, laid out and landscaped, together with details of boundary treatments and details of how it will be managed and maintained has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The area shall then be filled, levelled, laid out and landscaped and boundary treatments provided in accordance with the approved details. The area shall then be retained in this way and managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details at all times thereafter (unless it is required to enable construction of the tram / train link).
Reason: To ensure that sufficient land is retained within the site to enable the future construction of a tram / train link, in accordance with Policy T-4 'Protecting Disused Rail Alignments" of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD and that the land is laid out and managed in a suitable manner until such time as a tram / train link is constructed, in accordance with Policy SIE-1 'Quality Places' of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.
Condition : No development shall take place until detail drawings of the junction that will serve the approved development and associated amendments to Stockport Road East have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with an associated Stage 2 Road Safety Audit and Designer's Response / Exemption Report. The works, which shall be based on the layout indicated on drawing J578/Access/Fig1 Rev A and 12 Rev P9, shall include: 1) A bellmouth access and associated uncontrolled pedestrian crossing 2) The widening of the carriageway so as to form a ghost island right-turn lane 3) The provision of pedestrian refuge crossing on Stockport Road East 4) The provision of a 2m wide footway across the site frontage (with associated taper to the front of 188 Stockport Road East) 5) The widening of the footway to the north side of Stockport Road East under the railway bridge, formed by building out into the carriageway (unless the requirement to divert services make this not possible) 6) Required / associated works / amendments to "Romiley Curve Bridge", including removal of the existing northern parapet wall and provision of a replacement highway boundary 7) Full-width carriageway resurfacing for the extent of the works 8) Associated drainage, street lighting, signage and carriageway markings Drawings to be submitted shall include: (i) A general arrangement / layout, based on a topographical survey and to a scale not less than 1:500, showing the existing and proposed roads, all pedestrian facilities and visibility splays, together with existing and proposed levels; (ii) Typical highway cross-sections, showing a specification for each type of carriageway and footway; (iii) Full details of the surface water drainage proposals; (iv) Details of all proposed street lighting, signage, markings, structures and street furniture. The approved filling operation shall not commence and no part of the development shall be occupied (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) until the junction and associated highway works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and the junction is available for use.
Reason: To ensure that the development will have an appropriately designed junction so that it can be safely accessed by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by the ‘Sustainable Transport’ and ‘Transport and Highways in Residential Areas’ SPDs.
Condition : No development shall take place (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) until detail drawings of all highways, footways and footpaths within the approved development, which shall include the following details, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority :- (v) A general arrangement / layout, based on a topographical survey and to a scale not less than 1:500, showing all carriageways, footways, footpaths, verges and visibility splays; (vi) A general site layout, showing the proposed buildings and boundaries, together with existing and proposed levels; (vii) Longitudinal sections along the centre line and channel lines of each proposed road, showing the existing ground level and proposed road / path level; (viii) Typical highway cross-sections, showing a specification for each type of carriageway, footway and footpath; (ix) Full details of the surface water drainage proposals (including details of the main drainage system and any sustainable urban drainage or attenuation systems); (x) Details of traffic calming features (including ramps, rumble strips and build-outs) (xi) Details of all proposed street lighting, signage, markings, structures and street furniture. No part of the development shall be occupied (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) until the highways, footways and footpaths have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and are available for use. Any visibility splays formed shall thereafter be kept clear of any structure, object, plant or tree exceeding the height specified on the approved drawings.
Reason: To ensure that the development will have an appropriately designed highway layout so that it can be safely accessed by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’, T-1 Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by the ‘Sustainable Transport’ and ‘Transport and Highways in Residential Areas’ SPDs.
Condition : No development shall take place until a detailed drawing/s outlining the access arrangements for each plot within the site (which shall include details of pedestrian and vehicular visibility splays to be provided at each vehicular access), has/have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Each plot shall not be occupied until the access/s for that plot has/have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. No structure, object, plant or tree exceeding 600mm in height shall subsequently be erected or allowed to grow to a height in excess of 600mm within the pedestrian visibility splays. No structure, object, plant or tree exceeding 1000mm in height shall subsequently be erected or allowed to grow to a height in excess of 1000mm within the vehicular visibility splays.
Reason: In order that each plot within the site will benefit from safe and practical access arrangements in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.
Condition : Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no gate or other means of obstruction shall be erected across the site access road/s or any vehicular access that will serve any plot within the approved development at any time.
Reason: In order to ensure that vehicles can enter and exit each plot within the site unhindered so that they are not required to stop of the highway and therefore be a threat to highway safety and / or affect the free-flow of traffic in terms of Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, CS9 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.
Condition : No development shall take place until a detailed drawing of the car parking facilities to be provided within and for the approved development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with details of how the car parking spaces will be allocated (which shall include allocation of the two visitor spaces adjacent to Plots 1-12 to occupiers of existing dwellings on Stockport Road East) and a timetable for when the visitor car parking spaces will be available for use. Details shall include how the car parking facilities will be surfaced, drained, marked out, signed and illuminated. Each dwelling within the approved development shall not be occupied until the car parking facilities for that dwelling have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings and are available for use. The visitor parking spaces shall be made available for use in accordance with the approved timetable. The car parking facilities shall thereafter be retained and shall remain available for use to those which they are allocated to.
Reason: To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided and that they are appropriately located and are of a safe and practical design, in accordance with Policies SD-6 ‘Adapting to the impacts of climate change’, SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’, T-1 Transport and Development’, T-2 ‘Parking in Developments’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by Chapter 10, ‘Parking’, of the SMBC ‘Sustainable Transport’ SPD.
Condition : No development shall take place until details of proposals to provide: 1) long-stay cycle parking facilities for each of the approved dwellings (which shall be in the form of a covered and secure cycle store that will accommodate a minimum of one cycle for each dwelling) 2) Short stay cycle parking facilities (a minimum of 1 Sheffield stand, or similar) close to the front door of the approved apartments (Plots 1-12) and at both the Local Areas of Play have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Each dwelling within the approved development shall not be occupied until the cycle parking facilities for that dwelling have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The local areas of play shall not be brought into use until the cycle parking facilities within these areas have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The cycle parking facilities shall then be retained and shall remain available for use at all times thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that safe and practical cycle parking facilities are provided so as to ensure that the site is fully accessible by all modes of transport in accordance with Policies CS9 ‘Transport and Development’, T-1 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD and the cycle parking facilities are appropriately designed and located in accordance with Policies SIE-1 ‘Quality Places’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by paragraph 5.6, ‘Cycle Parking’, of the SMBC Transport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD.
Condition : The development shall not be occupied until a travel plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and has been brought into operation. The approved travel plan shall be operated at all times that the development is occupied and shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis in accordance with details that shall be outlined in the approved plan. The travel plan and all updates shall be produced in accordance with current national, regional and local best practice guidance and shall include details on the method of operation, appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator/s, targets, infrastructure to be provided, measures that will be implemented, monitoring and review mechanisms, procedures for any remedial action that may be required and a timetable for implementing each element of the plan.
Reason: To ensure that measures are implemented that will enable and encourage the use of alternative forms of transport to access the site, other than the private car, in accordance with Policies CS9 ‘Transport and Development’, T-1 ‘Transport and Development’ and T-3 ‘Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network’ of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, supported by Chapter 4 ‘Travel Plans’ of the SMBC Sustainable Transport SPD.
• Informatives
In addition to planning permission, the applicant / developer will need to enter into a Section 38 Agreement, under the Highways Act 1980, with respect to the construction and adoption of the approved highway/s and/or junction/s. The Agreement will need to be in place prior to the commencement of any works. The applicant / developer should contact the Highways Section of Planning Services (0161 474 4905/6) with respect to this matter.
In addition to planning permission, the applicant / developer will need to enter into a Section 278 Agreement, under the Highways Act 1980, with respect to the approved highways works. The Agreement will need to be in place prior to the commencement of any works. The applicant / developer should contact the Highways Section of Planning Services (0161 474 4905/6) with respect to this matter.
The applicant's / developer’s attention is drawn to the fact it is an offence (under Sections 131, 148 and 149 of the Highways Act 1980) to allow materials to be carried from a site and deposited on, or damage, the highway, from uncleaned or badly loaded vehicles. The applicant / developer should therefore ensure that adequate measures are implemented to ensure that this does not take place. The Highway Authority (Stockport Council) may seek to recover any expense incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and may prosecute persistent offenders.
A condition / obligation of this planning approval requires the submission and approval by the Council of a Travel Plan prior to occupation of the approved development. Adequate time needs to be available to enable the Council to examine the Travel Plan and for any required amendments to the Travel Plan to be made. It is therefore advised that the Travel Plan is submitted to the Council three months before the development is proposed to be occupied and at that time, the proposed date of occupation provided. For further information, the applicant / developer should contact the Highways Section of Planning Services (0161 474 4905/6).
Transport for Greater Manchester
We have reviewed the development proposals and confirm that TfGM have no comments on this planning application.
Arboricultural Officer
The proposed development site is located within the grounds of the former railway cutting and informal grounds of the site predominantly on the existing semi-hard standing. The plot is comprised largely of informal grounds and existing railway infrastructure plot.
There is no Conservation area protection within this site or affected by this development.
There are no legally protected trees within this site or affected by this development.
There were no signs of any invasive species during the site inspection therefore no control measures are required.
The development of the site predominantly sits within the existing disused railway siding and informal grounds of the site and the proposed new developments will potentially have an impact on trees on site with a very high percentage shown as being removed throughout the site. A full tree survey has not been supplied as part of the planning application to show the condition and amenity levels of the existing trees and where applicable which trees could be retained to increase the amenity levels of the site with retained mature trees, which is a requirement for all planning applications, therefore all comments are based on officer assessment.
The proposed development will potentially majorly impact on the trees on site with most of the trees needed to be removed to facilitate the proposed designs as well as at the rear of the site for the future tramway, which has to be considered at this point of the development as well as construction traffic entering site, for this reason a full tree survey would need to show the arboriculture impact and mitigation details. The proposed site layout plan/landscaping scheme indicatively shows basic information/details on how they intend to off-set the tree loss to improve biodiversity, aesthetics and general screening of the site, but a detailed landscaping plan will need to be submitted and approved. The development will need to supply protective fencing and advisory notices to prevent any damage, accidental spillage or compaction on the trees and their root systems of those trees they intend to retain, unfortunately without the tree survey this is not clear.
There is a requirement for the tree planting to be improved as part of the scheme to be detailed within a landscaping plan and this should include a level of biodiversity and fruit species to improve access to free fruit as well as an interest in the species proposed and where possible location should consider shading opportunities for children when outdoors to reduce over exposure and provide screening in the ever increasing urban area. The formal landscaping design needs to further enhance the proposed layout plan to increase tree cover in the site as well as giving an identity to the new development with appropriate tree species such as fastigiated oak trees making a focal feature of the new estate, with the use of hard landscaping tree pit designs to further enhance the site and increase tree cover though-out the scheme.
In principle the design will have a negative impact on the trees on site and within neighbouring properties, therefore it can only be accepted in an arboriculture aspect with increased tree planting on the boundaries of the site in line with their statement in the ecology report “Planting: This will need to comprise native species, optimally of local provenance and complementary to the species and habitats that are already present in the surrounding area. For example, tree and shrub planting should include Pedunculate oak, Silver birch, Rowan, Holly and Hawthorn as key components, whilst there should possibly also be Gorse and Heather if the soil is suitably low in pH. New shrubs and trees should be planted in mixed-species clusters, which provide greater value than single-species planting”, in addition some fruit species should be considered for biodiversity improvement and access for all too free fruit.
A method statement detailing the temporary construction storage areas for all materials is required to show the consideration of the impact these may have on the existing trees through delivering to site and potential leakage.
The landscaping plan showing the planting will need to improve the level of trees screening the development and future tramway as well as utilising all opportunities for new trees on site with appropriate species and locations throughout the site for biodiversity improvements.
The root protection plan will need to be conditioned and implemented prior to works commencing on site.
The following conditions would be relevant to any planning application relating to the site;
Condition Tree 1
• No existing tree within the site shall be cut down, topped, lopped, uprooted, willfully damaged or willfully destroyed without the prior written approval of the local planning authority, with the exception of those indicated otherwise on the approved plan. Any hedgerows, woody plants or shrubbery removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or being seriously diseased, within 5 years of the development commencing, shall be replaced within the next planting season with trees of such size and species as may be approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Condition Tree 2
• No development shall take place until all existing trees on the site except those shown to be removed on the approved plans, have been fenced off in accordance with BS 5837:2012 "Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations". The fencing shall be retained during the period of construction and no work, excavation, tipping or stacking of materials shall take place within any such fence during the construction period.
Condition Tree 3
• No development shall take place until details of all proposed tree planting, including the intended dates of planting, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into use.
Nature Development Officer
The site is located off Stockport Road East, in Bredbury. Proposals are for a residential development comprising 48 houses and 12 apartments with associated access road, parking and landscaping.
The site itself has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise. The land to the south of Stockport Road East is designated as Green Chain. Although the area of land within the application area is not designated, it provides a link between the Green Chain habitat to the southeast and habitats to the north of the site.
Ecology surveys have been carried out and submitted with the application. The surveys were undertaken by a suitably experienced ecologist. An extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was carried out between March – May 2015 which involved mapping habitats on site and searching for evidence of and assessing the potential for protected species to be present.
Many structures and trees have the potential to support roosting bats. All species of bats and their roosts are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The latter implements the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Bats are included in Schedule 2 of the Regulations as ‘European Protected Species of animals’ (EPS). Under the Regulations it is an offence to :-
1) Deliberately capture or kill a wild EPS 2) Deliberately disturb a wild EPS in such a way that significantly affects: a) The ability of a significant group to survive, breed, rear or nurture young. b) The local distribution of that species. 3) Damage or destroy a breeding place or resting site of such an animal.
The railway arches and the road bridge within the site were inspected for evidence of roosting bats. No evidence indicative of bat presence was recorded; however suitable roosting features were identified. Three dusk and dawn bat activity surveys were carried out during July 2015 – no evidence of roosting bats was recorded.
The trees within the application area were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. No suitable roosting features were observed. The habitats on the site are considered to offer opportunities for foraging bats, however the results of the bat activity surveys indicate limited use of the site by bats as a foraging resource. It should be noted however that the bat activity surveys were confined to July only, rather than spreading out the surveys across the bat survey season (May-September) as per best practice guidance.
The trees and vegetation on site offer suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds. All breeding birds and their nests receive protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
The site offers suitable habitat for badger. Badgers and their setts receive legal protection under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. No evidence indicative of badger presence was recorded within the application area.
No evidence of invasive species – such as Japanese knotweed or Himalayan balsam was recorded during the surveys.
I do not require any further information relating to bats. However, I would recommend that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential for protected species to be present on site. It should also include information stating that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to abide by the laws which are in place to protect biodiversity. Should at any time bats, or any other protected species be discovered on site, work should cease immediately and Natural England/licensed ecologist should be contacted.
No works tree/vegetation clearance or pruning works should be undertaken in the bird nesting season (March – August inclusive) unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA.
A landscape strategy (detailing planting schedule and future maintenance) should be submitted to the LPA for approval. Information submitted with the current application indicates that the land to the northeast (part of which is currently reserved for potential future metrolink development) will be planted up with native species. Careful design of proposed landscape planting in this area is crucial to maintain its functionality as a wildlife corridor and ensure the development is not contrary to local planning policy (e.g. SIE-3 paragraph 3.364 of the LDF and NE3.1 of the retained UDP).
It is recommended that biodiversity enhancements are incorporated into the scheme design in accordance with national and local planning policy. This could include for example the creation of habitat areas beneficial to wildlife (for example native species rich hedgerows, wildflower grasslands) and provision of bat roosting and bird nesting facilities in the new buildings. In this respect, the recommendations in the ecological appraisal report (section 4.2) should be secured by condition.
Environment Team (Land)
I write with regard to the above mentioned application for the proposed filling of railway cutting with inert material and construct 60 dwellings. I would like to make the following comments to be included on any decision made upon this application :-
Please note that these conditions should be applied as a phased approach, depending upon the outcome of each subsequent condition i.e if the investigation carried out to satisfy CTM1 recommends further works then CTM2 should then be applied etc.
• CTM 1 • CTM 2 • CTM 3 • CTM 4 • Con 1 Informative • LFG 1 • LFG 3
CTM1
No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment into contamination at the site, in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing by the local planning authority, has been carried out. The investigation and risk assessment shall include recommendations for remedial action and the development shall not be occupied until these recommendations have been implemented.
The report submitted with the application has identified potentially unacceptable risks from contamination and further investigation is required to ensure that these risks to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
CTM2
No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the specified use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme to be submitted shall specify but not be limited to :-
(i) the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria
(ii) all remedial works to be undertaken including the quantities of materials to be removed from and imported to the development site.
(iii) the proposals for sourcing and testing all materials imported to the site including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and actual and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment in accordance with the document "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination" (CLR11)).
Reason
To ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
CTM3
The development shall not be occupied until the approved remediation scheme required to be submitted by Condition [XXXX] has been carried out. Within [XXXX] months of completion of remediation measures, a validation report assessing the effectiveness of the remediation carried shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall specify any further remediation measures necessary and indicate how and when these measures will be undertaken.
Reason
To ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
CTM 4
No materials shall be imported to the site to form the landscaped or areas of open space until a methodology for the testing and validation of materials to ensure they are suitable for use is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement should be completed by competent, appropriately knowledgeable, qualified, trained and experienced person(s).
The methodology statement to be submitted shall specify but not be limited to:-
(i) Quantities of materials to be removed from and imported to the development site.
(iii) the proposals for sourcing and testing all materials imported to the site including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and actual and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment in accordance with the document "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination" (CLR11)).
(iii) Validation method to verify the volume and location of imported material used in landscaped areas.
Reason
To ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in order to comply with Policy SIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.
CON1 INFORMATIVE
Any investigation or risk assessment which seeks to establish the presence or otherwise of contamination on or close to the site of a proposed development should be carried out in accordance with current legislation and guidance.
LFG1
No development shall take place until (i) a method statement for the carrying out of an investigation and assessment of the potential for landfill gas being present on the land has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and (ii) the investigation and assessment has been carried out in accordance with the approved method statement and (iii) a written report of the investigation and a copy of the assessment has been submitted to the local planning authority. All precautionary and remedial measures (whether relating to excavation and other site works, building development and construction, gas control measures or otherwise) recommended or suggested by the report and assessment shall be taken or carried out in the course of the development unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.
LFG3
No part of the development shall be occupied until all works necessary to prevent landfill gas migration into the development have been approved in writing by the local planning authority and carried out in full.
Reason
The adjoining land may contain landfill gas and it may be necessary to undertake remedial measures in order to comply with Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.
Any works to be carried out must be undertaken in line with CIRIA 665
Environment Team (Air)
Comments of 24/11/15
I have assessed the above application and my objections to the development are below;
The Noise Policy for England which identifies the Government policy on noise, has a classification system. If I was to classify this area, I would classify it as, Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL), this is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur. So when residential houses need to have sealed windows and mechanical ventilation to prevent sleep disturbance, how can this promote health and wellbeing for future residents.
In the pre application advice I did identify that there was an odour problem in the area, due to the nearness of a number of waste management sites across the railway line approximately 200-250 meters away from the proposed residential properties. I have assessed the associated documentation supplied with the application and I cannot find any details regarding how the development is going to protect future residents from odour. We have had approx. 7 complaints made to us since April, regarding odour from a number of residents regarding a number of businesses in the surrounding area. We are not the enforcing authority therefore there may be more complaints made to other agencies that we don’t know about.
Odour will be more apparent in the summer months due to the heat therefore the businesses will produce more odour. This will have an effect upon householders using their gardens, outside space and recreational play areas.
As an authority we do not have any enforcement powers over the above businesses with regard to odour and noise as they are permitted by the environment agency, therefore any complaints made from proposed residents will have to be investigated by the EA as we are unable to investigate under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Although there has been a noise report supplied with the development noise levels were taken on Thursday 2 July, and during the night of Thursday 9/ Friday 10 July 2015. I have assessed the noise report and find its mitigation measures a little extreme, the report is proposing to have a number of properties with sealed bedroom windows so residents are unable to open windows to prevent sleep disturbance from the train tracks behind properties. Ventilation is to be provide by mechanical methods, there will need to be an air intake supply potentially drawing the odour into the properties. What provision would be in place to prevent future sale of the houses and the removal of mitigation measures.
There are a number of sites that used the railway line to the rear of the properties for freight that will cause nigh time noise;
The aggregate company has 2 and sometimes 3 trains per week it arrives at around 6pm and will be off loaded usually completed by 09.30 but can sometimes go on till 00.00. There are no set days but usually Monday &Friday or Monday & Wednesday and uses the Manchester to Marple line.
Viridor waste treatment site can have up to 5 trains per week which go out at 09.16 and return at 22.30 to be filled overnight and then sent out again. When the train arrives on a Friday it will then be filled over the weekend and go out again on the Monday.
In light of the above, if this development was to proceeded any further then there should be a further assessment of noise produced by the freight line and the noise from loading and unloading would need to be thoroughly assessed.
There is also reference for a future tram station and lines that will travel past the proposed properties introducing another noise source.
Comments of 11/01/15
Internal noise levels are in line with BS8233:2014 and can be met although 23% of the proposed properties will have to have a sealed bedroom window and mechanical ventilation, otherwise night-time noise levels would not be met. This in effect will mean that the future residents will have to live in a sealed box to mitigate external noise levels. In most circumstances this would be seen as extreme mitigation and not normally acceptable.
Although future development cannot be taken into account, the noise report submitted by the applicant identified that land was to be saved for Metro link. It is therefore prudent to highlight that this may be an extra noise source that is likely to be introduced to the area, thereby increasing background noise levels making the proposed mitigation measures inadequate.
With regard to odours the report states that wind direction is from south to the west and ‘Consequently for the majority of the time the proposed development site would be upwind of these businesses with any odour being blown away’ and the consultant advises that ‘My view is the site is at low risk of odour from the waste firms as it is usually upwind of those sites and that if the odour situation is considered to be unacceptable the enforcing authorities should be taking more robust action in the enforcement of licenses conditions to further reduce the risk of odour emission’. The properties with mechanical ventilation will be able to keep their windows closed should any odour move from its westerly direction.
Due to the nature of the businesses in this area we have to expect some odour from the process as no odour abatement equipment will work 100%. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 we will have to take into account the use and locality of the area and accept that there will be some odour. In the Greater Manchester waste strategy, this area is identified for future waste management sites.
Although the consultant says robust enforcement should be carried out if there is an odour problem affecting future residents, the purpose of planning is to take the impact of existing development on future uses. It would not be appropriate to grant planning permission for something that would lead to enforcement against a third party at a later date. Additionally there are a number of businesses in the area that may produce odour which may lead to a combined effect making it difficult to take enforcement action. There is also the risk that the proposed development may blight existing businesses who are currently able to operate without enforcement being taken against them.
Stockport Council’s Environmental health have limited powers to deal with businesses in this area as the enforcement powers for waste management sites are held by the Environment Agency.
Any properties that are to be sold, at a minimum buyers should be made aware of the mitigation measures fitted to the property, why it is required and the importance of replacing like for like.
Environment Agency
We have no objection in principle the proposed development, but would wish to make the following comments.
Environment Agency Position
We have reviewed the submission of a Phase 1 (desk study) site appraisal for the proposed in filling and subsequent redevelopment of the Bredbury Curve railway land off Stockport Road, East, Bredbury by GRM Ltd dated July 2015.
The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels water pollution. Paragraph 120 states that local policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location, having regard to the effects of pollution on health or the natural environment, taking account of the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution.
Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
Whilst the current condition of the land may not pose an excessive risk to controlled waters the proposed infilling of the railway cutting may increase the possible risks to an unacceptable level.
The following conditions should be included in the decision notice in order that the final development meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework Guidance document.
Condition
No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1. A site investigation scheme, based on the information which has already been submitted in the desk study report, to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 2. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 3. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Condition
No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
Condition
Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Advice to applicant
Model Procedures and good practice
Due to the former land use(s), soil and /or groundwater contamination may exist at the site and the associated risks to controlled waters should be addressed by:
1. Following the risk management framework provide in CLR11, Model procedures for the management of land contamination
2. Referring to the Environment Agency guiding principles for land contamination and the land contamination sections in the Environment Agency’s Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice
3. Further information may be found on the land contamination technical guidance pages on the direct.gov website
All investigations of land potentially affected by contamination should be carried out by or under the direction of a suitably qualified competent person and in accordance with BS 10175 (2001) Code of practice for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites. The competent person would normally be expected to be chartered member of an appropriate body (such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geological Society of London, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Institution of Environmental Management) and also have relevant experience of investigating contaminated sites. The Specialist in Land Condition (SilC) qualification administered by the Institution of Environmental Management provides an accredited status for those responsible for signing off LCR’s.
Where the remediation / redevelopment of the site will involve waste management issues we offer the following advice:
Waste on site
The CLAIRE definition of waste: development code of practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and /or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste.
Under the Code of practice: • Excavated materials that are recovered via a treatment operation can be re-used on site providing they are treated to a standard such they are fit for purpose and unlikely to cause pollution • Treated materials can be transferred between sites as part of a “hub and cluster” project • Some naturally occurring clean material can be directly transferred between sites.
Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically and that the permitting status off any proposed operations are clear. If in doubt the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.
Waste to be taken off site
Contaminated soil that is, or must be, disposed of is waste. Therefore it’s handling, transport and disposal is subject to waste management legislation which includes: • Duty of Care Regulations 1991 • Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 • Environmental permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 • The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011
Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically in line with British Standard BS EN 14899:2005 “characterisation of waste” – sampling of waste materials – framework for the preparation and application of a sampling plan” and the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear.
If the total quantity of waste material to be produced or taken off site is hazardous waste and is 500kg or greater in any 12 month period the developer will need to register with us as a hazardous waste producer.
If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably permitted facility.
The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.
Excavated material arising from site remediation or land development works can sometimes be classified as waste. For further guidance on how waste is classified, and best practice for it's handling, transport, treatment and disposal please see our waste pages.
This development will require an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 from the Environment Agency, unless a waste exemption applies. The applicant is advised to contact to discuss the issues likely to be raised or refer to guidance on our website You should be aware that any permit may not be granted. Additional ‘Environmental Permitting Guidance’ can be accessed via the government website.
Conservation Officer
I have no objections to this development from a conservation point of view, as it is not within a conservation area and does not affect a listed or locally listed building. However, the proposed development will run across a roman road so will need a consultation from GMAAS.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service
There is a record relating to the 'putative' alignment of the Roman road between Stockport and Melandra Roman fort (Glossop). There is some archaeological evidence to support the proposed alignment, but not in the immediate vicinity. Besides, the construction of the railways and their cuttings means that very little pre-nineteenth century ground will survive within the site boundary. On balance I feel it most unlikely any evidence for the Roman road will survive. On this basis GMAAS feel that there is no reason to seek to impose any planning requirement upon the applicant.
Drainage Engineer
Comments of 17/11/15
We have assessed the documents and plans submitted with the above application for full planning permission and have the following comments :-
• Though the developer has provided a Drainage Strategy document as the site is approximately 2 Ha in area a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is a planning requirement. Developer requested to provide said document for assessment. • A detailed drainage plan has not been submitted and shall be required for assessment. • It is noted that the principal engineering feature of the site involves raising the existing site levels within the cutting by a typical depth of 7 – 8m to reinstate site levels to those previously existing and matching site levels either side of the cutting. It is proposed this be carried out by placing, spreading and compaction of inert graded granular fill. The designer(s) intend to use this infill depth for a SuDS infiltration to soakaway for surface water to ground. • It should be noted however, the site is presently a disused former railway cutting and the topographical survey plan indicates the site falls approx. 4m in 260m length of original track. i.e. a fall of 1 in 65. This falls toward a Network Rail track and land in a cutting to the north west corner end of the site. The current track bed and any existing drainage conduits associated with the old track will likely drain towards that end of the site into Network Rail land and/or drainage system. Though in principal the LLFA would prefer a soakaway solution for this site the developer and his designer(s) need to consider the 3rd party Network Rail land when designing any soakaway drainage proposal. It is important the below ground migration of rainwater infiltration will not end up in the top corner of the site, behind the retaining wall following the natural fall of the old track, and possibly ending up on Network Rail land seeping into the railway cutting. Network Rail are unlikely to accept this situation. • It should also be noted that any infiltration testing to verify the viability of a soakaway solution is not proposed be carried out until after the cutting has been infilled. The existing cutting however is likely to need proving by infiltration testing in its own right. Whatever seeps into the new fill needs an exit route. The effects of soakaway on piling will also need considering. • Should the infiltration tests prove a soakaway solution is not possible then the designer(s) will have to design a storage/attenuation surface water drainage SuDS proposal and peak flow from the site will be restricted to Qbar Greenfield equivalent run-off flow and discharge to UU SW sewer in Stockport Road East as there is a well-established SW network in this area. The connection to public SW sewer would require UU approval. Copies of any agreements with UU on all matters will be required together with full supporting calculations and drainage plan for assessment. • Both these surface water strategies need to be covered in the above mentioned FRA and included as conditions for SW drainage should planning be granted in advance of a detailed drainage design for assessment and comment. • Though not within the LLFA remit it should be noted that UU sewer records show a 375 VC and 850 CO combined sewers that dog-leg across the site at the bridge and site proposed entrance off Stockport Road East. The UU sewer records suggest the 850mm concrete pipe has approx. 1.5m cover with the 375 clay pipe skew crossing directly beneath this. If the site is filled to a depth of 7 – 8m these pipes will be buried approx. 8 – 9m deep. UU will have to give approval to this and likely would require protection measures of the assets or relaying and at least a 10m wide easement. Copies of any agreements with UU will be required. • Again though not within the remit of the LLFA the indicated retaining wall to the boundary with Network Rail land will require a party wall agreement with Network Rail. Copies of any agreements with Network Rail will be required along with their agreement to the site draining by soakaways. • Multi Red Brick driveways are indicated on plan 411172/12/P3 and these should be permeable and laid on permeable sub base materials, either soakaway or to be collected by the SW system. • In the Drainage Strategy document the designer(s) have indicated the new highway could be drained to soakaway. This is for SMBC Highways to comment on however the LLFA should be advised on any decision regards this to assess when detailed drainage plans have been submitted for assessment. • Contamination potential of the existing banks and track bed of the cutting should be considered if soakaway option is to be progressed and the EA may seek to comment on this separately.
Comments of 11/01/16
We have reviewed the Carley Daines & Partners FRA document dated 10th December 2015 with appendixes submitted by TAWD Architects.
The designer(S) and applicant would appear to have taken on board our original LLFA consultative comments but we have the following comments/observations regards the latest submission for review :-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (see also 5.7)
Proposed Surface Water Drainage Strategy - quote “It is proposed to drain the new highway, parking, and other hardstanding areas by permeable paving, again to replicate the existing drainage regime”. Whilst the LLFA would require the parking and other hardstanding areas to be permeable paving it is unlikely SMBC Highways will accept such a drainage principle for any the new adoptable highway within the development site. This proposal is outside the remit of the LLFA and will require SMBC Highways to review and comment on. Should permeable paving for the highway not be acceptable then the designer(s) will have to submit a new drainage strategy proposal and construction detail for the main highway.
SECTION 1.0 INSTRUCTIONS
Paragraph 1.3 - regardless the statement the FRA has been produced following a request by SMBC LLFA the applicant should be made aware this was not a LLFA request but the said document is a planning requirement since the development site is greater than 1Ha in area. This document should have been included with the original planning application submissions for consideration of full planning permission.
SECTION 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 (see also 5.8). What is the designers intention for the allowance and provision of differential settlement of the below ground drainage pipes and soakage areas with the raised and compacted landfill ground being a typical depth of 5-8m?
SECTION 5.0 PREVIOUS REPORT
Paragraph 5.6 – quote “It is anticipated that each individual property will have its own small soakaway in the back garden, at least 5m from the property and that this would provide soakaway storage capacity for roof drainage”. The basis for all the soakaway designs should be to BRE365 without base infiltration. The Drainage Strategy Plan in Appendix 2 shows individual property soakaways for most of the individual plots, but does not show soakaways to plots 57 – 60 inclusive. It also indicates two larger, shared ownership soakaways, one serving plots 1 – 12 and the other serving plots 13 – 16 and 17 – 31 (odd numbers). This prompts the following questions:
• What is the designers intention to provide SW drainage for plots 57 – 60 at the end of the spine road adjacent the new retaining party wall with Network Rail land and still maintain the indicated 20m soakaway exclusion zone adjacent to Network Rail land? • It is accepted that the individual plot soakaways will have transferred ownership and responsibility to the home owner for the continued maintenance and functioning of these soakaways. However, what is the proposal for the two large shared ownership soakaways? The designers are to provide a Maintenance Plan for these two soakaway proposals.
Paragraph 5.7 – Notwithstanding the designers belief that permeable paving would be a more suitable option for the highway drainage this is for SMBC Highways to comment on and accept or not. Please refer to comments for EXECUTIVE SUMMARY above. This proposal is outside the remit of the LLFA and will require SMBC Highways to review and comment on.
Paragraph 5.8 – Should infiltration to soakaway not prove, possible post site testing and likely post planning decision, then a conventional gravity drainage proposal with attenuation and pass forward flow control devise proposal to limit discharge into the UU 375mm SW sewer in Stockport Road East would be considered. The LLFA would accept such a proposal and site run-off to sewer would be restricted to a Qbar Greenfield run-off of 14 l/s and be subject to UU approval. The LLFA would require a detailed design with full hydraulic model supporting calculations for assessment.
SECTION 7.0 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY
Paragraph 7.1. – Infiltration to soakaway would be the preferred LLFA SuDS solution for this site.
Paragraph 7.2 – The FRA statement is accepted and is a design risk by the developer and their designer(s). It is anticipated the Network Rail would be a planning consultee for this application and they may have some input comment/design requirement to protect their adjacent assets.
Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 – Refers to individual soakaways for each property. Please refer to LLFA comment SECTION 5.0 (a) and (b) above.
Paragraph 7.7 - The FRA statement is noted and again is at the designer(s) risk. The LLFA have no further comment.
Paragraph 7.8 – The Foul water outfall pipe to public sewer would appear to connect to the wrong UU sewer in Stockport Road East. It is shown discharging into the 750mm concrete Combined sewer. The FRA states the intended connection is to the 375mm Combined sewer. Can the designers please provide a updated drainage strategy plan and also addressing the issues noted above.
SECTION 8.7 FLOODING FROM LAND
The EA maps for Surface Water Flooding show the line of the existing rail track to be at medium risk to flooding with the bottom corner of the cutting (Western end) to be at high risk. Migration of infiltration flow post development and post landfill will likely to remain the same. Again this is designers risk assessment and the LLFA have no further comment.
SECTION 8.9 FLOODING FROM SEWERS
Though sewer records have been obtained from UU no correspondence with has been provided regarding local flooding from sewers. The designers/developer will require to correspond with UU regards the drainage proposal.
FOUL DRAINAGE
Though outside the remit of the LLFA, it is noted that some of the proposed foul drainage manholes are in excess of 7m deep. It should be noted that any manhole chamber that is >than 6m deep to invert may require an intermediate landing/staging and permanent access ladder and it is recommended the designers consult with UU regards the design of the Foul drainage if this is to be put up for adoption with UU.
Notwithstanding the above comments, the LLFA have no objection in principle to this application being granted full planning permission and believe the outstanding issues can be resolved with suitably worded Conditions should we run out of time before this goes to Committee for a planning decision.
Network Rail
Comments of 03/12/15
RAMS
Network Rail requests that the developer submit a risk assessment and method statement (RAMS) for the proposal to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer once the proposal has entered the development and construction phase. The RAMS should consider all works to be undertaken within 10m of the operational railway. We require reviewing the RAMS to ensure that works on site follow safe methods of working and have taken into consideration any potential impact on Network Rail land and the operational railway. The developer should contact Network Rail Asset Protection prior to works commencing at [email protected] to discuss the proposal and RAMS requirements in more detail.
Fencing
It is noted that a 1500mm welded mesh fence is proposed for our boundary. If not already in place Network Rail would recommend that the developer provide, at their own expense, a suitable trespass proof steel palisade fence of at least 1.8m in height adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary and make provision for its future maintenance and renewal without encroachment upon or over-sailing of Network Rail land. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged and at no point either during construction or after works are completed on site should the foundations of the fencing or wall or any embankment therein be damaged, undermined or compromised in any way. Any vegetation on Network Rail land and within Network Rail’s boundary must not be disturbed. Any fencing installed by the applicant must not prevent Network Rail from maintaining its own fencing/boundary treatment.
Any existing Network Rail fencing at the site has been erected to take account of the risk posed at the time the fencing was erected and not to take into account any presumed future use of the site, where increased numbers of people and minors may be using the areas adjacent to the operational railway. Therefore, any proposed residential development imports a risk of trespass onto the railway, which we would remind the council, is a criminal offence (s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949). As the applicant has chosen to develop a proposal next to the railway, they are requested to provide a suitable trespass proof fence to mitigate any risks imported by the proposal.
Network Rail is a publicly funded organisation and it would not be reasonable to require Network Rail to fund boundary works, fencing and boundary enhancements necessitated by third party commercial development adjacent to the railway.
Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer will need to review the fencing to ensure that no works to the foundations undermine or destabilise Network Rail land, or encroach onto Network Rail land.
The applicant is reminded that any works close to the Network Rail boundary, and any excavation works are also covered by the Party Wall Act of 1996. Should any foundations, any excavations or any part of the building encroachment onto Network Rail land then the applicant would need to serve notice on Network Rail and they would be liable for costs. An applicant cannot access Network Rail land without permission (via the Asset Protection Team) and in addition to any costs under the Party Wall Act, the applicant would also be liable for all Network Rail site supervision costs whilst works are undertaken. No works in these circumstances are to commence without the agreement of the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer.
We would request a condition is included in the planning consent as follows :-
“Prior to occupation of the dwellings the developer is to provide a suitable trespass proof fence adjacent to the boundary with the railway.”
Reason: To protect the adjacent railway from unauthorised access
Should the council obviate Network Rail’s request for a trespass proof fence and decide that an acoustic fence is more suitable then we would have the following comments.
Acoustic fencing / close boarded fencing that is proposed to be installed along the boundary with Network Rail is a cause for concern. Therefore the acoustic fence and its foundation design would be subject to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer review. Any acoustic fencing should be set back from the boundary with Network Rail by 1m.
Over the height of 1.8m, Network Rail would have to consider the impacts of wind loading on the fence. There is the potential for the fence to topple over and fall onto or towards the operational railway and damage Network Rail’s existing boundary treatments, safety critical lineside equipment as well as the issue of falling into the path of trains using the line. De- stabilisation of land, soil slippage and railway fencing foundations being undermined should also be considered as potential areas impacted by a high acoustic fence. We also request a 1m stand off to ensure that the supports for the acoustic fence do not encroach onto Network Rail land or impact upon the railway.
We would request a condition is included in the planning consent as follows:
“Prior to the commencement of the development, acoustic fencing mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and Network Rail.”
Reason: To protect the adjacent railway boundary.
Encroachment
The developer/applicant must ensure that their proposal, both during construction, and after completion of works on site, does not affect the safety, operation or integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail land and its infrastructure or undermine or damage or adversely affect any railway land and structures.
• There must be no physical encroachment of the proposal onto Network Rail land, no over- sailing into Network Rail air-space and no encroachment of foundations onto Network Rail land and soil. • Any future maintenance must be conducted solely within the applicant’s land ownership. • Should the applicant require access to Network Rail land to facilitate their proposal they would need to approach the Network Rail Asset Protection Team at least 20 weeks before any works are due to commence on site. The applicant would be liable for all costs incurred in facilitating the proposal and an asset protection agreement may be necessary to undertake works. Network Rail reserves the right to refuse any works by a third party that may adversely impact its land and infrastructure. • Any unauthorised access to Network Rail air-space or land will be deemed an act of trespass.
Scaffolding
Any scaffold which is to be constructed within 10 metres of the Network Rail / railway boundary fence must be erected in such a manner that at no time will any poles over-sail the railway and protective netting around such scaffold must be installed. The applicant / applicant’s contractor must consider if they can undertake the works and associated scaffold / access for working at height within the footprint of their property boundary. The applicant is reminded that when pole(s) are erected for construction or maintenance works, should they topple over in the direction of the railway then there must be at least a 3m failsafe zone between the maximum height of the pole(s) and the railway boundary. This is to ensure that the safety of the railway is preserved and that scaffolding does not:
• Fall into the path of on-coming trains • Fall onto and damage critical and safety related lineside equipment • Fall onto overhead lines bringing them down, resulting in serious safety issues (this is applicable if the proposal is above the railway and where the line is electrified).
The applicant is requested to submit details of proposed scaffolding works to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer for review. We would request a condition is applied as follows:
“Any scaffolding which is to be erected /constructed within 10metres of a boundary to a railway line must be erected in such a manner that at no time will any poles over-sail the railway line. A method statement giving details of measures to be taken to prevent construction materials from the development reaching the railway (including protective fencing) shall be submitted to the LPA before the development commences.”
Reason - In the interests of railway safety
Vibro-Impact Machinery
If vibro-compaction machinery / piling machinery or piling and ground treatment works are to be undertaken as part of the development, details of the use of such machinery and a method statement should be submitted to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer.
• All works shall only be carried out in accordance with the method statement and the works will be reviewed by Network Rail. The Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer will need to review such works in order to determine the type of soil (e.g. sand, rock) that the works are being carried out upon and also to determine the level of vibration that will occur as a result of the piling. • The impact upon the railway is dependent upon the distance from the railway boundary of the piling equipment, the type of soil the development is being constructed upon and the level of vibration. Each proposal is therefore different and thence the need for Network Rail to review the piling details / method statement.
If vibro-impact equipment is to be used we would request a condition is added to the planning consent as follows:
“Prior to any vibro-impact works on site, a risk assessment and method statement shall be submitted to the LPA and Network Rail.”
Reason – to prevent any piling works and vibration from de-stabilising or impacting the railway.
Drainage
All surface water is to be directed away from the railway. Soakaways, as a means of storm/surface water disposal must not be constructed near/within 20 metres of Network Rail’s boundary or at any point which could adversely affect the stability of Network Rail’s property.
• Storm/surface water must not be discharged onto Network Rail’s property or into Network Rail’s culverts or drains. • Suitable drainage or other works must be provided and maintained by the Developer to prevent surface water flows or run-off onto Network Rail’s property. • Proper provision must be made to accept and continue drainage discharging from Network Rail’s property. • Suitable foul drainage must be provided separate from Network Rail’s existing drainage. • Once water enters a pipe it becomes a controlled source and as such no water should be discharged in the direction of the railway. • Drainage works could also impact upon culverts on developers land.
Water discharged into the soil from the applicant’s drainage system and land could seep onto Network Rail land causing flooding, water and soil run off onto lineside safety critical equipment or de-stabilisation of land through water saturation.
Full details of the drainage plans are to be submitted to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer. No works are to commence on site on any drainage plans without review of the documents by the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer.
We would request that a condition is included in the planning consent as follows:
“Prior to the commencement of the development details of the disposal of both surface water and foul water drainage directed away from the railway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and Network Rail.”
Reason: To protect the adjacent railway from the risk of flooding and pollution.
No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
If the developer and the LPA insists on a sustainable drainage and flooding system then the issue and responsibility of flooding and water saturation should not be passed onto Network Rail and our land. The NPPF states that, “103. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere,” We recognise that councils are looking to proposals that are sustainable, however, we would remind the council in regards to this proposal in relation to the flooding, drainage, surface and foul water management risk that it should not increase the risk of flooding, water saturation, pollution and drainage issues ‘elsewhere’, i.e. on to Network Rail land.
Excavation
Network Rail will need to review all excavation and earthworks works to determine if they impact upon the support zone of our land and infrastructure as well as determining relative levels in relation to the railway. We would need to be informed of any alterations to ground levels, de-watering or ground stabilisation. When under-taking ground works, developers should take all necessary measurements from the boundary with Network Rail land and not the distance from their works to the nearest railway tracks.
We would request a condition is included in the planning consent as follows:
“Prior to the commencement of the development full details of ground levels, earthworks and excavations to be carried out near to the railway boundary shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and Network Rail.”
Reason: To protect the adjacent railway.
The NPPF states:
120. To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.
2m Gap
Network Rail requests that the developer ensures there is a minimum 2 metres gap between the buildings and structures on site and our boundary fencing.
• To allow for all construction works on site and any future maintenance to be carried out wholly within the applicant’s own land ownership and without encroachment onto Network Rail land and air-space. Any unauthorised access to Network Rail land or air-space is an act of trespass and we would remind the council that this is a criminal offence (s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949). • To ensure that should the buildings and structures on site fail or collapse that it will do so without damaging Network Rail’s boundary treatment or causing damage to the railway (e.g. any embankments, cuttings, any lineside equipment, signals, overhead lines) and to prevent the materials from the buildings and structures on site falling into the path of trains. • To ensure that the buildings and structures on site cannot be scaled and thus used as a means of accessing Network Rail land without authorisation. • To ensure that Network Rail can maintain and renew its boundary treatment, fencing, walls. • That the proposal will not be impacted by overhead electrified lines. Induced voltage can affect structures or individuals up to 20m from the overhead line. AC lines have overhead cables, DC lines are third rail. • There are no Party Wall issues for which the applicant would be liable for all costs. • To ensure that the applicant does not construct their proposal so that any foundations (for walls, buildings etc) do not end up encroaching onto Network Rail land. Any foundations that encroach onto Network Rail land could undermine, de-stabilise or other impact upon the operational railway land, including embankments, cuttings etc. Under Building Regulations the depth and width of foundations will be dependant upon the size of the structure, therefore foundations may impact upon Network Rail land by undermining or de-stabilising soil or boundary treatments.
The NPPF at Section 17, bullet 4 states:
“Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings” We believe this comment supports our position on the location of buildings close to the railway boundary.
Noise
Network Rail recommends that the LPA and the developer (along with their chosen acoustic contractor) engage in discussions to determine the most appropriate measures to mitigate noise and vibration from the existing railway to ensure that there will be no future issues for residents once they take up occupation of the dwellings. Network Rail is aware that residents of dwellings adjacent to the railway have in the past discovered issues upon occupation of dwellings with noise and vibration from the existing operational railway, as a consequence of inadequate mitigation measures for the site, and therefore it is a matter for the developer and the LPA via mitigation measures and conditions to ensure that these issues are mitigated appropriately prior to construction.
• The current level of railway usage may be subject to change at any time without prior notification including increased frequency of trains, night time train running and heavy freight trains. • Network Rail also often carry out works at night on the operational railway when normal rail traffic is suspended and often these works can be noisy and cause vibration. • Network Rail may need to conduct emergency works on the railway line and equipment and these would not be notified to residents in advance due to their safety critical nature. • The proposal should not prevent Network Rail from its statutory undertaking
Landscaping
We would draw the council’s and developer’s attention to the Department of Transport’s ‘Transport Resilience Review: A Review of the Resilience of the Transport Network to Extreme Weather Events’ July 2014, which states, “On the railways, trees blown over in the storms caused severe disruption and damage on a number of routes and a number of days, particularly after the St Jude's storm on 28th October, and embankment slips triggered by the intense rainfall resulted in several lines being closed or disrupted for many days…… 6.29 Finally the problem of trees being blown over onto the railway is not confined to those on Network Rail land. Network Rail estimate that over 60% of the trees blown over last winter were from outside Network Rail's boundary. This is a much bigger problem for railways than it is for the strategic highway network, because most railway lines have a narrow footprint as a result of the original constructors wishing to minimise land take and keep the costs of land acquisition at a minimum.”
In light of the above, Network Rail would request that no trees are planted next to the boundary with our land and the operational railway. Network Rail would request that only evergreen shrubs are planted and we would request that they should be planted a minimum distance from the Network Rail boundary that is equal to their expected mature growth height.
• Trees can be blown over in high winds resulting in damage to Network Rail’s boundary treatments / fencing as well as any lineside equipment (e.g. telecoms cabinets, signals) which has both safety and performance issues. • Trees toppling over onto the operational railway could also bring down 25kv overhead lines, resulting in serious safety issues for any lineside workers or trains. • Trees toppling over can also destabilise soil on Network Rail land and the applicant’s land which could result in landslides or slippage of soil onto the operational railway. • Deciduous trees shed their leaves which fall onto the rail track, any passing train therefore loses its grip on the rails due to leaf fall adhering to the rails, and there are issues with trains being unable to break correctly for signals set at danger.
The Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer is to review the landscaping plans.
Network Rail has a duty to provide, as far as is reasonably practical, a railway free from danger or obstruction from fallen trees. Trees growing within the railway corridor (i.e. between the railway boundary fences) are the responsibility of Network Rail. Trees growing alongside the railway boundary on adjacent land are the primary responsibility of the adjoining landowner or occupier. All owners of trees have an obligation in law to manage trees on their property so that they do not cause a danger or a nuisance to their neighbours. This Duty of Care arises from the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984. A landowner or occupier must make sure that their trees are in a safe condition and mitigate any risk to a third party. Larger landowners should also have a tree policy to assess and manage the risk and to mitigate their liability.
Parking / Hard Standing Area
Where a proposal calls for hard standing area / parking of vehicles area near the boundary with the operational railway, Network Rail would very strongly recommend the installation of suitable high kerbs or crash barriers (e.g. Armco Safety Barriers). A suitable small earth bund, which could be managed by the applicant, would also be acceptable. This is to prevent vehicles from accidentally driving or rolling onto the railway or damaging lineside fencing.
We would draw the LPA and developer’s attention to the Department of Transport’s, ‘Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles.’ (2003). “The report (Health and Safety Commission, 2002) following the rail incursion at Great Heck in February 2001 recommended that the Department for Transport develop guidance on the application of measures to manage risk where roads meet, cross or run close to railways.
This guidance is most relevant to:
• road bridges over railways; • roads running alongside railways; and • cul de sacs ending at railways.” In cases like these the developer will need to provide a risk assessment to determine what protection should be given to the railway and its boundary as a result of placing a road and parking spaces adjacent to railway land.
The Road Vehicle Incursion risk (RVI) should be considered by the developer in conjunction with the LPA and the Highways team. A risk assessment will provide a clear framework for any mitigation measures necessary when constructing a proposal that includes vehicle parking spaces and roads adjacent to the railway.
We would request that a condition is included in the planning consent as follows:
Details of appropriate vehicle safety protection measures along the boundary with the railway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Network Rail.”
Reason: to prevent the design and layout of the road and parking spaces from impacting the adjacent operational railway with accidental vehicle incursion.
Network Rail believes that the condition is necessary and appropriate to this development to protect our infrastructure from damage to lineside fencing, or from vehicles accidentally rolling onto the railway and causing a close call.
Comments of 29/12/15
In accordance with the information received below I confirm that Network Rails conditions will be suitably addressed once detailed information has been received of the material proposed for infilling the former railway cutting.
United Utilities
No comments made.
Greater Manchester Police Design for Security
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above application. Design for Security prepared a Crime Impact Statement for this proposal and part of the assessment required design changes to be made. The current proposal doesn't seem to address the following issues raised within the report : -
3.3.1 Front and back garden spaces should be separated with secure fencing and gates which will help to prevent unauthorised entry to the rear of the properties. Fence lines should be aligned as close as possible to the front of the property. 3.3.2 Front garden areas should be defined using low railings or hedges / shrubbery, providing a strong indication ownership, and corner properties such as plot 42 need these features to prevent short cutting over the front garden. 3.3.3 Communal Amenity Spaces / Shared Facilities. Proposals for the management of any amenity space within the site need to be put in place. Responsibility and funding for the maintenance of all communal features of the site needs to be carefully considered at the outset, and should not be left for residents to decide informally. This includes landscaped areas, lighting, fencing and gates. 3.3.4 Where space allows, defensive planting of shrubs should be carried out outside the rear garden fence line, which will help to deter potential intruders. 3.3.5 Apartments - car parking area. The car parking areas are remote from dwellings and many spaces will be out of sight of the owner's property. Prevention of unauthorised use of the parking area will be difficult, and any antisocial or criminal activity occurring is unlikely to be witnessed. It is therefore essential that the apartment block is located adjacent to its associated parking area and have a well-defined boundary fence with obvious territorial statements and the entrance point. 3.3.6 Apartments - entry arrangement. In order to discourage tailgating into the block, it is recommended that an air-lock type lobby arrangement is created at the entrance, so that people coming in have to activate 2 sets of access controls and thus any potential intruder is more likely to be discovered. 3.3.7 Apartments - ground floor French windows. French windows to publicly-accessible elevations at ground floor level create a security risk as residents may be tempted to leave them open for ventilation, and an opportunist offender would easily be able to access the premises and potentially gain access to the main internal corridors. 3.3.8 Apartments - Cycle storage. Cycle stores should be provided within the building rather than in a separate structure (unless within a secure boundary of the site). Entry to the cycle store should be access-controlled and be available for genuine cyclists only on application to the building managers. Cycle stands should enable bikes to be secured by the frame and both wheels. 3.3.9 Apartments - bin stores. External bin stores should not create potential climbing aids over the site boundary nor block sight lines in and around the block. They should be secure, lockable enclosures with access restricted to residents, building managers and possibly refuse collection staff, in order to avoid abuse of the enclosure and the bins. 3.3.10 Apartments - residents' amenity area. The amenity area around the block should be enclosed to provide a secure space for residents to enjoy, and to exclude potential intruders. 3.3.11 Local Area for Play (between plots 23 & 27). The location / arrangement of this parcel of public open space is likely to generate nuisance for the neighbouring properties. Adjacent houses should be orientated to face and overlook public space so that abuse of the area is more likely to be witnessed. 3.3.12 Existing boundaries. The integrity of the site boundary with the adjacent industrial premises and residential plots should be evaluated to ensure that it forms a reliably - secure perimeter to the site. Any weakness could be exploited by potential intruders, and additional fencing should be incorporated.
Our support for this proposal is dependent upon the points raised in section 3.3 of the report being addressed as well as the implementation of the physical security requirements listed in section 4.
Director of Public Health (Healthy Planning)
Affordable Housing : The proposed provision of affordable housing, as required by policy, is very welcome from a public health perspective since affordable housing contributes to the Council’s efforts to tackle inequalities, in particular health inequalities in Stockport. Affordable housing enables individuals and families to manage household budgets in such a way that can reduce stress which can exacerbate physical and mental health conditions, in particular to the benefit of children’s development.
Transport : Discussions with the Council’s Highways Engineer have informed the following suggestions with regards to transport elements of the application. The Travel Plan suggests that the delivery of the plan could be undertaken by the Council’s Travel Plan Officer, however this facility is not available due to staff changes at the Council. The Council Travel Awareness Team also no longer exists. There is a possibility that assistance could be sought from Transport for Greater Manchester if it is appropriate and that the Council could be contacted for copies of the Green A to Z Walking Maps. The Council’s transport policy representatives would expect however, that if the delivery of a travel plan was stipulated in the planning conditions then they would be kept informed of the success of that plan.
Furthermore, concerns about the width of the footpath under the rail bridge at the development side of Stockport Road West should be considered, in particular, that it may not be of sufficient width for some disabled users to be able to access the controlled crossing for the access to the rail station and the bus stop beneath the bridge on the opposite side of the road. Potentially a crossing point could be of assistance (such as a pedestrian island) to make it easier to cross the road before passing under the bridge. This is especially pertinent as there is a suggestion for accessible bungalows in the development.
The concerns regarding the crime analysis relative to the open land across from the site appear to overlook the issue of access to green space and the provision of a more direct pedestrian access to other areas of Bredbury, including quieter roads more conducive to sustainable travel that the route through the area affords. This accessibility would also be improved by the provision of a crossing island near the entrance to the development.
Green Space – Street Design : In health terms it is critical for any existing green space to be protected and for consideration of any new green space to be maximised. Objective 5f of the Core Strategy states that it will seek to safeguard and improve the borough’s natural and built environments by providing and maintaining high quality open spaces and recreation facilities commensurate with the needs of the borough’s population. This should include informal recreation as outlined in Policy CS8 in regards to Green Infrastructure. As well as providing opportunities for exercise, GI helps to reduce stress level and improve mental health, whilst contributing to improved air quality and to the reduced incidences of respiratory illness. The proposed street layout is reasonably equitable in terms of all road users and provision of children’s play facilities is welcomed but could the development further support the Home Zone principles outlined in Core Strategy Policies CS10 and T1?
Green Infrastructure : Have the landscaping considerations maximised tree cover on the site? Stockport’s Core Strategy Policy CS8 and Policy SD-6 promote the inclusion of green cover in new development including Green Infrastructure. Green space compatible development (as defined in the Greater Manchester’s Directors of Public Health’s ‘Key Priorities for Health & Spatial Planning 2013’) contributes to improved health for new and existing residents, who are able to engage in activity as part of their everyday lives, through sensible design allowing street permeability and accessible routes into and through the development and any surrounding neighbourhoods, giving all street users equality of status. Such design approaches also foster community cohesion and enhance a sense of trust, benefiting mental as well as physical health. The view of green space enhances the human spirit offering real term benefits to people’s health and wellbeing since stress is known to exacerbate a wide range of health conditions (Valuing GI’s health benefits).
ANALYSIS
Policy principle
The application site is allocated within a Policy Guidance Area (PG1.7E Bredbury), as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. Saved UDP policy PG1.7 states that new housing will be permitted within such an area, provided that it would provide satisfactory living conditions for its occupiers. Furthermore, development must not prejudice the continued operation of any existing industrial business or railway uses and must take account of the possible transport potential of the disused railway land.
In terms of the potential of the disused railway land, the Council has a long term aspiration for the future creation of a fixed train/tram line to provide a link between Stockport Town Centre and Marple. The layout of the proposed development would reflect the aspirations for this transport link, with an area of land to the Northern portion of the site to be set aside and safeguarded for its potential future construction. The proposed access road and residential units would occupy the land to the South of the safeguarded corridor, with only a small number of visitor parking spaces, a Local Area for Play (LAP) and an informal landscaped area to be located within the safeguarded corridor. As such, it is considered that the layout of the proposed development should not prejudice the future construction of the potential future tram/train link through the site, in accordance with saved UDP policy PG1.7 and Core Strategy DPD policy T-4.
In order to attempt to demonstrate compliance with saved UDP policy PGA1.7, a Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The Noise Impact Assessment identifies the existing noise generating activities in the immediate area (road traffic noise, railway noise, aircraft noise and industrial noise) that could potentially impact upon the proposed residential development, includes a survey of existing noise levels within the vicinity of the site and recommends a number of mitigation measures to be incorporated within the development in order to minimise noise impact.
The detailed comments received to the proposal from the Council Environment Team are contained within the consultation responses section above. To summarise, a number of concerns have been raised from the Environment Team, which are material considerations in assessment of the application. In terms of noise, the Environment Team raise concern to the proximity of the site to the existing railway line to the North East and industrial railway sidings to the North of the site, the existence of industrial units in close proximity to the site and the potential additional noise source from the future tram/train link to the North of the site. Concerns are also raised from the Environment Team with regard to the noise impact mitigation measures proposed within the residential properties in the form of sealed bedroom windows and mechanical ventilation, which are considered to be extreme. In addition to noise impact, the Environment Team have raised concerns to the existence of a number of waste management sites in proximity to the application site and the associated odour impact, particularly in the summer months. It is noted that there is an existing odour problem in the area and odour complaints have previously been received from existing residents. However, the Local Authority do not have any enforcement powers over waste managements sites and any such complaints are investigated by the Environment Agency. Information submitted with the application does not include any details regarding how the proposed development would protect future residents from odour. The Environment Team also raise concerns that the proposed development may impact upon existing businesses who are currently able to operate without enforcement action being taken against them.
In response to the issues raised by the Environment Team, the applicant has provided the following response :-
• A number of measures would be incorporated within the proposed development, in order to minimise the noise impact of surrounding uses and operations. The proposed mitigation measures include the provision of sealed windows and mechanical ventilation to certain rooms on a number of properties close to and fronting either the main road or the railway line and the provision of a 3.0 metre high acoustic fence to the boundary of the site with the adjacent railway line;
• If the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated within the proposed development, the guideline levels recommended within BS:8233 are demonstrated to be achieved. This has been accepted by the Environment Team. Residents would therefore be subject to noise levels that are lower than the guideline values for internal noise levels in residential properties, as defined by BS:8233;
• The mitigation measures proposed have been common practice for many years as a method of reducing internal noise levels and is therefore not considered to be "extreme";
• Should the potential future train/tram route be approved, sound attenuation barriers are likely to be installed to protect adjacent residents against additional noise from this development;
• In terms of odour, the predominant wind direction in the area is from South through to West. The existing waste management sites in the vicinity of the site are located to the North, therefore for the majority of the time the application site is located upwind of existing waste management sites. As such, there is a low risk of odour due to the location of waste management sites in relation to the application site;
• If the existing and future odour situation is considered to be severe and unacceptable, the Environment Agency as enforcing authority would need to take robust enforcement action to minimise emission of odours.
In summary, the application site is located within a Policy Guidance Area, directly adjacent to a railway line and industrial railway sidings and in proximity to industrial units, including waste management sites. The concerns raised to the proposal from the Environment Team, in terms of the potential noise and odour impact of surrounding uses on potential occupiers of the proposed residential development, cannot be ignored and the principle of the proposed residential use within the Policy Guidance Area is finely balanced. However, noise mitigation measures proposed within the fabric of the proposed residential units and within the site boundaries would minimise internal noise levels so that they would be within recommended guideline levels. Furthermore, due to the location of the application site in relation to nearby waste management sites and subject to effective enforcement by the Environment Agency, the risk of odour emissions to the development would be minimised. Further factors weighing in support of the proposed residential development include the fact that the site is designated as a Policy Guidance Area rather than a protected employment area where residential development is not precluded and the fact that the proposal would provide much needed affordable housing within the borough.
As such, on balance, it is considered that the proposed residential development would provide satisfactory living conditions for its occupiers in terms of noise and odour and would not prejudice the continued operation of existing industrial uses or railway uses. As such, the use of the site within the Policy Guidance Area for residential purposes is considered acceptable, in accordance with saved UDP policy PGA1.7 and Core Strategy DPD policies CS8, SIE-1 and SIE-3.
Housing policy
The detailed comments of the Council Planning Policy Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above. It is noted that 47 of the proposed dwellings are to be affordable properties (1 no. one bed house, 27 no. two bed houses, 17 no. three bed houses and 2 no. four bed houses), with the remainder to be delivered as market housing (12 no. two bed flats and 1 no. three bed house).
It is acknowledged that the site is located over 800 metres from the nearest Large Local or District Centre, therefore does not fall within the first two spatial priority areas for housing, as set out in Core Strategy DPD policy CS4. However, it is noted that the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply, with 4.2 years of supply against a national policy requirement for at least 5 years. In such situations, Core Strategy DPD policy H-2 allows for housing development on sites which meet the Council's accessibility criteria. The site scores over 60, which exceeds the current required minimum scores of 34 for houses and 45 for flats. The addition of 60 units to the supply of housing on a brownfield site is welcomed in line with Core Strategy DPD policy CS2, given the position of housing under-supply the Council finds itself in. The proposed density of 30 dwellings per hectare is at the lower end of what might reasonably be expected on a site of this size in this area, as set out in Core Strategy DPD policy CS3. However, it is noted that the site is constrained in respect of the protected potential rail/tram route, therefore the developable area of the site is reduced. As such, a truer density figure for the site is 35 dwellings per hectare, which represents a reasonable density of development, given the relatively constricted nature of the site. The number, type and mix of dwellings is considered acceptable, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policy CS3.
Core Strategy DPD policy H-3 requires 20-25% affordable housing provision for the location and size of the site and the number of units proposed. As such, there is an expectation to deliver 12-15 affordable properties within the development, which would need to be split 75/25 between shared ownership and social rented units. In this case, the proposal offers 16 shared ownership and 31 affordable rent units. Members are advised that affordable rent and social rent are not the same thing, with affordable rent operating at a higher rental level. Consequently, whilst the number of affordable units exceeds the minimum number required by policy, there is no provision for social rented units in the scheme. In order to justify this policy conflict, the applicant has stated that in order to obtain funding to deliver affordable housing from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), a requirement is that the tenure of rented units must be affordable rent and the HCA does not support social rented units through its funding mechanisms. Whilst this does not mean that social rented units cannot be delivered on other sites, in this particular case the scheme is reliant on HCA funding and therefore the affordable provision will not include social rent. Policy H-3 allows for the delivery of relevant levels of provision, subject to viability. In this case, with the scheme reliant on HCA funding and the consequential impact on the tenure, it is recommended that the lack of social rent units should not be used as a reason to refuse the application. Whilst it is accepted that the tenure mix does not strictly comply with the requirements of Core Strategy DPD policy H-3, the applicant has submitted information which sets out what amounts to a viability case for this position. This should be weighed against the total affordable provision of 47 affordable units which is significantly greater than that which is required by policy and which would be a significant help to the delivery of such units required to meet the identified affordable housing need in the borough.
Open space
Saved UDP policy L1.2 and Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-2 identify the importance of open space and children's play facilities to meet the community. With regard to children's play, a three tiered structure identifies the need for large residential developments to include provision for recreation and amenity open space on or off site, dependent upon the population of the proposed development.
The detailed comments of the Council Planning Policy Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above. Due to the population of the proposed development, there is a requirement for the provision of on-site Local Areas for Play (LAP's). The scheme includes two LAP's, one to the North of the proposed access road (within the safeguarded potential future tram/train corridor) and one to the North East of the proposed access road. Whilst the LAP's would be located within 100.0 metres of the proposed properties and the proposed 100 square metres activity zones are considered acceptable, it noted that one of the proposed LAP's would not incorporate the required 400 square metre buffer zone and the required buffer zone to serve the other LAP would be slightly sub-standard. This is however due to constraints at the site in the form of the safeguarded tram-train corridor. Whilst the proposed LAP's would be sited close to the proposed access road and parking spaces, the design of the proposed access road would reduce vehicle speeds and would aim to ensure that there would be no conflict between residents using the open space and moving traffic. The detailed design of the proposed LAP's and provision prior to occupation of the residential units would be secured by condition and their future maintenance is the subject of ongoing discussions.
On the basis of the proposed residential units, the population of the capacity of the development would be 201. The proposed LAP's would cater for a population of 114, therefore a financial contribution is required for the residual amount in order to be policy compliant. For the provision and maintenance of both children's place space and formal recreational space, the required total contribution is £102,172.68p. The applicant has agreed to this payment, the collection of which would be secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement.
In view of the above, on the basis of the provision of two LAP's within the site and the payment of the required commuted sum, the proposal is considered to comply with saved UDP policy L1.2 and Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-2 and is therefore acceptable with regard to the issue of open space.
Design, siting and impact on residential amenity
The layout of the proposed development has been heavily influenced by the requirement to safeguard an area of land to the Northern portion of the site to enable the potential future construction of a tram/train route between Stockport Town Centre and Marple. Further development constraints within the site include the existence of deep drainage runs to the East of the proposed access which cannot be built over. In response to these site constraints, the proposed development would comprise blocks of mainly two storey semi-detached and terraced houses with some detached properties and three bungalows, predominantly situated on the Southern side of the proposed access road, with some properties to the North East of the access road. The proposed density of development, at 30 dwellings per hectare, is considered acceptable due to the previously mentioned site constraints. Private amenity space to serve the proposed houses and bungalows would be provided by way of rear gardens and the proposed apartment block would benefit from an area of communal amenity space. Whilst it is noted that the level of private amenity space to serve some of the properties would be slightly sub-standard in relation to the requirements of the Design of Residential Development SPD, this is again influenced by the previously mentioned site constraints. A varied palate of materials of external construction is proposed, including differing brickwork and cladding for the external walls and tiles for the roof to provide a level of visual interest within the development. Boundary treatments would comprise timber fencing for the side and rear gardens and low railings to the majority of front gardens. Further means of enclose would include a wall/railings to the Stockport Road East frontage, with a security fence and acoustic fence to the boundaries with the adjacent railway. Full details of hard and soft landscaping to serve the proposed development would be secured by condition, however the submission indicates landscaped areas to the safeguarded land to the North of the site and to the Stockport Road East frontage to provide an attractive entrance feature to the development. The size, height, scale and three storey nature of the proposed apartment block in relation to the predominantly two storey residential properties along this part of the Stockport Road East is noted. However, consideration must be had of the fact that the proposed apartment block would only be 1.0 metre higher than the adjacent two storey properties on Stockport Road East, so as not to result in an unduly incongruous feature within the street scene. The design and siting of the proposed apartment block has been proposed with the aim of forming a prominent 'gateway' feature to the proposed development.
Whilst the application site is located within a predominantly industrial setting, adjoined to the North and North East by railway lines, to the South West by units on Hollingworth Road and to the West by a retail store, there are residential properties adjoining the site to the South on Auburn Avenue and Stockport Road East and on the opposite side of Stockport Road East to the South. The proposed houses within the site would be sited so as not to result in undue loss of residential amenity to the adjacent properties on Auburn Avenue and Stockport Road East, being sited approximately 14.0 metres from the boundaries with these properties and sited at an angle to ensure no direct overlooking of rear windows. The proposed apartment block would also be sited so as not to result in direct overlooking of the habitable room windows of these properties. The proposed apartment block would be sited directly facing the residential properties on the opposite side of Stockport Road East and would result in the introduction of built development where open land currently exists. However, it is noted that the proposed apartment block would be sited so as to retain separation of between 21.0 metres and 24.0 metres to the front windows of these properties. As this complies with the adopted minimum privacy/separation standards defined by the Design of Residential Development SPD, a refusal of the application on the grounds of loss or residential amenity to these properties is not considered to be sustainable.
In summary, it is considered that the level of residential accommodation proposed could be successfully accommodated on site without causing undue harm to the character of the street scene or the visual amenity of the area. Subject to conditional control relating to materials of external construction, means of enclosure and hard and soft landscaping, the overall design and layout of the proposal is considered acceptable. Due to the level of retained separation and the siting of the proposed development in relation to the adjacent residential properties, it is considered that the proposal would not result in undue harm to the residential amenity of these properties, by reason of overshadowing, over-dominance, visual intrusion, loss of outlook, overlooking or loss of privacy. As such, the proposal is considered to accord with Core Strategy DPD policies H-1 and SIE-1 and the Design of Residential Development SPD.
Access, highways and parking
The detailed comments of the Council Highway Engineer are contained within the consultee responses section above. The proposed development would be served by a new access road which would take access from Stockport Road East to the East of its junction with Lower Bents Lane. Parking would be provided within the development for a total of 101 spaces in a mixture of private driveways and parking areas. Land to the North of the site is proposed to be safeguarded to enable the future construction of a tram/train route between Stockport and Marple. The application, as originally submitted, was accompanied by a Transport Statement, an Interim Travel Plan and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit for the proposed junction and highway. Following comments received from the Highway Engineer, additional information in the form of a revised site plan, a revised boundary treatments plan, a revised Transport Assessment, a revised plan of the proposed access and additional information regarding the proposed filling operation, has been submitted during the consideration of the proposal.
Core Strategy DPD policy T-4 states that 'the Council will not permit development which would inhibit future transport use of disused rail alignments unless it can be demonstrated that there is no realistic possibility of such use'. The proposed scheme has been designed to retain a corridor along the Northern corner of the site to enable a tram/train line to be constructed between the Ashbury Junction to New Mills Junction line and Whitefield Road and onwards towards Stockport Town Centre, which is the form and route of the potential future line based on current thinking. The Highway Engineer considers that the area of land proposed to be retained and protected for the future tram/train line should be sufficient to allow construction, having regard to the conclusions of a report prepared by AECOM for the Council. As such, it is considered that the proposed residential development should not prejudice the future provision of a tram/train link through the site, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policy T-4. Details of how the land to be retained/protected for the future tram/rail link, including filling, levelling and landscaping can be secured by condition. The submitted plans show visitor parking spaces and a LAP to be constructed within the protected tram/train corridor and there is a potential that these would be lost to enable the link to be constructed. Depending on the final design, it may be possible for replacement parking and a LAP to be provided, although this would need to be determined as part of the design exercise for the tram/train link. The detailed design of the tram/train link, including details of earthwork's, structures and boundaries would be carried out at a time that proposals are progressed for such a scheme, therefore do not require consideration as part of the current proposal.
The proposed development would be accessed from Stockport Road East, which forms part of the Borough's Strategic Road Network and carries large volumes of traffic, particularly at peak times when queuing occurs at all major junctions, including Lower Bents Lane, resulting in traffic backing up past the site. Traffic surveys recorded flows of 812 (Westbound) and 903 (Eastbound) in the morning peak and 650 (Westbound) and 802 (Eastbound) in the evening peak. Surveys also show that flows remain fairly high throughout the day, with hourly flows during the afternoon actually higher than during the PM peak and vehicle speeds are within the 30mph speed limit. At the request of the Highway Engineer, additional assessments have been carried out to determine the expected traffic generation of the development and the associated impact on Stockport Road East, including a detailed junction assessment. The assessment outlines that the development is expected to generate approximately 33 vehicle movements during the AM peak and 35 during the PM peak (approximately 1 vehicle every 2 minutes) and that the proposed junction would have the capacity to accommodate this with minimal queuing. However, queue surveys that have been carried out identify that traffic queues extend past the site from both the Lower Bents Lane junction and the nearby pedestrian crossing which could affect the operation of the proposed access. As such, at the request of the Highway Engineer, the proposed site access has been amended to provide "Keep Clear" markings, in order to ensure that queuing vehicles do not block right-turning vehicles. The amended access also includes the provision of a pedestrian refuge and an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at the site access. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that 2 visitor parking spaces will be made available for use by properties on Stockport Road East opposite the site where parking restrictions will need to be provided. In summary, the Highway Engineer concludes that the proposal would not have an impact on the local highway network that would justify the refusal of the application or justify other off-site highway improvements. Subject to detailed design and the provision of parking restrictions and "Keep Clear" markings, which would be secured by condition and a financial contribution, the proposed access should allow the site to be accessed in a safe a practical manner. Prior to the construction of the proposed dwellings, associated access road and parking facilities, the existing railway cutting will need to be filled. The applicant states that this would require approximately 22,000 cubic metres of material being brought to the site. The vehicle movements associated with this, together with the construction of the development, could have a significant impact on the local highway network, unless spread over a reasonable period of time, scheduled to avoid peak periods and a suitable access is provided. At the request of the Highway Engineer, the applicant has provided additional information regarding the proposed filling operation. The applicant has confirmed that the operation will require approximately 2200 one-way vehicle movements, the operation will take three months, with an average of 31 loads per day, material will be transported using 8 wheeled tipper wagons and the proposed access road would be constructed in part and would be used for HGV access, including turning and waiting. The Highway Engineer has considered this information and concludes that whilst vehicles should be able to safely access the site to tip material, the number of vehicles proposed could have a material impact on the highway network, notably at peak time and school pick-up time. As such, it is recommended that the operation should be extended to allow the number of vehicle movements to be slightly reduced and ensure that deliveries do not take place during peak hour or school pick-up time. There will also be a need to agree how materials to allow the access to be constructed will be brought into the site and how the site clearance operation will be carried out. These matters can be dealt with by conditional control, requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Construction Method Statement.
In terms of the proposed site layout, the development is proposed to be accessed via a single access road that will run through the whole site. The first section of the access road will be in the form of a traditional tarmac road with footways on both sides, terminating in a block-paved square. Beyond that, the proposed access road will continue as a block-paved road with a pedestrian zone on one side, terminating at a further square/turning area. Traffic calming features are proposed, including a raised junction, rumble strips and pinch points. At the request of the Highway Engineer, the proposed site layout has been amended to include additional traffic calming measures in proximity to the proposed LAP's, amendments to hard landscaping within the adopted highway areas and amendments to boundary treatments. On this basis, the Highway Engineer considers that the proposed site layout is acceptable, subject to matters of details which can be secured by condition.
Car parking would be provided for a total of 101 cars which would include an 18 space car park for the proposed apartments, 20 of the proposed houses will have 2 spaces, 27 of the proposed houses will have 1 space and the provision of 15 visitor parking spaces around the site. This level of parking is in line with adopted parking standards and should also meet demand. Appropriate levels of cycling parking will be required to serve the proposed development, which will be secured by condition.
With regard to site accessibility, the application site achieves a score of 62-66 on the Council's accessibility model, which indicates a reasonable levels of accessibility in relation to retail, schools, health centres, hospitals and evening economy uses and is in excess of the current threshold where residential development is permitted. The site is situated close to Bredbury Station, adjacent to the Stockport-Hyde bus corridor and is within reasonable walking distance of Woodley Local Centre, St. Mark's Primary School, a large food store and other local facilities. The site is within reasonable cycling distance of Stockport Town Centre, various shops and services and places of employment. Nearby bus stops benefit from boarding platforms and shelters, there is a Puffin Crossing to the East of the site and there are uncontrolled pedestrian crossings at the junctions of the side roads along Stockport Road East in the vicinity of the site. In order to address concerns raised by the Highway Engineer, the proposed junction has been amended to provide pedestrian crossing facilities. Further concerns raised by the Highway Engineer include the footway to the North side of Stockport Road East being sub-standard in width and the lack of connectivity to nearby cycle routes. It is recommended that the requirement to widen the footway should be secured by condition as part of the overall highway works, with the proviso that the works are limited to those which do not require the diversion of services which would make it cost prohibitive. In terms of cycle route connectivity, the applicant has stated that the cost of providing the pedestrian/cycle path from Stockport Road East to Redhouse Lane, as required by the Highway Engineer, would make the scheme unviable. As such, the Highway Engineer has recommended that the requirement to provide the path or contribute to its future provision should be secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement, in the event that the financial viability of the scheme changes during the course of development. Finally, the requirement for the development of a Travel Plan would be secured by condition and payment of £2500 to fund Travel Plan monitoring would be collected by means of a Section 106 Agreement.
In respect of drainage, information submitted with the application states that ground conditions should be suitable for soakaways which would enable the site to be drained using a SuDS system and to ensure compliance with Core Strategy DPD policy SD-6. Notwithstanding the detailed drainage comments received to the application from the Council Drainage Team and the Environment Team, the requirement to design and implement a suitable drainage system can be secured by condition.
In conclusion, the Highway Engineer raises no objections to the proposal is principle and considers the proposed level of car parking acceptable. Following the submission of additional information within a revised Transport Assessment and with regard to the proposed filling operation, it has been demonstrated that the proposed development and its construction would not have an impact on the local highway network that would justify the refusal of the application, subject to matters of detail which can be dealt with by condition. The submission of revised plans have addressed the issues previously raised by the Highway Engineer with regard to the proposed site layout and the design of the proposed site access arrangements. It is recommended that, in addition to the imposition of the conditions contained within the consultee responses section above, the applicant enters into a Section 106 Agreement relating to the payment of £3000 to fund a Traffic Regulation Order/parking restrictions on Stockport Road East/the site access road, the payment of £2500 to fund Travel Plan monitoring and the requirement to provide a lit, hard-surfaced path between Stockport Road East and Redhouse Lane, in the event that this is financially viable. As such, in the absence of objections from the Highway Engineer and subject to conditional control and a Section 106 Agreement, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of access and layout, traffic generation, impact on the highway network, parking and accessibility, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies SD-6, SIE-1, CS9, T-1, T-2, T-3 and T-4, the Sustainable Transport SPD and the Transport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD.
Impact on trees
The detailed comments of the Council Arboricultural Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above.
In order to allow for the infilling of the central cutting to provide a level site to facilitate the proposed residential development, the proposal would involve the removal of the majority of existing trees on site. The concerns raised by the Arboricultural Officer with regard to the failure to provide a Tree Survey as part of the application, lack of tree retention and the impact to and loss of existing trees within the site are noted. However, Members are advised that existing trees on site are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order nor are they protected by way of Conservation Area status and can therefore be removed without any consent. As this is the case, notwithstanding the concerns raised by the Arboricultural Officer, a refusal of the application on the grounds of loss of trees is not considered to be sustainable. The concerns raised by the Arboricultural Officer with regard to the limited details contained within the submitted landscaping scheme are appreciated and it is recommended that a suitably worded condition is imposed to require the submission, approval and implementation of a full landscaping and planting scheme, including appropriate species, in order to improve the visual appearance of the development.
In view of the above, whilst the concerns of the Arboricultural Officer are noted and the loss of the majority of the existing trees on site is regrettable, this is required to facilitate the development of the site. As such, due to the fact that existing trees on site are not subject to any protection, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the issue of trees, subject to the provision of an acceptable landscaping scheme, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies SIE-1 and SIE-3.
Ecology, protected species and biodiversity
The detailed comments of the Council Nature Development Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above.
It is noted that the site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise. The land to the South of Stockport Road East is designated as Green Chain and the site provides a link between the Green Chain habitat to the South East and habitats to the North. Ecology surveys were carried out as part of the application, including an extended Phase 1 Habitat survey. Structures and trees have the potential to support roosting bats, all species of such and their roosts are protected. The railway arches and road bridge adjacent to the site were inspected for evidence of roosting bats and no evidence of bat presence was recorded, however suitable roosting features were identified. Bat activity surveys were carried out with no evidence of roosting bats recorded. No suitable bat roosting featured were recorded within trees on the site. The habitats on site are considered to offer opportunities for foraging bats, however surveys indicate limited use of the site by bats as a foraging resource. It is however noted that bat activity surveys were confined to July rather than across the bat survey season (May to September), in accordance with best practice guidance. Trees and vegetation on site offer suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds for which they and their nests receive protection. The site offers suitable habitat for badgers, for which they and their setts are protected. No evidence of badger presence was recorded within the site. No evidence of invasive species was recorded.
No further information is required by the Nature Development Officer relating to bats. It is recommended that the applicant is advised of the potential for protected species to be present on site, the laws in place to protect biodiversity should planning permission be granted and procedures should bats or other protected species by discovered by way of informative. It is recommended that conditions are imposed to ensure that no tree/vegetation clearance or pruning works are undertaken in the bird nesting season (March to August) and to ensure the submission, approval and implementation of a landscape strategy for the site, including the reserved land for the potential future Metrolink development. It is also recommended that a condition is imposed to require that biodiversity enhancements are incorporated within the development, following the recommendations in the submitted ecological appraisal.
In view of the above, in the absence of objections from the Nature Development Officer and subject to suitably worded planning conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on ecology, protected species and biodiversity, in accordance with saved UDP policy NE3.1 and Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-3.
Land/water contamination
Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-3 seek to protect development from matters relating to contaminated land and water pollution. A Phase I Site Appraisal/Desk Study has been submitted in support of the application. The detailed comments of the Council Environment Team and the Environment Agency are contained within the consultee responses section, above.
No objections are raised to the principle of the proposal from the Environment Team or the Environment Agency. It is recommended that conditions are imposed, which should be applied as a phased approach, to require the submission, approval and implementation of an investigation, risk assessment, remediation scheme and remedial action into contamination at the site. Similar phased conditions are recommended by the Environment Agency in order to minimise water pollution and risk to controlled waters. As such, subject to compliance with these conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would not be at risk from land contamination or water pollution, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE- 3.
Drainage
A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application, which contains a drainage strategy for the site. The detailed comments of the Council Drainage Team are contained within the consultee responses section above.
A number of technical comments and observation have been made by the Drainage Team in relation to the proposed site drainage strategy, which is the subject of continuing discussions between the applicant and the Drainage Team. Nevertheless, the Drainage Team has confirmed that they have no objections to the principle of the proposed development and note that any outstanding drainage issues can be resolved by the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions. As such, in the absence of objections from the Drainage Team and subject to conditional control, it is considered that the site and proposed development could be drained in an appropriate manner, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies SD-6 and SIE-3.
Energy efficiency
In view of the number of residential units proposed, Stockport's minimum carbon reduction target for residential development of a 40% reduction over 2006 Part L Building Regulations applies. The revised Energy Statement submitted with the application considers the 'fabric first approach' as the most cost effective way of delivering an energy saving development and considers solar PV as the most favourable renewable energy technology. The use of biomass systems, wind power, heat pumps and combined heat and power have been discounted on the grounds of technical feasibility and viability. The Council Planning Policy Officer has confirmed that the information submitted within the revised Energy Statement demonstrates that the development could achieve an additional 13% improvement in carbon emissions, which ensures compliance with Stockport’s carbon reduction target and therefore accords with the requirements of Core Strategy DPD policy SD-3.
Design for security
A Crime Impact Statement has been submitted with the application, which has been assessed by Greater Manchester Police (Design for Security). The concerns raised to the proposal, contained within the consultation responses section above, have been taken into consideration by the applicant and amendments have been made accordingly. These include the provision of enclosure to front and rear gardens and the external boundaries of the site, details of the management and maintenance of communal open space areas and surveillance of the communal amenity space. Issues relating to the proposed apartment block have also been addressed, including entrance arrangements, use of French windows at ground floor level, cycle storage, bin storage and enclosure of amenity space. The concerns raised with regard to the location of the car park to serve the proposed apartment block are noted, however site constraints in the form of deep drainage runs in this part of the site have influenced the location of this car park in relation to the proposed apartment block. Security measures in relation to this car park are however proposed, including window location to improve surveillance, enclosure of the car park and appropriate levels of external lighting. As such, it is considered that the amendments made to the scheme have addressed the initial concerns raised by Greater Manchester Police (Design for Security) and provided that the proposed security measures are implemented within the development, the layout of the proposed development raises no major safety or security concerns, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-1.
Public health
The detailed comments received to the proposal from the Director of Public Health are contained within the consultee responses section above. In summary of and in response to these comments, it is noted that the provision of affordable housing within the scheme is welcomed from a public health perspective and the requirement for the submission, approval, implementation and review of a Travel Plan would be secured by condition. The amended scheme includes the provision of a pedestrian island at the proposed junction and footpath widening under the rail bridge would be secured by condition, to ensure improved accessibility. Open space within the development would be provided by way of two Local Areas for Play (LAP's), a landscaped buffer to the North of the site and an appropriate scheme of landscaping would be secured by condition, in order to maximise tree cover on the site.
Network Rail
The application site is located adjacent to an operational railway and the detailed comments received to the application from Network Rail are contained within the consultee responses section above. A number of potential issues have been raised from Network Rail, relating to the proximity of the development to the railway, security, drainage, noise and landscaping and detailed construction issues including proposed excavation, use of scaffolding and use of vibro- impact machinery. As a result of discussion, amended and additional information has been submitted by the applicant to ensure the siting of buildings a minimum of 2.0 metres from the boundary with the railway, the provision of a 1.8 metre security fence, the provision of a 3.0 metre high acoustic fence with a 600mm access zone, the provision of a containment kerb at the top of the retaining wall adjacent to plot 60 to prevent vehicle incursion risk and confirmation that there would be no soakaways within 20.0 metres for the boundary. On this basis, Network Rail have confirmed that their initial concerns will be addressed, subject to the submission of details of the materials proposed for infilling of the former railway cutting and the provision of a pedestrian access point.
Heritage and archaeology
Comments have been received to the proposal from the Council Conservation Officer and Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS). It is noted that there is a record relating to the 'putative' alignment of the Roman road between Melandra Roman fort (Glossop) and there is some archeological evidence to support the alignment, but not in the immediate vicinity. The construction of the railway and their cuttings means that very little pre- nineteenth century ground will survive within the site. As this is the case, it is considered unlikely that any evidence for the Roman road will survive and there is no reason to seek to impose any planning requirement upon the applicant. As such, the proposal raises no heritage or archaeological implications, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-3.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, the site is located within an accessible and sustainable location and the proposal seeks permission for a residential development on a previously developed, brownfield site. The addition of 60 residential units is welcomed, noting the Councils current position of housing under-supply. The total affordable provision of 47 units, albeit of a tenure that does not strictly comply with policy requirements, is greater than the proportion required by policy and would be a significant help to deliver such units which are required to meet an identified affordable housing need within the borough.
The layout and design of the proposed development is considered acceptable, in terms of its impact on the visual amenity of the area and its impact on the residential amenity of surrounding properties. The scheme would incorporate the safeguarding of an area of land to the North of the site to allow for the potential future construction of a train/tram link between Stockport Town Centre and Marple, which is a long term aspiration of the Council.
In the absence of objections from relevant internal and external consultees and subject to conditional control and legal agreements, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the issues of access, highway safety, traffic generation and parking; impact on trees; impact on ecology, protected species and biodiversity; land and water contamination; drainage; energy efficiency; safety and security; public health; impact on the adjacent operational railway; and archaeology.
The site is located within a Policy Guidance Area, directly adjacent to a railway line and industrial railway sidings and in proximity to industrial units, including waste management sites. The concerns raised to the proposal from the Council Environment Team, in respect of the potential noise and odour impact of these existing surrounding uses on potential occupiers of the proposed residential properties is noted. However, it has been demonstrated that with the provision of appropriate mitigation measures, recommended internal noise levels within the proposed properties could be met. Furthermore, due to the location of the site in relation to nearby waste management sites and subject to effective enforcement by the Environment Agency, it is considered that the risk of unacceptable odour emissions would be minimised. On this basis, the principle of a residential development within the Policy Guidance Area would be acceptable and it is considered that the proposal would ensure satisfactory living conditions for its occupiers.
In view of the above factors, the application is recommended for approval. Should Members agree the recommendation, it will be necessary to defer and delegated the decision to Officers, pending the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement. The Section 106 Agreement would secure a number of items, including the provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing, a commuted sum payment of £102,172.68p towards open space provision, a payment of £3000 to fund a Traffic Regulation Order/parking restrictions on Stockport Road East and the access road, a payment of £2500 to fund Travel Plan monitoring and clause to require the provision of a lit hardsurfaced path between Stockport Road East and Redhouse Lane in the event that this becomes viable.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant.
WERNETH AREA COMMITTEE (08/02/16)
The Planning Officer introduced the application and highlighted the pertinent issues with the proposal.
Councillor Gordon commented that the proposed single access into and out of the development was typical of many residential estates. However, the footpath under the railway bridge was narrow and asked whether this could be improved. The Planning Officer confirmed that widening of the footpath under the railway bridge was recommended as a condition by the Highway Engineer. Councillor Stuart Corris commented on the design of the proposed access and asked whether or not this could be improved to provide a dual access and exit. Concerns were also raised with regard to proposed site drainage and whether or not the system could cope, in view of the recent works on Stockport Road West/Ashton Road. The Planning Officer confirmed that the Highway Engineer was satisfied with the proposed access arrangements and the submission and approval of a drainage scheme would be secured by condition, in consultation with the Council Drainage Team, the Environment Agency and United Utilities. Councillor Christine Corris sought clarification as to how many neighbours were consulted and how much higher the proposed apartment block would be in relation to the adjacent residential properties. The Planning Officer confirmed that 80 surrounding properties/units were notified in writing of the proposal, which was also advertised by way of site and press notice, in accordance with adopted procedures. The Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed apartment block would be 1.0 metre higher than the adjacent residential properties. Councillor Lees noted the comments made by the owner/occupier of Unit 1-2 Auburn House with regard to drainage to the soakaway under the land and raised issues with flooding under the railway bridge. The Planning Officer again confirmed the provision of an appropriate drainage scheme would be secured by condition.
Mr Riley (owner/occupier of Number 81 Stockport Road East) spoke in objection to the proposal. Mr Riley's property is opposite of the proposed apartment block, which has been described as a prominent gateway feature which is not required. The proposed apartment block would be sited 1.0 metre higher than the adjacent housing and concerns were raised to its design and impact on outlook. It was also stated that the proposed apartment block would only be sited 19.0 metres from the properties on the opposite side of Stockport Road East, as opposed to between 21.0 metres and 24.0 metres referred to in the report. The site was considered to comprise Greenfield land rather than Brownfield land, as part of the former railway cutting was used for agriculture. Concerns were raised to parking on Stockport Road East as a result of the proposed parking restrictions and it was considered that 6 or 7 displaced parking spaces should be provided, rather than the 2 spaces proposed. Concerns were also raised to the loss of trees on the site.
Ms Munby (Stockport Homes) spoke in support of the application. The scheme would deliver 31 affordable rent units and 16 for sale on a shared ownership basis, with the remaining units to be developed for market sale by Caseys. It was confirmed that there are 6000 people on the housing waiting list and the development comprised a mixed tenure scheme to create a sustainable community. Current government focus is on home ownership and this would be one of the last opportunities to provide affordable homes for rent. The scheme would transform a derelict, Brownfield site and would provide a community orchard for public access. The scheme would result in a limited impact on the highway network and 2 parking spaces for properties on Stockport Road East would be incorporated within the development.
Members debated the proposal at length. Councillor Lloyd raised concerns to the impact of the development on the highway network. Whilst the scheme included 'Keep Clear' markings, the problem would be exiting into a line of stationary traffic, the danger of blocking traffic travelling from Bredbury and a solution to the congestion is not foreseen. Whilst is was noted that residents do not have rights to park on the road, if their spaces are removed, where would they park? It was considered that the applicant should provide more displaced parking spaces. Councillor Gordon understood the traffic concerns, however considered that the scheme should be acceptable and the proposed access arrangements are typical of those serving larger residential developments. Councillor Stuart Corris raised issues with regard to traffic generation and considered that this would require further investigation. Members were of the opinion that design is a subjective matter and one persons idea of acceptable design is not always reflective of everyone's. Whilst Members raised a number of concerns to the proposal, it was stated that planning guidance has a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that there did not appear to be any reasons for refusal for the application that would be defendable at appeal.
Following the debate, Members resolved to refer the application to the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee with a recommendation to grant. It was considered that a site visit was necessary to view the relationship of the proposed development to neighbouring properties and to view the proposed access to the site. Members requested that clarification should be sought from the applicant that the development would achieve the separation distances as referred to in the report. Members also required that the applicant provided a response in relation to the potential for a dual lane access and exit to serve the development and the applicant should consider additional displaced parking spaces for the properties on Stockport Road East.