Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Item 5

Application Reference: DC/057381 Location: BARNES HOSPITAL SITE, KINGSWAY, CHEADLE, STOCKPORT, SK8 2NY Proposal: Restoration, conversion, extension, alterations and part demolition of former hospital building to provide 38 residential units and erection of 117 new houses, with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space (Full Planning Application)

Type of Application: Full Planning Permission

Registration Date: 23/12/2014 Expiry Date: 24/03/2015 Case Officer: Mark Burgess

Applicant: Henley Homes Agent : Turley

COMMITTEE STATUS

Planning and Highways Regulation Committee. Residential development in excess of 100 dwellings on a site with an area of more than 3 hectares and Departure from development plan. Application referred to Cheadle Area Committee for comment/recommendation.

BACKGROUND

Members will recall the submission and consideration of a number of planning application for redevelopment of the former Barnes Hospital site over the last 13 years. Most recently, full planning permission for the conversion and extension of the former hospital building to provide 78 no. residential apartments and 100 no. residential apartments within three blocks to the North and outline planning permission for the erection of 63 no. residential dwellings to the East and South and the erection of 59 no. residential apartments within two blocks to the South West, with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space was granted in 2013 following consideration by Cheadle Area Committee, the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee and following referral of the application to the National Planning Casework Unit (Reference : DC052222). An associated listed building consent for the development was also granted in 2013 (Reference : DC052220).

Since the granting of planning permission and listed building consent in 2013, the site owners (Barnes Village Ltd) have agreed terms with Henley Homes to deliver the restoration of the former hospital building through enabling development. Henley Homes have undertaken detailed research into the local market requirements which has demonstrated that it would be difficult to procure sales for 237 apartments. This Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 has resulted in a new masterplan for a housing led development which allows for a significant reduction in overall unit numbers from 300 as approved in 2013 to 155 as currently proposed.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

The current application seeks full planning permission for the restoration, conversion, extension, alteration and partial demolition of the former Barnes Hospital building to provide 38 no. residential units and the erection of 117 no. new houses within the site (Reference : DC057381). In addition to the planning application, listed building consent is sought for the restoration, conversion, extension, alteration and partial demolition of the former Barnes Hospital building to provide 38 no. residential units (Reference : DC057383).

The main components of the proposal total of 155 no. residential units are described in more detail below :-

Former Barnes Hospital

Full planning permission and listed building consent is sought for the restoration, conversion and alteration of the former hospital building to create 38 no. residential units. This element of the proposal would include the demolition of existing unlisted structures to the Northern elevation of the building and the erection of a modern two storey extension to the Northern elevation. The proposal, which would provide a mixture of one, two, three and four bedroomed units, would largely be in the form of modern townhouses within the existing building (15 no.) and proposed extension (7 no.) but would also include some apartments (14 no.) and duplexes (2 no.). The proposal would include the repair and renovation of the existing building, using like- for-like materials in terms of brick, stone, slate, lead and timber casement windows, and repair and renovation of internal staircases, concrete corridor floors and timber intermediate floors.

Development within the grounds of the former Barnes Hospital building

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 117 no. residential units within the grounds of the former hospital building. The proposal would comprise a mixture of two storey, two bedroom (16 no.), two storey, three bedroom (16 no.) two and a half storey, three bedroom (18 no.), three storey, three bedroom (42 no.) and three storey, four bedroom (25 no.) units. The properties would be arranged in four terraced blocks to the North, three terraced blocks to the East and twenty two semi- detached and terraced blocks to the South of the former hospital building and would comprise five basic house types. All of the properties would have private front and rear gardens and between one and two parking spaces, including garages, hardstanding and roadside parking.

Associated development

The existing vehicular access to the site from the West would be retained. Improvements to the access would include a double lane exit for vehicles, widening of the footway and provision of a cycle path facility along the A34 frontage, improved Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 pedestrian crossing facilities and reconfiguration of the right hand turn facility onto and off the A34 for vehicles entering and leaving the site. The site would be served by an all movement priority junction with a spine road into the site and an internal layout incorporating a mix of traditional and shared surface roadways. The proposal would include a pedestrian link to the East of the site, connecting to the existing public right of way into Cheadle. A total of 252 parking spaces are proposed to serve the development.

The existing pond to the South West of the site would be relocated to the North and the playing field/football pitch to the North would be reinstated. The Northern portion of the site would also include an informal meadow, planted bunds, pathways and re- modelling of the woodland area. Formal open space is proposed by way of three Local Areas for Play (LAP), one to the North East of and one to the North West of the former hospital building and one to the South West of the site and a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) to the North East of the proposed Northern housing blocks. Informal landscaped open space is proposed throughout the site. The convalescent garden adjacent to the former hospital building would be re-introduced within a reconstructed courtyard.

The applications are accompanied by the following supporting information :-

• Planning Statement. • Design and Access Statement. • Heritage Statement. • Planning Application Methodology Statement. • Archeological Desk-based Assessment • Transport Assessment. • Framework Travel Plan. • Arboricultural Statement. • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. • Ecological Surveys. • Badger Survey. • Flood Risk Assessment. • Environmental Noise Impact Assessment. • Energy Statement. • Crime Impact Statement. • Viability Appraisal Report.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The former Barnes hospital site covers an area of approximately 7 hectares and comprises the main Grade II listed former convalescent hospital building which is surrounded by extensive areas of bare ground, vegetation and woodland. The site includes a pond to the South East of the former hospital building and an unused football pitch to the Northern portion of the site. Vehicular access to the site is taken from the A34 Kingsway from the West. Levels vary across the site, sloping down from the centrally located former hospital building to the North.

The site is bounded to the North and East by the M60 and M60 slip road and to the Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

West by the A34 Kingsway. The Southern boundary of the site is delineated by a public footpath and an operational railway line.

The former hospital building has been vacant since 1999 when it became surplus to requirements and was closed by Manchester Healthcare Trust. Since then the building has been unused and ownership of the site has been regularly changed. During this time, a number of development proposals have been submitted to and considered by the Council, involving the repair and adaptation of former hospital building and residential development within the site. Due to the economic climate, the condition of the building and the form of the supporting development approved, none of these previous proposals have progressed. Due to the length of vacancy, the former hospital building has been the subject of vandalism resulting in significant damage and large elements of the building are unprotected and exposed to the effects of weather.

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 main part of the site is located within the Major Existing Developed Site in the Green Belt (MEDS), the Northern portion of the site is located within the Green Belt and the whole site is located within the Landscape Character Area (River Mersey), as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. The former hospital building is a Grade II listed building, the site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and is adjoined by a Public Right of Way to the South and South East. The following policies are therefore relevant in consideration of the application :-

Saved UDP policies

• LCR1.1 : LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS • LCR1.1A : THE URBAN FRINGE INCLUDING THE RIVER VALLEYS • EP1.7 : DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK • EP1.9 : SAFEGUARDING OF AERODROMES AND AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES • GBA1.2 : CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN BELT • GBA1.7 : MAJOR EXISTING DEVELOPED SITES IN THE GREEN BELT • L1.1 : LAND FOR ACTIVE RECREATION • L1.2 : CHILDRENS PLAY • MW1.5 : CONTROL OF WASTE FROM DEVELOPMENT

Core Strategy DPD policies

• CS1 : OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE • SD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

• SD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN - NEW DEVELOPMENT • SD-4 : DISTRICT HEATING (NETWORK DEVELOPMENT AREAS) • 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 • SIE-5 : AVIATION FACILITIES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER BROADCAST INFRASTRUCTURE • 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

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

• AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPG • RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS SPG • DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPD • SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SPD • SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SPD • TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS SPD

National Planning Legislation

• THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)

PLANNING HISTORY

• DC057374 : Conversion of and extension to former hospital building to form residential accommodation together with access roads and landscaping. Erection of new residential development in grounds of former hospital with associated car parking (Screening Opinion) : EIA not required - 31/12/14.

• DC052222 : Hybrid Planning Application comprising :- 1) Full Planning Application for the conversion and extension of the former hospital building to provide 78 residential apartments and the erection of 100 residential apartments Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

within three blocks to the North with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space; 2) Outline Planning Application for the erection of 63 residential dwellings to the East and South and the erection of 59 residential apartments within two blocks to the South West with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space : Granted - 20/11/13.

• DC052220 : Listed Building Consent Application for the conversion, extension, restoration and alteration of the former hospital building to provide 78 residential apartments : Granted - 20/11/13.

• DC052133 : Screening Opinion for the conversion of an extension to former hospital building to residential accommodation together with erection of new residential development in grounds of former hospital, associated car parking, access roads and landscaping : EIA not required - 02/04/13.

• DC023116 : Erection of basement car park with 47 spaces to rear of building : Granted - 08/08/06.

• DC023115 : New internal road layout and erection of basement level car park in connection with change of use and conversion of main hospital building to 42 flats and erection of 18 houses and 68 flats : Granted - 07/08/06.

• DC021432 : Listed Building application for the formation of a basement car park to provide 44 car parking spaces including 6 disabled spaces, involving creation of vehicular access and access to bin store : Withdrawn - 27/04/06.

• DC021429 : New internal access roads and erection of car parking with deck over : Withdrawn - 15/02/06.

• DC019995 : Listed Building Consent application for conversion of Barnes Hospital to form 38 apartments and 4 townhouses including demolition of curtilage buildings and internal alterations (Amended scheme) : Granted - 19/09/05.

• DC009370 : Screening Opinion for conversion of Listed Building and redevelopment of more recent buildings to provide 148 apartments and 11 houses together with associated car parking and landscape works : EIA not required - 17/10/02.

• DC009181 : Conversion of Listed Building to form 40 flats. Demolition of curtilage buildings and erection of three storey buildings to provide 111 flats and 11 houses together with associated car parking, landscaping and open space, including retention of playing field : Withdrawn - 15/03/04

• DC009092 : Listed Building Consent application for alterations to Listed Building to provide 40 flats. Demolition of curtilage buildings to facilitate residential development : Withdrawn - 15/03/04.

• DC008494 : Proposed residential development (Screening Opinion application Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

relating to the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment) : EIA not required - 26/07/02.

• DC008104 : Change of use of vacant hospital buildings to create 42 flats. Demolition of curtilage buildings and erection of two and three storey buildings to form 18 houses and 68 flats with associated landscape, recreational, access and other works. (Listed Building Application) : Granted - 20/11/03.

• DC008103 : Change of use of vacant hospital buildings to create 42 flats. Demolition of curtilage buildings and erection of two and three storey buildings to form 18 houses and 68 flats with associated landscape, recreational, access and other works : Granted - 20/11/03.

• DC006373 : Alterations to listed building in connection with 35 apartments, demolition of more recent curtilage building to facilitate residential development (Listed Building Consent) : Withdrawn - 28/06/02.

• DC006175 : Conversion of main hospital building, demolition of extensions and other buildings and erection of 2 three/four storey blocks to form 166 no. flats and a three/four storey terraced block to form 18 no. houses with associated car parking, landscaping and open space (Amended Scheme) : Withdrawn - 28/06/02.

• DC004041 : Listed Building Consent application for change of use of main building from geriatric hospital to offices : Withdrawn - 29/11/01.

• DC004040 : Change of use of main building from geriatric hospital to offices : Withdrawn - 27/11/01.

• J.62525 : Change of use of Ward 5 from hospital use (C2) to use for clinical research (B1(b)) : Granted - 12/07/95.

• J.55619 : Replace existing wooden cabin with steel container to be used for storage : Granted - 23/06/92.

• J.54457 : Conversion and extension of existing chapel to form coffee lounge, toilet facilities and foyer to existing dining suite : Granted - 07/01/92.

• J.53859 : Erection of block of three garages for parking of ambulances : Granted - 27/11/91.

• J.53599 : Erection of portakabin adjoining existing pavilion and dug out at side of pitch : Granted - 08/10/91.

• J.51289 : Emergency fire escape to nurses residence : Granted - 29/10/90.

• J.45409 : Erection of single storey creche and nursery and associated car parking (Outline) : Refused - 07/08/89.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

• J.38902 : Erection of porch to underside of existing porch at main entrance : Granted - 27/03/87.

• J.34139 : Staff lounge and cloakroom accommodation : Granted - 14/06/85.

• J.34138 : Single storey extension for hot water system : Granted - 19/06/85.

• J.33193 : Erection of prefabricated vehicle garage : Granted - 14/02/85.

• J.1132 : Extensions : Granted 03/12/74.

• 7/5 2306 : Chapel : Granted - 27/02/58.

NEIGHBOURS VIEWS

The owners/occupiers of 289 surrounding properties were notified in writing of the application. The neighbour notification period expired on the 5th February 2014. The proposal was advertised by way of site and press notice, the consultation periods of which expired on the 7th February 2015 and the 4th February 2015 respectively.

Three letters of objection have been received to the application. The main causes for concern are summarised below :-

• There is existing congestion on the A34 Kingsway in both directions. No study of the implications of increased traffic has been mentioned. There would be an increase in traffic due to increased number of residents. The hospital was built and was originally in use before the war when there was no access onto the A34. Before closure traffic was not as heavy as it is now but was still a problem for residents. • This part of the A34 is seriously affected by the new traffic management. Drivers currently run the lights, there is no policing/keep clear signs/cameras. More traffic entering from the site would encourage drivers to chance ignoring the lights. • Effects on traffic flow along the A34. The only vehicular access to the site would be from Kingsway. Traffic entering from the North may increase hold-ups at Gatley lights. Traffic entering from the South wishing to turn right, although there is a small turn off, would meet queuing traffic. Traffic leaving the site will struggle to get onto the Southbound lane. Serious concerns as to how will traffic leaving the site would be able to join the Northbound lane. • The applicant states that owners will be advised of alternatives to car transport and be encouraged to use them. Is it foreseeable that owners will eschew the use of a car as it is doubtful that this has ever happened in the past? • Impact on the adjacent South Park Road estate, a residents only traffic area, in terms of increased traffic. Residents will use this estate as a way to turn right and go towards Manchester and the M60 when they exit the site. This is an existing problem and traffic will get worse as residents unlawfully use the estate as a 'rat- run'. The police have refused to take action against drivers who ignore the access only signs. • An additional set of traffic lights would cause further disruption. A second entrance is required. An underpass would be a solution. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Two letters of comment have been received to the application. It is noted that :-

• Would like their parking space to be kept clear as they require help in the morning; • Whether house rates would be the same as those that were built during the second world and have not been developed or as those which have turned garages into playrooms;

One letter of support has been received to the application, which notes that :-

• There is a lack of new build developments in the local area which makes it difficult for first time buyers who have grown up locally to buy their first house in the area; • Plans are excellent in respect of the accommodation to be provided and landscaping and are to be welcomed.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Planning Policy Officer (Open Space)

There appears to be an anomaly with the Open Space provision , paragraph 4.11 states that there will be three LAPs to be provided on site, including one positioned to the SW of the site, whereas the plan does not show there to be a LAP to the south of the site.

With regards to the comments ‘there is a shortfall in terms a LAP not allocated to the south of the site….’, this needs clarifying. In terms of Children’s Open Space provision, there seems to be sufficient provision on site. The population capacity for this proposal is calculated at 611.

The policy requirements of Dev Man Policy SIE 2 from the Core Strategy and the Recreational Open Space Provision SPG, indicate that occupancy levels of 100 or more are expected to provide 1.7 ha per 1,000 population for formal recreation and 0.7 ha per 1,000 population for children’s’ play and casual recreation. This has been the consistent approach since the policy was first adopted. Consequently the total population of 611 requires 4,277sqm 0.43 Ha for children’s play and recreation (611x 7sq.m. = 4,277sq.m). This is provided on site.

In order to be in accordance with the three tier structure set out in Dev Man Policy SIE 2 from the Core Strategy and the Recreational Open Space Provision SPG, a LAP and be within a walking distance of 100m of all homes. The reason why the development is not in accordance with Dev Man Policy SIE 2 is because there will be homes not within adequate access of children’s play space provision, making the onsite open space provision insufficient.

In terms of the off-site contribution required , this relates to Formal provision because this is not provided onsite.

Formal Provision Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

As above the requirement of the Core Strategy policy is for as much as possible of the open space to be provided on-site, where this cannot be provided on site the commuted sum would be calculated as follows;

The space required for formal provision would be 10,387sqm Formal 611 x 17sq.m. = 10,387sq.m.

Commuted Sums Formal Provision 611 x £198.35 = £121,191.85 Formal Maintenance 611x 17sq.m. x £11.86 = £123,189.82

Total = £244,381.67

I note the comment regarding the NPPF recognising viability. It ought to be stressed that the issue over viability needs to be balanced with the development being sustainable in accordance with the NPPF.

The underlying thread to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to help achieve sustainable development. It sets out that sustainable development is about positive growth – making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations.

The environmental and social progress is related to having access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation as it can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities, as set out under par 73 of the NPPF.

In balancing viability and sustainability, it needs to be established whether the development is in favour of sustainable development, as required by the NPPF and if it fulfils one of the core planning principals of the NPPF which is ‘to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and …facilities and services to meet local needs.’

Core Policy CS8 also highlights the need to preserve and enhance the landscape and character of the borough’s countryside and should be viewed alongside saved UDP policy LCR1.1 (Landscape Character Areas) and LCR1.1a (The Urban Fringe Including River Valleys), which acknowledge the need for proposals to be accommodated without damage to landscape quality and puts an emphasis upon environmental protection and informal recreational provision in the river valleys.

It should also be noted that Stockport has a well-established policy requiring the provision of open space on site through a hierarchy of children’s play spaces and it should be noted that the proposed scheme falls short of this requirement.

Landscape Officer

Existing Trees

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

The existing trees to be retained on site should be protected in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations. It is assumed that the tree officer is being consulted on the loss of existing trees and the proposals.

Soft Landscape

In terms of soft landscape, more detail is required: • Name, location (planting arrangement), size and planting density of all tree/planting material • Tree pit detail. • We prefer topsoil depths to be 450mm for planted areas and 150mm for areas to be turfed. • Details and depths of proposed mulch to planting beds. • Five year management and maintenance proposals.

Hard Landscape

The site layout plan shows limited detail of hard materials and therefore we require more detailed information. In terms of hard landscape we require: • Details of boundaries • Details of surfacing • Tree pit details within hard surfaced areas • Tree protection measures within hard surfaced areas • Details of furniture, including raised beds

Proposed Open Space and Leap

More detailed information is required about this to check the size etc is adequate for the proposed development.

More detail is also required about the trim trail.

Bunds

More detail is required about the proposed bunds such as heights, construction etc.

Wetland and Habitat

It is assumed that the ecologist is being consulted on the loss of existing habitat and trees and the proposals.

Conclusion

We support this application subject to our requirements and recommendations. Once the requested information is submitted we are happy to comment further. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Highway Engineer Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

This full application is for conversion of the former hospital building to provide 38 residential units and the construction of 117 new houses, with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space.

The site has two extant permissions, most recently for conversion of the main building into 78 apartments and the new build of 222 properties and previously for conversion to provide 110 apartments and 18 new build houses. The most recent permission, DC052222 provides a material fallback position and appropriate default position for determining this application.

The development site will be served by an all movements priority junction, with a spine road into the site and internal layout incorporating a mix of traditional and shared surface roadways. It is understood that the development roads will be offered for adoption rather than remaining private, which is preferred as it reduces risk and liability for residents and other interested parties.

The main issues which need consideration for this proposal are traffic generation, highway impact and operational issues, site entrance arrangements and site accessibility, other issues include site layout, parking provision, travel planning and general resident safety and amenity.

Traffic generation

Trip rates for calculating the likely vehicular movements associated with the site were agreed with the Council when considering the previous permission on the site and their application for this proposal is appropriate and acceptable. The previously approved traffic generation is as follows:

Morning Evening Units Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Houses 63 13 34 47 32 20 52 Flats 237 23 73 96 78 42 120 Total 36 107 142 110 61 171

The current application proposes an increased number of houses and less flats, overall there would be a reduction in the number of units. The consequent traffic generation is as follows: Morning Evening Units Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Houses 117 23 84 115 79 48 127 Flats 38 4 12 16 13 7 20 Total 27 96 131 92 55 147

The residual traffic generation, which is the difference between the approval and the current proposal, represents a reduction in the morning and evening peak periods. This itself will offer benefits to the operation of the site entrance and a reduced impact on the adjoining highway network and as such there is no justification to withhold permission based upon traffic generation.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Proposed site entrance arrangements

Whilst the submitted entrance layout has in effect already been approved as part of the previous permission, it now incorporates slight modifications to reflect works recently completed by the Council funded by the Cycle City Ambition Grant.

The entrance arrangement is in full accordance with DMRB Design Standards. It will afford significant benefit for drivers undertaking turning manoeuvres by regulating the priority in the Central Reserve Opening, providing better lane definition and movement priority and consequently reducing the risk of conflict. The layout includes a double lane exit for vehicles which helps with capacity and reduces the delay for drivers, particularly those wishing to turn left who could become stuck behind a right turning vehicle. The layout also includes improved pedestrian crossing facilities, a splitter refuge to segregate movement, skid resistant surfacing on the main carriageway and provision of a wider footway and cycle path facility across the frontage. The works recently completed by the Council were constrained by highway limits and the need to temporarily remove the bus stop layby, bringing forward this development will enable further footway/cycleway widening to the desirable minimum and reintroduction and upgrading of the bus stop. This will greatly improve the experience and facilities for pedestrian and cycle movement along the A34.

In terms of the overall junction design the layout represents a considerable improvement to the existing access and betterment to the extant permissions. I consider it should be capable of operation in a manner which does not put driver safety at significant risk. Visibility splays measuring 4.5m by 120m are available and will be protected, this level of visibility is acceptable having regard to the junction design, highway speed limit and actual vehicle speeds along the corridor. The junction arrangement has been subjected to an independent road safety audit and this has concluded that the proposed layout is acceptable in principle. Delivery of the entrance works will be covered by planning condition and will require the developer to enter into a S278 Agreement, cover all costs etc.

Operational assessments/highway impact

The operational impact of the previously considered proposal for the site was assessed using the traffic model which had been built to appraise the recent signalisation improvement to the A34/M60 off slip and associated improvements to the A34/A560 junction. The model was extended to include the proposed site entrance to enable assessment of how this would operate within the overall A34 link. The operation of the proposed site entrance was further assessed using a standalone PICADY model. The overall modelling exercise showed that the site entrance will operate comfortably within theoretical capacity and although some minor queues may form, particularly for right turn manoeuvres from the site, these would be within acceptable limits and would not cause significant delay or congestion for drivers. To ensure a robust approach the entrance was further assessed to have regard to potential traffic growth in future years and this demonstrated the junction would continue to operate well within acceptable tolerances.

Noting that this application is for a reduced scale of development and the Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 consequent traffic generation is appreciably lower, there was no reasonable need for further modelling works to be undertaken by the applicant. There have been no material change in circumstances and the work undertaken for the previous permission has demonstrated that the likely traffic generated by the development can reasonably and safely accommodated both within the site entrance and on the adjoining network. I conclude that in terms of highway impact the proposed development is considered acceptable.

Site accessibility

My views on site accessibility in effect reiterate reservations expressed on the previous submission. The site is located on a highly trafficked corridor and is somewhat isolated from transport services and amenities. There are bus stops on the site frontage which are easily accessible to residents however the frequency of the 196 service which use these stops is relatively low, one per hour running from Cheadle Royal area to East Didsbury. I remain to be convinced however that the service is frequent enough or serves the locations needed to actively encourage residents to choose to bus travel from these stops. I also consider it unlikely that residents would choose to use this service as a linked trip with other bus, train or tram services due to the consequent risk of delay and congestion and risks associated with scheduling alongside another service. There are other bus stops further afield from the site located on Gatley Road and Manchester Road, these are however some 800m walking distance from the site which is considered to be in excess of the realistic distance people would choose to walk associated with bus travel. Nevertheless it is a fact that there is a bus services in close proximity for residents who do not have access to a private car and the bus stop on the site frontage will be reintroduced and upgraded.

The site is approximately 900m from Gatley Station. The services from this Station provide a link to Manchester, the Airport, Crewe and Wilmslow and average between 3 and 5 services per hour. To the North of the site in East Didsbury is the recently opened Metrolink Stop providing frequent services into and around Manchester at 15 minute intervals.

An appraisal of the relationship of the site to other amenities and services that residents can reasonably expect to enjoy demonstrates that there are various employment, retail, educational, leisure, medical and entertainment opportunities within 1km or 2km walking distance from the site and a 5km cycling distance.

Footway provision within the vicinity of the site is relatively good and some additional improvements will be delivered on the site frontage as part of the entrance arrangements. The site frontage footway will be widened to further improve the shared footway cycle path and improved surfacing is proposed to the subway ramps and within the subway.

A longstanding permission on the site delivered a commuted sum payment which the Council has utilised to deliver improvements to the public right of way which adjoins the Southern and eastern boundaries of the site and then continues across the motorway, across the river, alongside the former Standard Chemicals site redevelopment and then along the Brook Road bridleway into Cheadle. The scheme Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 has delivered a widened and improved surface pathway, better and appropriate signage particularly at the bridges and some lighting. It is hoped that the route can become a concessionary cyclepath which will enable improved cycle linkage to Cheadle Centre.

To accompany this scheme the developer has agreed to cover the costs of various cycle parking features. A commuted sum of £10,000 will cover the costs of providing cycle parking at Gatley Station which has potential to encourage residents to choose to cycle to the Station and travel by train, along with numerous Sheffield type stands to be located in and around Cheadle Centre. This sum will be secured under the terms of a S106 Agreement.

Whilst I recognise that the recent footpath improvements, footway/cycleway works and upgrade works to the M60/A34 southbound junction have delivered significant improvements for vulnerable road users I still have reservations about site accessibility. I consider the site to be relatively remote from amenities and services and I do not consider the surrounding highway infrastructure will encourage a significant number of residents to actively choose walking and cycling as their ideal or preferred mode of travel. I consider it is likely that the site will remain high in car dependence given the likely population density and demographics of residents.

Council and National Policy requires new development which generates significant numbers of trips to be sustainably located, where there is good access to public transport and effective provision for cyclists and pedestrians to minimise the need for car travel. The site does not relate particularly well to public transport opportunities and is not ideally situated for pedestrian and cycle linkage (notwithstanding recent improvements). Residents will not benefit from good or indeed desirable levels of bus services within a distance of 400m of the site which is the recognised distance that residents are likely to walk to access bus travel.

Ideally development would contribute towards improving bus linkage, infrastructure and frequency along the A34 corridor with further potential for school bus provision and facilitating dial-a-ride type services. I do however acknowledge the likely costs of such measures would be significant although I do not consider it would be unreasonable as part of a development of this scale to seek a contribution towards service improvements.

I must also have regard to the fact that the site scores 54 using the Council’s accessibility model thus it shows a degree of accessibility although clearly not as high as other locations or what would normally be expected for a development of the intensity and population density likely in this case. Therefore whilst having reservations I must take cognisance of this and the previous permission and reach the reasonable conclusion that an objection on accessibility grounds cannot be sustained.

I recommend that any approval granted is subject to the requirement to produce and implement a Residential Travel Plan which should be secured by means of suitable clauses within a Section 106 Agreement. There is a framework travel plan accompanying the application, this can be worked up to a final travel plan.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Potential impact on the South Park Estate

The surrounding highway network does not permit drivers exiting the M60 to right turn onto the A34 Manchester bound. The recognised permitted manoeuvre is a U- turn at the Cheadle Royal roundabout but drivers tend to ignore this option due to the protracted travel distance and operational difficulties along the A34. It has been observed and is evident that a reasonable proportion of drivers undertake a U-turn in side roads off Gatley Road or travel through the South Park Estate to access the A34 towards Manchester. Residents on the Estate are permitted direct access to their properties when exiting the M60 however through traffic is not permitted. Whilst it is acknowledged there is a problem with unauthorised manoeuvres it must be noted that such manoeuvres are unlawful and it is perhaps unreasonable to tarnish on residents in the proposed development that they will effectively break the law in order to gain convenient access the site. The fact that this is unlawful and an enforcement issue is reason enough not to oppose the application on these grounds. I also note this proposal is less intensive that the previously approved scheme so arguably will have less of an impact.

Site layout

The application seeks full permission for the conversion of the former hospital building to provide 38 residential units and the construction of 117 new houses, with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space.

The main spine road which serves the site is proposed as a traditional carriageway and footway layout, with the footway widened towards the entrance to enable a shared footway cycle path to be formed. A traditional road layout is required in this area of the site as the main priority of movement is likely to be vehicular traffic. Once within the site the road layout will be a mix of traditional road space and shared surface arrangements. The use of shared spaces is strongly encouraged as it makes better use of road space, prioritises the movement of vulnerable road users and provides a sense of space and for inclusive use of the road by residents for purposes other than movement. Detailed design of these sections of road will be worked up as part of the condition process and I accept at this stage that the proposed layout would be fit for purpose and is considered acceptable. The applicant has inferred that the road will be offered for adoption which is welcomed.

The layout has been subjected to necessary swept path analysis and this shows that refuse sized vehicles which are the likely maximum size of vehicle which could visit the site can safely and efficiently negotiate the road layout and serve the development without significant concern.

The submitted layout also includes on its Easterly side a link for pedestrians and cyclists to the adjoining public right of way and this is welcomed as it will afford a convenient and more direct link for users travelling towards Cheadle District Centre. This link will form part of any future adoption agreement and will become highway to ensure continued availability.

In conclusion I am satisfied that the internal road layout will provide a safe environment for all means of traffic affording different priorities where necessary. The Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 design should avoid excessive vehicle speed issues and provides a quality environment for cyclists and pedestrians in particular.

Parking provision

One hundred and fifty five residential units are proposed and the layout provides a mix of properties with two dedicated spaces, some with one space and some specific parking spaces incorporated into the design of the road space, which is a practice strongly encouraged in Manual for Streets and represents good design. In total 252 parking spaces have been identified to serve the development including a reasonable proportion of disabled spaces and this level of provision satisfies Council standards and should not give rise to excessive overspill parking concerns. I am satisfied that parking spaces have been appropriately apportioned around the site to encourage use and not inconvenience residents and visitors. The road layout has been designed to accommodate space for further on street parking which would not cause operational and safety concerns and should accommodate for any additional demand for parking space.

In additional to an acceptable level of car parking, cycle parking will be provided at a ratio of one space per unit of accommodation. The details of provision, layout and design will be dealt with by planning condition.

Resident amenity and safety

The internal road space layout affords a suitable environment for residents and visitors. The layout where necessary prioritises vehicles whilst affording adequate pedestrian space and elsewhere pedestrians are prioritised in a shared space environment. The layout affords space for movement, other features and socialisation and I am satisfied that the safety and amenity of residents and visitors will not be adversely affected by aspects of the design.

Summary

I am satisfied that the traffic generated by the development can reasonably be accommodated on the adjoining highway network without significant detriment. The proposed entrance layout is design compliant and suitable to accommodate associated vehicular, cycle and pedestrian traffic in a safe and efficient manner.

Whilst I have reservations about site accessibility I acknowledge recent improvement works undertaken, measures that will be brought forward by this scheme and the potential for improved cycle parking facilities to be delivered. I am also minded of the previous permission when concluding the development to be acceptable from a highway perspective.

Necessary conditions and terms for the legal agreement will be provided under separate cover.

Recommendation

No objections. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Environment Team (Land Contamination)

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 • Con 1 Informative

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 Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 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.

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.

Sport England

Comments of 02/02/15

Sport England has been previously consulted on planning applications affecting this site and does not consider the site to form part of, or constitute, a playing field for consultation purposes, ie as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No.2184). Sport England therefore regards this as a non-statutory consultation.

The application site comprises of former hospital buildings and grounds. In the north east of the site is a disused football pitch. The land appears to be unmaintained and Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 overgrown. Remnants of ancillary facilities remain. The footprint of a pavilion (now demolished) and dugouts are still visible.

Although the playing field has not been used for some time it is still the case that the planning use of the land is for playing fields. This use has not expired, nor has it been dimmed by its apparent period of inactivity in such use. Given that the playing field has not been rendered incapable of playing field use by the carrying out of some other lawful development, I am of the opinion that it retains the ability to be brought back into active use.

It is pertinent to note that Sport England was previously consulted on a hybrid application for, amongst other things, conversion of the hospital building into apartments and the erection of buildings to serve as dwellings (reference DC/052222). The disused playing pitch fell into the part of the site where full planning permission was sought. Landscape proposals for this part of the site would have prevented the disused sports pitch being brought back into use. However, the landscape proposals also showed a new sports pitch located slightly to the east of the existing pitch, with a slightly different alignment. The pitch measured around 90m x 48m (excluding runoffs) and had markings for football. We concluded that the scheme would have provided a new playing pitch and effectively brought part of the site back into sporting use. Subject to a planning condition, Sport England did not object to the application but did make some recommendations.

Planning permission for application DC/052222 has since been granted. A new application has now been submitted which seeks to alter the mix of dwellings on the site. The planning statement notes that

“As previously the current scheme includes for the retention and re-provision of a playing field in the north eastern concern of the site. … The proposals have not changed since Sport England previously reviewed and commented on them raising no objection.”.

If this was the case, then one would logically expect Sport England not to raise an objection to the current application. However, the current application would result in a much smaller area of useable playing field compared to the approved scheme as a result of the proposed landscaping works. Drawing Number AL[05]121 (Proposed Masterplan Ground Floor Plan) shows a much smaller area of useable playing field containing a pitch of around 46m x 36m. In terms of FA pitch dimensions, this is approximately the size of the smallest pitch; a 5v5 mini soccer pitch for use by children under 7 / under 8 years old. Application DC/052222 was to have provided a larger useable area of playing field and the layout drawing showed a pitch measuring around 90m x 48m (excluding runoffs) with markings for football.

From our perspective, the proposed scheme is materially different from the approved scheme in that the area of playing field / proposed playing pitch is significantly smaller. Previously, the site had accommodated a full size football pitch plus ancillary facilities. The current proposal would result in a much reduced area of functional playing field. It is relevant here to refer to Stockport’s playing pitch strategy as this identified a deficit of senior football pitches at peak times across Stockport, and in the Cheadle Area. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Taking all the above into account, the proposal is considered not to accord with our playing field policy. The landscaping works would reduce the functional area of playing field on the site compared to the previously approved scheme, and compared to that which was used in the past on the site. This being the case, and in the absence of any other exceptional circumstances, Sport England wishes to raise an objection to the current application.

Sport England would recommend that the landscape works are amended such that the area of useable playing field is large enough to accommodate a senior size football pitch.

Comments of 23/02/15

As you are aware, Sport England raised an objection to the application above under cover of a letter dated 02/02/2015. In brief, we considered that the proposed scheme would have resulted in a smaller area of functional playing field compared to a previously approved scheme, and also compared to how the site was used in the past for sport.

The agent has since supplied a set of amended drawings which show that the current application is consistent with the previously approved Application DC/052222 in that it shows a larger useable area of playing field a football pitch measuring around 90m x 48m (excluding runoffs).

From our perspective the scheme is now equivalent to the previously approved application. Landscape proposals for the site would prevent the disused sports pitch on the site being brought back into use. However, the landscape proposals also show a new sports pitch located slightly to the east of the existing pitch, with a slightly different alignment. The pitch measures around 90m x 48m (excluding runoffs) and has markings for football. In other words, the scheme would provide a new playing pitch and bring it into use.

In light of the above, the proposal broadly accords with exception E4 of Sport England’s playing field policy which states that:

E4 The playing field or playing fields which would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of the development.

However, to actually comply with the requirements of E4 the playing pitch that is created needs to be fit for purpose, and suitable maintenance arrangements need to be put in place. Without such arrangements, a playing pitch would rapidly become unplayable and become unused. A planning condition can control these matters, though. Therefore, subject to the following condition being imposed on any grant of consent, Sport England would have no objection to the proposed development.

No development shall commence until the following documents have been submitted Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority [after consultation with Sport England]:

(i) A detailed assessment of ground conditions (including drainage and topography) of the land proposed for the playing pitch which identifies constraints which could affect playing field quality; and (ii) Based on the results of the assessment to be carried out pursuant to (i) above, a detailed scheme which ensures that the playing pitch will be provided to an acceptable quality. The scheme shall include a written specification of soils structure, proposed drainage, cultivation and other operations associated with grass and sports turf establishment; a schedule of playing field maintenance for a period of at least 5 years; and a programme of implementation.

The approved scheme shall be carried out in full and in accordance with a timeframe agreed with the Local Planning Authority [after consultation with Sport England]. The land shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the scheme and made available for playing field use in accordance with the scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the playing field is prepared to an adequate standard and is fit for purpose.

Informative: The applicant is advised that the scheme should comply with the relevant industry Technical Guidance, including guidance published by Sport England, National Governing Bodies for Sport. Particular attention is drawn to Natural Turf for Sport (Sport England). It is also strongly recommended that the assessment and scheme are undertaken and prepared by a sports turf specialist.

A condition would also be needed to ensure the development accords with the amended plans.

There are also a number of matters that need further consideration to ensure that the benefits of creating a new sports pitch are fully realised. The proposed plans appear to include no changing provision or parking provision for the pitch. Sport England would normally regard the lack of such facilities as making the pitch unfit for purpose. In this case, though, it is recognised that the existing site no longer has a pavilion. All the same, the lack of such ancillary provision could limit the use of the pitch and / or create problems for future residents of the development, eg through pitch users parking in residents spaces, users getting changed by the side of the pitch etc.

I would also point out that the dimensions set out for football pitches by the Football Association have recently changed. Previously, for each type of football pitch The FA set out ranges of pitch sizes defined by a minimum and maximum size. Now, though, The FA recommended pitch sizes show a specific length and width for each type of pitch.

For example, previously a senior size pitch could vary between 90m x 45.5m and 120m x 90m (all excluding runoffs). Now the size of a senior football pitch is set as 100m x 64m (excluding runoff). Further details can be found at:

I would recommend that the issues around ancillary provision and the dimensions of Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 the pitch are considered by the applicant and amendments to the scheme made.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service

Supporting documentation accompanying the application includes an archaeological desk based assessment, produced by Oxford Archaeology North (November 2014). This is an updated version of the desk based assessment submitted with a previous application in 2013. Our comments remain the same as for the previous scheme.

The desk based assessment describes the archaeological potential of the development site, relating to its promontory location, nearby finds of Saxon cross fragments and Roman coins, and the projected line of a Roman road. It is known from investigations elsewhere in Greater Manchester that promontories such as the one that Barnes Hospital is located on were conducive for later prehistoric and Romano-British settlement. It is clear that much of the land within the development site has been disturbed by previous developments relating to the hospital. However, the desk based assessment has identified some areas which seem not to have had disturbance and where archaeological potential is therefore greater. The report recommends that a programme of evaluation should be undertaken to determine the presence/absence of archaeological remains, their extent and relative significance.

The National Planning Policy Framework set out, in paragraph 128, that the evaluation should be undertaken to inform the application process. However, GMAAS consider that in this instance this work can be undertaken through a planning condition.

GMAAS consider that a scheme of archaeological trial trenching is required to establish the presence, extent, character and relative significance of any surviving archaeological remains.

If significant remains are revealed by the evaluation then further more detailed excavation will be required for those remains that will be destroyed by development ground works.

GMAAS recommend the following wording for an archaeology condition :-

No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. The works are to be undertaken in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) submitted to and approved in writing by Stockport Planning Authority. The WSI shall cover the following: 1. A phased programme and methodology of investigation and recording to include: - evaluation through trial trenching - depending on the results of the above, targeted open area excavation. 2. A programme for post investigation assessment to include: - analysis of the site investigation records and finds - production of a final report on the significance of the archaeological and historical interest represented. 3. A scheme for disseminating the results that is commensurate with their significance. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

4. Provision for archive deposition of the report and records of the site investigation. 5. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the approved WSI.

Reason

In accordance with NPPF Section 12, Paragraph 141 - To record and advance understanding of heritage assets impacted on by the development and to make information about the archaeological heritage interest publicly accessible.

The programme of works should be undertaken by a suitably experienced and qualified archaeologist and funded by the applicant. GMAAS will monitor implementation of the works and progress towards fulfilment of the condition.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit

I have no objections to the application on nature conservation grounds but I would recommend that a number of measures be taken to avoid any harm to nature conservation interests and to safeguard these interests.

Bats

The old hospital building has in the past supported bat roosts. The building has deteriorated since the surveys were carried out and it is my understanding that surveyors cannot now access the building because it is unsafe. The condition of the building, and works being undertaken to stabilise the structure and to stop it from deteriorating further, will have made the building less attractive to bats. Nevertheless the presence of bats cannot be entirely ruled out. I would recommend that any contractors working on the building be made aware of the possible presence of bats. If bats are found at any time works that could affect bats must cease immediately and advice taken about how best to proceed from a suitably qualified person.

Several trees on the site scheduled for removal have been identified as having the potential to support bat roosts, although no roosting was confirmed. I would recommend that the trees identified as having high potential to support bats as shown in the Report of July 2013 by WSP be subject to further inspection for the possible presence of bats prior to felling. If bats are found by survey then method statements must be prepared giving details of measures to be taken to avoid any possible harm to bats.

Protection and Management of Retained Trees and Woodland

I would recommend that a Woodland Management Plan be prepared and submitted to the planning authority for approval. Once approved the Plan should be implemented in full.

Existing Pond

Removal of the existing pond should ideally be conducted during the autumn to reduce disturbance to amphibians, with the pond drained first at a time avoiding Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 harsh weather and left for a few days to allow any animals present to disperse. Should it be necessary to remove the existing pond between February and September then it is recommended that ecologists are employed to rescue common toad and wider amphibians if present, including their spawn/tadpoles and transfer these to the newly created pond.

Invasive Plant species

Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam have previously been recorded as present on the application site. These species are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which means it is illegal to cause them to spread onto third party lands or into the wild. To avoid the spread of Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam, it is recommended the proposed works include measures to contain and eradicate these species onsite

Nesting Birds

No vegetation clearance or tree felling should take place during the optimum period for bird nesting (March to July inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent by a suitably qualified person.

I would support the conditions applied to the previous application for this site (DC/05222) to require the provision and implementation of detailed landscape plans.

English Heritage

Summary

The former Barnes Hospital (Grade II) is subject to the current application for conversion to residential use with considerable surrounding development as part of an enabling development scheme. In line with previous advice given with regards to the site (we refer to correspondence dated 29/08/14 and in response to application DC052220), English Heritage continues to support the introduction of a sustainable use to this valuable heritage asset and advises that the Local Authority determine the application in line with enabling development best practice and the expertise of the Conservation Officer.

English Heritage Advice

The former Barnes Hospital is a Grade II Listed Building of national architectural and historic interest. Originally completed in 1871 under the designs of Lawrence Booth, the former Barnes Convalescent Hospital is of particular historic interest as an early example of a convalescent hospital in England, as well as aesthetic interest for its high quality Gothic revival design and considerable scale. Today, Barnes Hospital is vacant and in a deteriorating state of repair. While partially undermined by the surrounding road network, the remaining undeveloped setting of the building continues to contribute to its significance as a whole.

The current proposal seeks permission to convert the former convalescent hospital to residential use (comprising 38 units) and introduce 117 new houses with Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 associated facilities within its setting. The proposal to develop within the setting of the building to support the conversion and repair of the Listed Building is not within the remit of English Heritage in the case (we refer to Circular 01/2001), however we encourage the Local Planning Authority to carefully consider this impact in its decision-making process.

English Heritage accepts the need for some alterations to the historic fabric in order to facilitate the positive conservation and sustainable use of the site. It will be important that these are designed and carried out with the intention to minimise the impact on the special interest of the building. With respect to demolition, much of the fabric proposed for removal relates to later additions which do not contribute to the significance of the building. We also note that in response to previous advice (see above), the proposal also appears to have been positively amended to retain much of the historic staircases. Characteristically of Victorian healthcare buildings, the plan form was designed to maximise natural light and ventilation and forms a key part of its original design. The loss of this legibility through the introduction of multiple new staircases is therefore unfortunate, and we recommend that the Local Planning Authority weigh this harm against the public benefits of the proposal when reaching a decision (paragraph 134, NPPF).

Recommendation

English Heritage has no objection to the proposed works in principle and continues to support the introduction of a sustainable use to the former Barnes Hospital. We recommend that the application be determined in line with enabling development best practice and with the agreement of your Conservation and Design Team.

United Utilities

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

Drainage Comments

In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Building Regulations, the site should be drained on a separate system with foul draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way.

Building Regulation H3 clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. We would ask the developer to consider the drainage options in the following order of priority:

a) An adequate soak away or some other adequate infiltration system, (approval must be obtained from local authority/building control/Environment Agency); or, where that is not reasonably practicable

b) A watercourse (approval must be obtained from the riparian owner/land drainage authority/Environment Agency); or, where that is not reasonably practicable

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

c) A sewer (approval must be obtained from United Utilities)

To reduce the volume of surface water draining from the site we would promote the use of permeable paving on all driveways and other hard-standing areas including footpaths and parking areas.

A public sewer crosses this site and we will not permit building over it. We will require an access strip width of ten metres, five metres either side of the centre line of the sewer which is in accordance with the minimum distances specified in the current issue of "Sewers for Adoption", for maintenance or replacement.

Therefore a modification of the site layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewer at the applicant's expense, may be necessary. To establish if a sewer diversion is feasible, the applicant must discuss this at an early stage with Neil O'Brien Developer Engineer at [email protected] as a lengthy lead in period may be required if a sewer diversion proves to be acceptable.

Deep rooted shrubs and trees should not be planted in the vicinity of the public sewer and overflow systems.

Drainage Conditions

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

• Notwithstanding any indication on the approved plans, no development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters for the entire site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, surface water must drain separate from the foul and no surface water will be permitted to discharge directly or indirectly into existing sewerage systems. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to prevent an undue increase in surface water run off and to reduce the risk of flooding.

The applicant can discuss further details of the site drainage proposals with Neil O’Brien at [email protected]. Any further information regarding Developer Services and Planning visit our website at http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders-developers.aspx

Water Comments

A water supply can be made available to the proposed development. The access is difficult to supply water to the site therefore expensive techniques will be required to supply water to the site.

Water pressure in this area is regulated to around 20metres head. This should be taken into account when designing the internal plumbing. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Our water mains will need extending to serve any development on this site. The applicant, who may be required to pay a capital contribution, will need to sign an Agreement under Sections 41, 42 & 43 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.

The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction.

Should this planning application be approved, the applicant should contact our Service Enquiries on 0845 746 2200 regarding connection to the water mains or public sewers.

General comments

It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities assets and the proposed development. United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service and we recommend the applicant contact our Property Searches Team on 0870 751 0101 to obtain maps of the site.

Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

Highways Agency

Having given the application due consideration, we can infirm you that the Highways Agency would not wish to raise any in-principle objection to the application. However, should your Council grant consent to this application, the Highways Agency would require that the attached conditions be adhered to :-

• There shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access of any kind between the site and the M60 motorway. To this end a close boarded fence or similar barrier not less than 2 metres high shall be erected along the frontage of the site with the motorway to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport. The fence shall be erected behind the existing motorway boundary fence, be on the developers land and be independent of any existing motorway boundary fence.

• There shall be no development on or adjacent to any motorway embankment or retaining wall that shall put any such embankment, retaining wall or earthworks at risk.

• No drainage from the development shall run off into the motorway drainage system, nor shall any such new development adversely affect any motorway drainage.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

• No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use unless or until a detailed travel plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and all approved measures have been implemented accordingly.

Reasons

• The conditions set out above are made to ensure that the trunk road network might continue to fulfil its purpose as a national system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10 (2) of the Highways Act 1980, maintaining the safety of traffic on the road.

Conservation Officer

Background

Barnes Hospital is a Grade II listed building of special architectural and historic interest constructed between 1871-75 as a convalescent hospital for Manchester Royal Infirmary. The building is of national significance and was added to the statutory list in 1999. It remained in use as a hospital until 1999 and was sold to a property developer in 2001. Planning permission was granted in 2003 for conversion of the hospital to from 42 flats and the erection of 16 houses and 68 flats within the grounds. The property was sold to a new owner in 2007 and a material start was made on site in 2008 in order to protect the existing consent. Ownership changed again in 2012 and pre-application discussions were undertaken with the new owner to find a long term solution for the site which would result in finding a new viable and sympathetic use for the former hospital on the basis that the consented scheme was no longer commercially viable. This resulted in the submission of a hybrid application comprising a full planning application for the conversion and extension of the former hospital building to 78 apartments and the erection of 100 apartments and an outline planning application for the erection of further 63 dwellings and 59 apartments (DC/052222) together with an associated Listed Building Consent (DC/052220). These were approved in December 2013. The current proposal has been submitted by a developer working in conjunction with the site owners to progress the scheme following a re-appraisal of current market conditions.

Condition of the listed building

The former hospital is located in large grounds at a very prominent location adjacent to the M60 and A34. The building is in very poor condition, remains unoccupied and is the largest historic building at risk in the Borough. The deterioration of the building has accelerated over the past 15 years following bouts of theft and vandalism. This has resulted in lead being stripped from the roof and slates removed, the interior being extensively vandalised and a number of fires that have resulted in further structural damage. Almost all windows and doors have been removed or are broken. Following action by the Council and the owners, the site is now protected by 24 hour security and fencing has been installed in order to control unauthorised access. Some internal propping has been installed to safeguard areas of the building which have become dangerous, Japanese knotweed has been removed from the vicinity of the building and window/door openings have been sealed. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Nevertheless the building remains to extremely vulnerable to rapid structural decay from both wind/weather and criminal activity. In 2012, as part of a national Heritage at Risk campaign, English Heritage highlighted Barnes Hospital as one of five examples of significant Grade II listed buildings known to be at risk in the North West.

Impact of the current proposals

The current proposals represent a reduction in the total number of dwellings approved in 2013 (from 300 to 155). This reflects a greater emphasis on larger townhouses over apartments, a reduction in the overall massing of new development and a corresponding slight decrease in the proposed developable area over the site as a whole. The scheme has been developed in close consultation with and input from the Council’s Conservation and Design Officers to ensure that the scheme will sympathetically secure the long term preservation of the building through repair, re- use and restoration and that the design of the new build components of the enabling development represents a suitable response to the constraints of its historic setting. Subject to a number of detailed design matters, it is considered the overall scheme has been carefully designed to ensure that the intrinsic significance of the listed building will not be unduly harmed, either in terms of alterations to the historic fabric or harm to its setting.

Para 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.’ Enabling development is defined by English Heritage as development contrary to established planning policy put forward as a way to restore heritage assets where financial viability is a key issue. The relevant national guidance was prepared by English Heritage in 2008 and should be used to inform the interpretation of. The key tests are :-

- The enabling development (ED) should not materially harm the heritage values of the building - ED should not result in detrimental fragmentation of the place - ED should secure the long term future of the building - ED should resolve the problems arising from the inherent needs of the asset rather than the circumstances of the present owner or purchase price. - Grant and subsidies are not available - ED should demonstrate that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the asset and its form minimises harm to other public interests - The benefits of securing the future of the listed building outweigh the disbenefits of breaching other policies

In my view the development meets the tests of the enabling development guidance and, given the layout and form of the revised proposals, will have a reduced impact than the 2013 scheme. The scale, density and location of the proposed new build elements of the scheme are within the limits of acceptability in terms of impact upon the special interest and setting of the listed building and particularly their impact Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 upon short and long distance views. The conversion of the hospital has been revised to reflect a greater emphasis on vertical rather than the horizontal subdivision and there is greater use of the roofspace to provide additional bedrooms. Whilst this could impact upon the legibility of the hospital’s historic plan form and roofscape, it is considered that this can be accommodated through sensitive detailed design and therefore planning conditions will be required to control these matters.

Phasing of the development will be critical to achieving a successful planning outcome at this problematic site and it is strongly recommended that the repair of the listed building to ensure that it is completely weathertight (ie roof and associated structural repairs) is given the highest priority in order to prevent any further deterioration– the current proposals indicate the former hospital being phase 2 following the completion of dwellings closest to the A34 frontage. In accordance with enabling development guidance, conditions will need to safeguard the overriding heritage objective by ensuring the repair and re-use of the building is enforceably linked to the completion of new development.

Subject to approval, planning conditions will be required to address matters of detail such as the design of dormers, windows (including aspects of noise insulation/ventilation), the design of internal circulation areas (including staircases, floor tiles), specifications for brick/stone cleaning, external decoration, internal plasterwork/finishes and details of security measures (including alarms, video, controlled access), satellite dishes, external lighting, routing of services and location of external grilles/vents. A building record will be required to complement archaeological investigations across the wider site. Currently access is limited to upper parts of the building for survey purposes and the submitted proposals for the second floor/attic spaces may need to be revised to respond to the roof structure in light of a more detailed survey – these aspects of the design will also need to be reserved by condition.

Environment Team (Pollution Prevention)

I have looked at this application and have no objections.

The acoustic report details certain mitigation/ construction measures and these should be implemented by the developer.

I would also recommend the following :-

• The level of insulation to be provided and/or noise permitted from externally mounted plant or machinery shall aim to be such that the rated level of noise emitted from the equipment is below the existing background level by at least 10dB(A) when measured at the nearest noise sensitive dwelling. If this level cannot be achieved, then the equipment shall not be installed other than in accordance with details to show alternative rating levels and means of attenuation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The means of attenuation shall remain at all times that the equipment is in operation. The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with the main procedural requirements of BS 4142:1997

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Nature Development Officer

The site is located within the grounds of the former Barnes Hospital, off Kingsway in Cheadle. Proposals involve the restoration, conversion, extension, alterations and part demolition of the former hospital building to provide 38 residential units and building of 117 new houses, with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space. I have commented on a previous application for the site (DC052222).

The site itself is not subject to any nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise. It is located approximately 450m to the east of Abney Hall which is designated as a Local Nature Reserve and Site of Biological Importance. No significant impacts on the designated site are however anticipated due to its distance from the application area.

Ecological surveys have been conducted and submitted as part of the planning application. This included an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey which was carried out in September 2012 and updated in June 2013. Surveys for bats (August/September 2012 and June/July 2013), barn owl (June/July 2013) and badger (March 2013) have also been carried out. All surveys have been carried out by appropriately experienced ecologists.

The former hospital buildings and some of the trees within the application area 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.

Bat surveys at the buildings comprised an external and internal (although the latter was limited due to health and safety issues) inspection of the buildings, remote detector survey and dusk and dawn activity surveys. Surveys were carried out during August – September 2012 and were led by a suitably experienced ecologist. Many roosting opportunities were recorded and common pipistrelle bats and brown long-eared bats were recorded roosting within the buildings. Analysis of the results indicates the building is likely to be used by small numbers of bats throughout the year (and these findings are in accordance with previous bat surveys carried out at the site in 2002 and 2006).

The hospital buildings are considered to offer suitable bird nesting habitat including barn owl. The nests of all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Species such as barn owls receive additional protection through inclusion on Schedule 1. Barn owl transect surveys were carried out during June/July 2013. No evidence of barn owls was recorded and their presence is considered unlikely due to the location of the application area (i.e. surrounded by motorways).

The trees and shrub habitats within the application area offer suitable bat foraging habitat. They are also considered to provide suitable habitat for breeding birds. The trees within the application area have been assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. Some trees were identified as offering high or medium bat roosting potential and these were each subject to a bat activity survey in June/July 2013. These surveys were also supplemented by transect surveys to assess the level of bat activity across the site. No evidence of roosting bats was recorded within the trees. It should be noted that only a single activity survey was undertaken at trees offering high roosting potential, but the potential tree roosting sites are isolated (the site is surrounded by motorway) and subject to high levels of light disturbance, which makes the site less suitable for bats, as was evident by the low levels of bat activity recorded during the surveys. A pond is located within the application area. Ponds and their surrounding terrestrial habitats have the potential to support amphibians such as great crested newts. Great crested newts receive the same level of legal protection as bats (see above). The pond is considered to be of below average suitability for great crested newts. No evidence indicative of great crested newt presence was recorded during previous surveys within the site and given the relatively isolated nature of the application area it is considered unlikely that newts have colonised the pond in the interim period. The risk to great crested newts is therefore considered to be low. The pond is suitable to support common toad which are a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species. Potential reptile habitat is present within the application area in the form of woodland, scrub, poor semi-improved grassland and bare ground with ephemeral herbs. No evidence of reptile presence was identified during the survey and it is considered unlikely that reptiles are present within the site. Reptiles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). Suitable habitat for badgers is present within the application area but no signs indicative of current badger presence were recorded during the survey. Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

An area of species-rich brownfleld grassland is present within the application area. This habitat type is included within the Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan, mainly due to its potential to support invertebrates. Common invertebrate species were recorded on site in relatively low numbers and this limited invertebrate interest is thought to be due to the recent development of this habitat from bare ground/ephemeral herb habitat and the isolated nature of the site.

Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam have been recorded within the site. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence to plant or cause these invasive species to spread in the wild.

Recommendations:

The proposed development will impact on the bat roost identified within the Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 former hospital buildings. As a result a European Protected Species Licence will be required from Natural England (as identified in the bat survey report). The EC Habitats Directive 1992 requires the UK to maintain a system of strict protection for protected species and their habitats. The Directive only allows disturbance, or deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places; - in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment and provided that there is - no satisfactory alternative and - no detriment to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation status in their natural range. The UK implemented the Directive by introducing The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which contain two layers of protection - a requirement on Local Planning Authorities (“LPAs”) to have regard to the Directive`s requirements above, and - a licensing system administered by Natural England.

The converse of this guidance is that if issues of detriment to the species, satisfactory alternatives and public interest seem likely to be satisfied, no impediment to planning permission arises under the Directive and Regulations. The first two tests of the Habitats Directive (over riding public interest and no satisfactory alternative) are planning tests and outside of my area for comment. On the third test (no detriment to the favourable conservation status) the results of the bat survey indicate that with appropriate mitigation there will not be significant impacts on the conservation status of bats. However, I would emphasise the need for the LPA to consider all three tests when determining this application and that evidence of this consideration is provided when producing planning reports or reporting to area committee. This has been emphasised in a recent legal case (R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council, June 2009). I would recommend that a condition requiring the detailed submission of a mitigation plan (including update surveys as necessary to inform the licence application) for bats should be attached to any planning permission if granted. This can be in the form of the licence application. An informative should also be placed on any permission granted that a Natural England licence is obtained prior to the commencement of works to ensure no degradation of nature conservation legislation.

It is recommended that bat update surveys are carried out at trees offering bat roosting potential prior to any felling/pruning works to confirm current roost status and ensure appropriate mitigation measures are taken. Surveys should be carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist at an appropriate time of year, following best practice guidance. I would recommend that no building works or vegetation clearance is undertaken in the bird nesting season (March – August inclusive) unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

It is recommended that the proposed lighting scheme should be submitted to the Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 council for approval prior to any permission being granted. This should incorporate measures to minimise impacts on biodiversity (as per section 6.4.3 of the phase 1 report).

A condition should be attached to any planning permission granted, stating that the spread of Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam will be avoided. Should any works be required to encroach within 7m of the knotweed a method statement for the treatment of this invasive species will need to be submitted to and agreed by the council prior to any works commencing.

Proposals to create a replacement pond on site are a welcome inclusion in the application. Ponds are included in the UK and Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan. A pond and wetland habitats creation and management plan detailing how the biodiversity value of the pond and associated habitats will be maximised should be submitted for approval by the LPA. When in-filling the existing pond, the recommendations made in the phase 1 report (refer to section 6.3.5) should be followed to avoid injuring or killing any amphibians that may be present, such as common toad which is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species. A woodland management plan should be prepared and submitted to the LPA to detail how impacts on woodland habitats will be minimised and habitats subsequently managed. This should include the recommendations for biodiversity enhancements made in the phase 1 report (refer to section 6.4.3). In addition care should be taken to avoid the spread of hybrid bluebells (as per the recommendations in the Additional Ecological Surveys Report). The woodland planting landscape proposals include Scot’s pine and horse chestnut. These species are not native to Stockport and so should be replaced with locally native species. Rhododendron and Cotoneaster horizontalis are included in the landscaping strategy. These species are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which makes it an offence to plant or cause these invasive species to spread in the wild. It is therefore recommended that these species are substituted for suitable alternatives. An area of species-rich brownfleld grassland is present within the application area. This habitat type is included within the Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan. This habitat should be retained where possible and appropriate mitigation for loss of this habitat, where loss is unavoidable, should be incorporated into the proposals. This should include a management plan detailing appropriate mitigation (i.e. creation), and subsequent management of species-rich grassland. This should be submitted to the LPA for approval. Should development be delayed until 2016, the potential for the site to support notable invertebrate species should be re-evaluated as per the recommendations in the Additional Ecological Surveys Report. I do not require any further information in relation to reptiles and badgers. However, an update survey for badgers should be undertaken prior to commencement of development and the recommendations in the badger survey report (refer to section 5) should be followed. In addition, the recommendations made in the phase 1 ecology report (section 6.3.6) should be followed and should at any time reptiles or any other protected species be discovered on site during works, works must cease and a suitably experienced ecologist contacted for advice.

Director of Public Health : Healthy Planning Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

The proposed provision of open and play space on the development is welcomed given its contribution to benefits to both physical and mental health and wellbeing. The improvements to active travel infrastructure are also welcomed. However it should be noted that any future opportunity to create a more direct pedestrian route to the services available in Cheadle should be taken, given that this would be more likely to encourage walking over private car use to access shops and facilities in Cheadle. Indeed, signage improvements at the steps to the underpass on the eastern side of the Kingsway just south of the site, connecting users to South Park Road could offer residents another option for accessing a more direct and safer route to Gatley Station, as well as offering an alternative route into Cheadle centre other than the Mill Lane route which takes users slightly out of their way when accessing services in Cheadle.

The applicant has argued against any affordable housing provision as required by Stockport’s Core Strategy Policy DM H-3. Appropriate (including affordable) housing provision is key to tackling health inequalities in Stockport. There is widespread recognition that an appropriate and decent home environment contributes to improved health. Therefore it is critical in terms of contributing to tackling health inequalities that affordable provision be provided directly. Otherwise a contribution should be of an appropriate proportion to offset a development which will in no way benefit health inequalities and could be argued to go some way to contributing to widening those inequalities, with additional pressure on the Council’s public health and related budgets.

Transport for Greater Manchester

The following comments are offered as advice on transport issues for you to balance against other factors in determining the application and are made in the context of TfGM's role in the planning process.

Despite the conclusions in the Transport Assessment (TA), TfGM do not consider this site to be very accessible by sustainable modes of transport. The only bus stops within reasonable walking distance of the site are those on either side of the A34, close to the site junction, which provides access to the 196 service, an hourly inter peak service between West Didsbury and Cheadle. Further bus stops on Gatley Road and Manchester Road are well beyond 400 metres, which is considered to be the reasonable walking distance from the site. At approximately 1.2 km from the site, Gatley railway station is also beyond the 800 metres considered to be the reasonable walking distance for access to heavy rail services.

People reliant on public transport may be prepared to walk from the site to these public transport facilities in the wider area but this does not offer an attractive alternative that would encourage car users to access the site by public transport. Future residents of the proposed development will therefore have limited access to a choice of travel mode which is unlikely to significantly reduce the amount of car travel generated by this development. It will therefore be important to ensure that the pedestrian environment, both within the site; and where possible between the site and the public transport facilities, is designed to be as safe and convenient as Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 possible, so as not to discourage people from accessing the site on foot/by public transport.

Given the long walking distances to the existing local public transport facilities, for this site, the most effective way of improving access by sustainable modes might be for the applicant to concentrate on measures to encourage walking and cycling. This can be achieved through measures such as:

• the improvement/enhancement of walking and cycling routes, particularly to local centres such as Cheadle and Gatley; • the provision of secure cycle parking for each residential unit including apartments; and • provision of secure, covered cycle parking in convenient locations at destinations such as Cheadle town centre and Gatley village centre (cycle parking is to be provided at Gatley rail station through the Cycle City Ambition Grant).

It is unfortunate that the pedestrian and cycle access to the east of the site (provided by a bridge across the M60 slip road), is hidden from most of the site behind some of the proposed houses. Ideally the layout of the site should be designed to ensure that access to this bridge is clearly visible from within the site, and benefits from natural surveillance . The removal or relocation of three or four of the proposed houses which are directly in front of the access to the bridge would enable direct pedestrian desire lines and views of the bridge access from within the site, creating significant visual permeability and a strong link from within the site. It may be possible to enhance the route from this bridge to provide direct access to Cheadle town centre crossing over Micker Brook and under the railway via Brook Road as well as improving the route to Manchester Road via Mill Lane. This would help to reduce the walking/cycling distance between the site and the amenities available in Cheadle town centre, making it more convenient than driving via the A34. TfGM would recommend that Stockport MBC request that the applicant fully investigates the potential to improve these links.

Arboricultural Officer

The proposed development is not within a Conservation Area.

There is legally protected trees within this site or affected by this development (Mill Lane, Cheadle 1962).

There were signs of invasive species during the site inspection therefore control measures are required.

The buildings footprints predominantly sit within the former hospitals grounds, formal Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 gardens and informal woodland/planting around the perimeter of the site. The construction of the new residential dwellings shall have a negative impact on the semi mature and mature trees within the site of the development, but the conversion of the existing building will not have a negative impact on the trees. The level of amenity these trees offers is very high due to the location of the site and the pedestrian access along the perimeter of the site as well as the green chain corridor they benefit they offer even with the interruptions by infrastructure such as rail and road around the site.

A root protection zone will need to be established to prevent any storage or encroachment of materials or equipment from the development within the woodland area at the agreed point which will need to be detailed up in a root protection area plan as well as fencing to be installed around the individual trees to be retained in the main site areas.

The tree survey detailing the retention and removal of trees due to health assessment and the proposed conflict with the new development is a fair and realistic representation of the tree stock/situation in my opinion and as such is an acceptable document to be worked with. The need for a detailed root protection plan is essential and will need to be submitted prior to any works commencing on site so that the actual fencing in accordance with British standard is installed to allow the condition to be discharged prior to development works commencing on site. An officer will need to be informed and a site visit carried out prior to the discharge of condition due to the sensitivity of the site and the high level of tree cover that this site benefits from.

A full woodland management plan detailing the operations proposed to improve the sites as well as the planting details including the trees, shrubs, ground flora and woodland bulbs will need to be included within this document to be conditioned so that the loss of some sections of woodland is off set by the improvement of the remaining areas as well as the increased woodland planting in offer areas.

The developer need to submit method statements to detail all construction methods and materials to be used during construction within any root/canopy areas of woodlands or individual trees and woodland footpaths. The information needs to identify where hand digging is appropriate and where specific materials are to be used or not.

The site is very prominent in the Cheadle area and the woodlands can be seen from several aspects as well as offering high biodiversity benefits to the local area, as well as a green-chain connection for the further afield. As such this site needs to be protected and enhance by any proposed development which will take into account the local biodiversity of the existing site and the local provenance of any proposed planting of trees, shrubs and ground flora. The draft proposal for the landscaping scheme had been commented on during the pre-application discussions and comments had been submitted to the landscape architects in regards to this and the above comments will also need to be considered when the formal landscaping scheme and woodland management plan is submitted, with some further consideration given to the level of non-native species detailed as individual planting and within woodland planting mixes (such as Acer campestre, Acer platanoides and Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Aesculus hippocastanum).

The final aspect I would need further information or re-assurances would be the species proposed for the entrance avenue as this will need to be a species and structure that will offer greater amenity and statue to the site such as some larger species upright varieties.

Prior to the tree removal in accordance with the details in the Tree demolition plan I would require notice that the trees have been identified to show the removal on site and a site visit by the senior arboriculture officer to confirm the works is in accordance with the approved plan and no unauthorised works or being undertaken or damage to the retained trees as per their arboriculture report.

The following Tree related conditions need to be included and discharging of these will require a site visit, therefore this needs to be considered in the timetable for request for discharging the condition and the construction works on 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.

Network Rail

The proposal appears to share a boundary with the railway to the south; therefore we have the following comments to make.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

(a) We would draw the councils attention to the following Rail Accident Investigation Branch report into ‘Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013’, which concluded: 5 The intent of this recommendation is to ensure that the planning approval process reduces the risk to railway infrastructure due to adjacent developments.

The Department for Communities and Local Government should introduce a process to ensure that Railway Infrastructure Managers are made aware of all planning applications in the vicinity of railway infrastructure. This process should at least meet the intent of the statutory consultation process (paragraphs 97f and 101).

Network Rail has a statutory obligation to ensure the availability of safe train paths and as such we are required to take an active interest in any development adjacent to our infrastructure that potentially could affect the safe operation of the railway.

(b) Noise and Vibration

We would remind the council and the applicant of the potential for any noise/ vibration impacts caused by the proximity between the proposed development and the existing railway, which must be assessed in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the local planning authority should then use conditions as necessary.

• 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. • There is also the potential for maintenance works to be carried out on trains, which is undertaken at night and means leaving the trains’ motors running which can lead to increased levels of noise. • 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

We therefore strongly recommend that all future residents are informed of the noise and vibration emanating from the railway, and of potential future increases in railway noise and vibration. Network Rail will not be held liable for any noise and vibration from the railway. As the applicant has chosen to develop a proposal adjacent to the railway then they must provide funding for all noise and vibration mitigation measures.

(c) Fencing

If not already in place, the Developer must 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 Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 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 with a regulated remit; 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 approval of the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer.

We would request a condition is included in any 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. Details of the fencing to be approved by the LPA and Network Rail.”

Reason: To protect the adjacent railway from unauthorised access

(d) We would draw the council’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 Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 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 applicants 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 must approve all 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.

(f) 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 applicants land ownership.

(g) Network Rail will need to review all excavation works to determine if they impact upon the support zone of our land and infrastructure as well as determining relative Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 levels in relation to the railway.

We would request a condition is included in the planning consent as follows:

Condition:

• “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 and approved in writing by 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.

Public Right of Way Officer

The application does not obstruct any definitive rights of way or applications for public rights of way to be added to the definitive map.

Environment Agency

The application falls within Flood Zone 1 and it is for the Local Council to make comments.

ANALYSIS

Impact on the Listed Building and Heritage Asset

The former hospital building is a Grade II listed building, a designated heritage asset. The detailed comments of the Council Conservation Officer and English Heritage are contained within the consultee responses section above.

The former hospital building was constructed between 1871-75 and is a building of national significance, being added to the statutory list in 1999. It is noted that previous planning permissions have been granted for residential conversion and new build, including full planning permission for conversion and extension of the former hospital building to form 78 apartments and the erection of 100 apartments and outline planning permission for the erection of 63 dwellings and 59 apartments (DC052222), with associated listed building consent (DC052220) in 2013. The current proposal has been submitted by a developer working in conjunction with the site owner to progress the scheme following a re-appraisal of current market Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 conditions.

The former hospital building is located in large grounds in a prominent position. The building is in a very poor condition and its deterioration has accelerated over the past 15 years following theft, vandalism and fires. Although the building is protected by security and fencing and remedial action has been undertaken, the building remains vulnerable to rapid structural decay from the effects of weather and criminal activity. In 2012, English Heritage highlighted the building as one of five examples of significant Grade II listed buildings known to be at risk in the North West.

The current proposal represents a reduction in the number of dwellings approved in 2013 from 300 to 155. This reflects an emphasis on larger townhouses over apartments, a reduction in the overall massing of new development and a slight decrease in the proposed developable area over the site. It is considered that the scheme will sympathetically secure the long-term preservation of the building through repair, re-use and restoration and the design of the new build components represents a suitable response to the constraints of its historic setting. Subject to detailed design matters, it is considered that the overall scheme has been carefully designed to ensure that the significance of the listed building would not be unduly harmed, either in terms of the alterations to its historic fabric or its setting.

In the opinion of the Conservation Officer, the proposed development would meet the tests of English Heritage guidance regarding enabling development, given that the layout and form of the revised proposals would have a reduced impact than the 2013 scheme. It is noted that the scale, density and location of the proposed new build elements of the scheme are within the limits of acceptability in terms of impact upon the special interest and setting of the listed building. It is noted that the conversion of the former hospital building has been revised to reflect a greater emphasis on vertical rather than horizontal sub-division and there is greater use of the roofspace to provide additional bedrooms. Whilst this could impact upon the former hospital buildings historic plan form and roofspace, it is considered that this could be accommodated through sensitive detailed design and conditional control.

Phasing of development will be critical to achieving a successful planning outcome and it is recommended that the repair of the former hospital building to ensure that it is completely watertight is given the highest priority in order to prevent further deterioration. The current proposal indicates that the former hospital building would be in phase 2. In accordance with enabling development guidance, conditions will be imposed to ensure that the repair and re-use of the former hospital building is linked to the completion of the new development.

Conditions are recommended to address matters of details such as design of dormers, windows, internal circulation areas, specification for brick/stone cleaning, external decoration, internal plasterwork/finishes, security measures, satellite dishes, external lighting, routing of services and external grilles/vents. A building record will also be required to complement archeological investigations across the site. Due to limited access, proposals for the second floor/attic spaces may require revision, details of which can be secured by condition.

In view of the above, the repair and conversion of the long standing building at risk is Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 welcomed by both the Conservation Officer and English Heritage and it is considered that the proposed conversion, extension and new-build development is acceptable in terms of its impact on the historic fabric and setting of the Grade II listed building. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy DPD policies CS8, SIE-1 and SIE-3.

Design and siting

The detailed comments of the Council Design Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above.

It is noted that the current scheme has been developed through pre-application discussions and the principle of conversion of the former hospital building to residential and the provision of additional residential development within the grounds has been established through the granting of previous planning permissions. As such, the proposals are generally supported by the Design Officer and no objections are raised to the overall siting, scale and design of the proposed new-build development. The Design Officer has raised a number of minor issues with regard to the size of one of the LAP's, markings on the access road, the palate of materials for the shared surfaces, positioning of external extracts, flues and meter boxes, external lighting, height of boundary walls in relation to bin storage, appearance of railings and detailing on the proposed dwellings. Notwithstanding these minor concerns, it is considered that such issues can be addressed by way of conditional control.

In view of the above, in the absence of objections to the proposal from the Design Officer, the overall siting, scale and design of the proposed new dwellings is considered acceptable in terms of the issue of visual amenity. It is recommended that conditions are imposed to control the finished appearance of the development in terms of materials of external construction, detailing, hard and soft landscaping and means of enclosure. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy DPD policies H-1, CS8, SIE-1 and SIE-3 and the Design of Residential Development SPD.

Principle of residential development

The site benefits from two extant planning permissions for residential development. In 2003, planning permission was granted for the conversion of the former hospital building to create 42 flats and additional development within the site to provide 18 houses (DC008103). Pre-commencement conditions for this development were discharged, a lawful start was made on site and this scheme is therefore capable of implementation. In 2013 full planning permission for the conversion and extension of the former hospital building to provide 78 apartments and the erection of 100 apartments within the site and outline planning permission for the erection of a total of 122 apartments within the site was granted (DC052222), which expires in November 2016. As such, the principle of residential development on the site has previously been considered acceptable. It is noted that the site achieves an accessibility score of 54 having regard to the Councils accessibility criteria, which exceeds the minimum accessibility score of 45 and 34 required for new flats and houses respectively. The provision of residential development on the site would contribute to housing land supply for the borough and the fact proposal would Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 incorporate a mix of both apartments and houses of varying sizes is broadly welcomed.

In view of the above, the principle of residential development on site is considered acceptable, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS2, CS3, CS4 and H-2.

Green Belt

The application site is located within the Green Belt, however the former hospital building and the proposed new residential development is identified as being located within a 'Major Existing Developed Site within the Green Belt' (MEDS).

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy contained within saved UDP policies and the NPPF is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering planning applications, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless any potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Saved UDP policy GBA1.2 states that within the Green Belt, there is a presumption against the construction of new buildings apart from identified exceptions, including limited infilling or redevelopment of MEDS. Saved UDP policy GBA1.7 permits complete or partial redevelopment of MEDS provided that it would :-

• Result in environmental improvement; • Have no greater impact on the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; • Contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belt; and • Not result in the loss of Listed Buildings or other buildings or features of visual, amenity, ecological, environmental or archeological importance.

The policy states that any proposals involving redevelopment should not occupy a larger area of site nor exceed the heights of existing buildings. However, good design and layout principles should be employed to remove any harmful impacts on openness or visual amenity. This may result in small increases in site coverage to compensate from reductions in the height of development depending on individual site characteristics.

Whilst advice contained within the NPPF does not specifically identify MEDS, it states that a Local Planning Authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this include limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land)....which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it than the existing development. As such, a key issue for Members to consider when assessing whether or not the proposal would represent appropriate development within the Green Belt is the impact of the Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.

Whilst the proposed conversion of the existing former hospital building would not result in loss of openness, the fact that the proposal for extension to the former hospital building and introduction of additional built development to the Northern, Eastern, Southern and South Western portions of the site would inevitably result in a degree of loss of openness and thus conflict with Green Belt policy. However, in assessment of the proposal on the grounds of openness, regard should be had of previous demolition of buildings to the North and South of the former hospital building and the extant planning permissions for residential development on the site from 2003 (DC008103) and 2013 (DC052222).

In consideration of the issue of openness, assessment is required of a number of factors including volume and massing, ground coverage, footprint and spread of buildings across the site, the height of buildings, including views and vistas into the site. In order to aid assessment of impact on openness, information submitted with the application includes a series of footprint, ground and volume studies and vista studies into the site to compare the current proposal against the historic footprint of the hospital building and the extant planning permissions.

It is noted that the floorspace of the historic building was 7,282 square metres and the volume of the historic building was 53,235 cubic metres. The floorspace of the current proposed scheme would be 9,351 cubic metres and the volume of the current proposed scheme would be 92,894 cubic metres. These figures demonstrate that the proposal would result in an increase in floorspace and volume from the historic building. It also noted that the proposal would result in the introduction of built development to the Eastern and South Western portions of the site that was not evident on the historic form of the site. In view of the above factors, it is difficult to argue that the proposed scheme would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. As such, the proposal is considered to represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt, contrary to saved UDP policies GBA1.2 and GBA1.7 and the advice contained within the NPPF. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless any potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. As such, the key issue for Members to consider is whether or not very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by inappropriate development.

A key factor in the consideration of the application is the approved scheme from 2013. The floorspace of the 2013 approved scheme is 9,455 square metres and volume of the 2013 approved scheme is 97,166 cubic metres. As such, whilst the current proposal would clearly exceed the floorspace and volume of the historic building, the current scheme would actually result in a reduced floorspace and volume from the 2013 approved scheme. It is also worthy of note that the quantum of development of the current proposal would be reduced from the 2013 approved scheme in terms of the number of residential units proposed and the relative heights of the proposed buildings. The 2013 approved scheme is an extant planning permission and is capable of implementation.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

In addition to the above, the applicant has submitted an extensive and robust developer viability appraisal in support of the application, indicating the costs associated with the proposed development which has been independently assessed by suitably qualified officers. The viability appraisal demonstrates that the additional scale and density of development which may result in loss of openness is the minimum amount of enabling development required in order to generate a sufficient income to produce a viable scheme and ultimately the deliverability of the redevelopment of the site.

The NPPF acknowledges that Local Planning Authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, that would otherwise conflict with planning policies but would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from these policies. The comments raised above by the Council Conservation Officer and English Heritage are therefore important in terms of considering whether very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

It is noted that the existing Grade II listed former hospital building is in a poor condition and is the largest historic building at risk within the borough, recently highlighted by English Heritage as one of five Grade II listed buildings at risk in the North West. It is considered that, unless a viable conversion of the building can be found, the condition of the building will deteriorate further. The repair and conversion of this long standing building at risk is welcomed by both the Council Conservation Officer and English Heritage, who are of the opinion that any potential harm is justified by the benefit of bringing the Grade II listed building back into use and the public benefit of securing the future of the heritage asset through the enabling development.

In summary, it is noted that the current proposal would result in the increase in footprint, height and volume relative to the former hospital building. As such, it is difficult to argue that the proposal would not result in a degree of loss of openness to the Green Belt and therefore represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt, contrary to saved UDP policies GBA1.2 and GBA1.7. However, the applicant has submitted a viability appraisal in order to demonstrate that the proposed enabling development is the minimum necessary to ensure that the scheme is viable and deliverable and to secure the future of the Grade II listed building at risk, the retention of which is supported by the Council Conservation Officer and English Heritage. In addition, a key consideration is the fact that the quantum of development involved in the current scheme is reduced from that approved as part of the 2013 scheme, in terms of the number of residential units proposed, floorspace, volume and height. As such, Members must therefore balance and consider whether or not these factors would represent very special circumstances that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by inappropriate development.

Members are advised that should the proposal be recommended for approval, it is considered to be a departure from policy, justified on the very special and unique case set out. This is a critical consideration so as to ensure that a precedent is not set that may undermine the Councils ability to appropriately manage other development proposals that come forward either at the site or elsewhere in the borough. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Access, parking and highways

The application has been accompanied by the submission of a Transport Assessment (TA) and a Framework Travel Plan (FTP). The detailed comments of the Council Highway Engineer, The Highways Agency and Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) are contained within the consultee responses section above. It is noted that the site benefits from two extant planning permissions and the most recent permission (DC052222) for conversion into 78 apartments and a new build development of 222 properties provides a material fallback and appropriate default position for consideration of the current application.

The site would be served by an all movements priority junction with a spine road into the site and an internal layout incorporating a mix of traditional and shared surface roadways. It is understood that the development roads will be offered for adoption which is preferred.

With regard to traffic generation, the current application proposes an increased number of houses and less flats and overall there would be a reduction in the number of residential units. The residual traffic generation (difference between the approved scheme and current proposal) would represent a reduction in the morning and evening peak periods which would offer benefits to the operation of the site entrance and a reduced impact on the highway network.

Whilst the proposed site entrance layout has already been approved as part of the previous planning permission, it would now incorporate slight modifications to reflect works recently completed by the Council funded Cycle City Ambition Grant. It is considered that the proposed entrance arrangement, which is fully in accordance with design standards, would offer significant benefit for drivers undertaking turning manoeuvres by regulating the priority in the Central Reserve Opening, providing better lane definition and movement priority and reducing the risk of conflict. The proposed layout would include a double lane exit for vehicles which would help capacity and reduce delay for drivers, particularly those wishing to turn left who could become stuck behind a right turning vehicle. The proposed layout would also include improved pedestrian crossing facilities, a splitter refuge to segregate movement, skid resistant surfacing and the provision of a wider footway and cycle path facility across the frontage. The proposed development would enable further footway/cycleway widening and reintroduction and upgrading of the bus stop which will improve the experience and facilities for pedestrians and cycle movement along the A34. The proposed junction design is considered to represent a considerable improvement to the existing access and betterment to the extant permissions and should be capable of operation in a manner which would not put driver safety at significant risk. Appropriate visibility splays would be protected and the proposed junction arrangement has been subject to an independent road safety audit which has concluded that the proposed layout is acceptable in principle. Delivery of the entrance works will be covered by planning condition and a Section 278 Agreement.

Modelling exercises submitted with the previous planning application (DC052222) showed that the site entrance would operate comfortably within theoretical capacity and although some minor queues may form, particularly for right turn manoeuvres Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 from the site, these would be within acceptable limits and would not cause significant delay or congestion. The entrance was further assessed to have regard to potential traffic growth in future years which has demonstrated that the junction would continue to operate well within acceptable tolerances. As the current proposal would be for a reduced scale of development with consequent lower traffic generation, there was no need for further modelling works to be undertaken. There have been no material change in circumstances and the work undertaken for the previous application has demonstrated that the likely traffic generated by the development can reasonably and safely be accommodated within the site entrance and adjoining network. As such, the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of highway impact.

The Highway Engineer views on site accessibility reiterate reservations expressed on the previous application. It is noted that the site is located on a highly trafficked corridor and is isolated from transport services and amenities. There are bus stops on the site frontage which are accessible to residents, however the frequency of the service is relatively low and the Highway Engineer remains to be convinced that the service is frequent enough or serves locations needed to encourage residents to choose bus travel. It is also considered unlikely that residents would choose to use this service as a linked trip due to risk of delay and congestion and associated scheduling risks. Whilst there are other bus stops further afield, they are some 800 metres walking distance from the site which is considered to be in excess of the realistic distance people would close to walk for bus travel.

Nevertheless, there is a bus service in close proximity for residents who do not have access to a car and the bus stop on the site frontage would be reintroduced and upgraded. The site is approximately 900 metres from Gatley Station and to the North of the site in East Didsbury is the recently opened Metrolink stop. There are various employment, retail, educational, leisure, medical and entertainment opportunities within 1km or 2km walking and a 5km cycling distance of the site. Footway provision in the vicinity of the site is relatively good and additional improvements will be delivered on the site frontage. The site frontage footway would be widened to improve the shared footway cycle path and improved surfacing is proposed to the ramps within the subway. A previous permission at the site provided a commuted sum payment which has been used to deliver improvements to the public right of way which adjoins the Southern and Eastern boundaries of the site and continues into Cheadle. The scheme has delivered a widened and improved surface pathway, improved signage and some lighting and it is hoped that the route can become a cyclepath to enable improved cycle linkage to Cheadle Centre. As part of the current proposal, the developer has agreed to cover the costs of various cycle parking facilities by way of a commuted sum payment for cycle parking at Gatley Station to encourage residents to cycle to the station along with numerous Sheffield stands in and around Cheadle Centre. The commuted sum would be secured under a Section 106 Agreement.

Whilst the Highway Engineer recognises that recent works have delivered significant improvements for vulnerable road users, reservations are raised regarding site accessibility. It is considered that the site is remote from amenities and services and it is not considered that the surrounding highway infrastructure would encourage a significant number of residents to choose walking or cycling. It is considered likely Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 that the site will remain high in car dependency. Local and national policy requires new development to be sustainably located where there is good access to public transport and provision for cyclists and pedestrians to minimise the need for car travel. It is considered that the site does not relate particularly well to public transport opportunities and is not ideally situated for pedestrian and cycle linkage. Residents would not benefit from good or desirable levels of bus services within 400 metres of the site. Ideally development would contribute towards improving bus linkage, infrastructure and frequency along the A34 with further potential for school bus provision and dial-a-ride type services. It is acknowledged that the likely costs of such measures would be significant although not unreasonable as part of a development of this scale. Regard must also be had that the site achieves an accessibility score of 54, thus showing a degree of accessibility. As such, whilst having reservations, the Highway Engineer has taken this and the previous permission into account to reach the conclusion that an objection on accessibility grounds cannot be sustained. Any permission granted should be subject to the implementation of a Residential Travel Plan within a Section 106 Agreement.

The proposal has been assessed in terms of its potential impact on the adjacent South Park estate. The surrounding highway network does not permit drivers exiting the M60 to right turn onto the A34 Manchester bound and the recognised permitted manoeuvre is a U-turn at the Cheadle Royal roundabout, however drivers tend to ignore this due to travel distance and operational difficulties. It has been observed and is evident that a reasonable proportion of drivers undertake U-turn on side roads off Gatley Road or travel through the South Park Estate to access the A34 towards Manchester. Residents on the South Park Estate are permitted access when exiting the M60, however through traffic is not permitted. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a problem with unauthorised manoeuvres, it is noted that such manoeuvres are unlawful and it is unreasonable to assume that residents of the proposed development would break the law in order to gain access. The fact that this is unlawful and an enforcement issue is reason not to oppose the proposal on these grounds and it is also noted that the proposal would be less intensive than the previously approved scheme and will arguably have less impact.

With respect to the proposed site layout, a main spine road to serve the site is proposed as a traditional carriageway and footway layout, with the footway widened towards the entrance to enable formation of a shared footway cycle path. A traditional road layout is required within this area of the site. Within the site, the road layout would be a mix of traditional road space and shared surface arrangement, the use of which is strongly encouraged. Detailed design of these sections of road will be secured by condition, however the Highway Engineer considers that the proposed layout would be fit for purpose and is considered acceptable. The applicant has inferred that the road would be offered for adoption which is welcomed. Swept path analysis has shown that refuse sized vehicles can safely and efficiently negotiate the road layout without significant concern. The layout also includes on its Easterly side a link for pedestrians and cyclists to the adjoining public right of way, affording a direct link towards Cheadle Centre. In summary, the Highway Engineer is satisfied that the proposed internal road layout would provide a safe environment for all means of traffic, would avoid excessive vehicle speed issues and would provide a quality environment for cyclists and pedestrians.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

In terms of parking provision, 155 residential units are proposed, providing a mix of properties with two spaces, some with one space and some parking spaces incorporated into the road space, which is strongly encouraged. A total of 252 parking spaces would serve the proposed development, including a reasonable proportion of disabled spaces, and this level of provision satisfies Council standards and should not give rise to excessive overspill parking. The Highway Engineer is satisfied that the proposed parking spaces would be appropriately apportioned around the site and the road layout has been designed to accommodate space for further on street parking which should accommodate additional demand without causing operational and safety concerns. Cycle parking will be provided at a ratio of one space per unit, details of which will be dealt with by condition.

Similar to the Council Highway Engineer, TfGM has raised concerns with regard to the accessibility of the site and the limited access to a choice of travel modes. Concern is also raised by TfGM with regard to the proposed layout which is considered to hide the existing pedestrian and cycle access to the East. It is however noted that improvements to walking and cycling routes to Cheadle Centre has already been undertaken on the back of previous planning permissions, appropriate levels of cycle parking would be provided to serve each unit and cycle parking at Gatley Rail station would be provided by way of a financial contribution. It is also noted that the scheme does not prevent or limit access to the Eastern pedestrian and cycle access. No objections are raised to the proposal from the Highways Agency subject to conditional control relating to prevention of access to the M60, erection of a fence along the frontage with the M60, prevention of development that would put the M60 embankment, retaining wall or earthworks at risk, prevention of drainage onto the M60 and the submission and implementation of a Travel Plan.

In summary, it is considered that the traffic generated by the proposed development can reasonably be accommodated on the highway network without serious detriment. The proposed entrance layout is suitable to accommodate associated vehicular, cycle and pedestrian traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Whilst reservations are raised regarding site accessibility, recent improvement works undertaken are acknowledged and improved cycle parking facilities would be delivered. The previous planning permission is also noted in concluding that the proposed development is acceptable from a highway perspective. As such, in the absence of objections from the Highway Engineer and subject to conditional control and relevant legal agreement, the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy DPD policies SD-6, SIE-1, CS9, CS10, T-1, T-2 and T-3.

Affordable housing

Core Strategy DPD policy H-3 identifies the affordable housing shortfall in the borough and the proportion of affordable housing sought in different areas. The application site is located within an area with above average property prices where, subject to viability, the Council will seek to negotiate 30% affordable housing provision, with the affordable housing tenure split 50:50 between intermediate and social rented housing. The policy requires that the proportion of affordable housing to be delivered should be reflected in the cost of land. It is a policy expectation that all residential schemes in the borough over 15 dwellings make provision for affordable housing on site or by way of contribution towards off-site provision. In the case of the Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 current proposal, this would be in the form of the provision of 47 affordable units on site or a financial contribution of £9,627,180 in lieu of providing the required 30% affordable housing.

Notwithstanding Officer attempts to negotiate a degree of affordable housing provision, the current scheme offers no provision or contributions towards affordable housing which is regrettable and therefore fails to meet the requirements of Core Strategy DPD policy H-3. The NPPF recognises that careful attention to viability and costs is required in decision making and that plans should be deliverable. Therefore the sites and scale of development should not be the subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to the development, such as requirements for affordable housing should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns for a developer to enable the development to be deliverable. The NPPF goes on to state that where obligations are being sought, Local Planning Authorities should take account of market changes over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.

In order to attempt to justify the failure to offer the required affordable housing provision, the applicant has submitted an extensive and robust developer viability appraisal which has been independently assessed by suitably qualified officers. It is noted that the required affordable housing obligations would unduly impact on the viability of the scheme and the deliverability of the development and, as such, the normal required affordable housing provision on site or the required financial contribution to meet the policy cannot be met. The submitted viability appraisal demonstrates that the proposed development would only be viable without the required contribution. It is also acknowledged that, in order to provide for affordable housing, the quantum of development on the site may need to be further increased. This would have further implications upon the openness of the Green Belt and on the setting on the Grade II listed building, as considered in previous sections. It is also noted that the residential development granted in 2013 at the site (DC052222) also offered no provision of or contributions towards affordable housing.

To summarise, it is noted that the required affordable housing provision is not proposed to be met by the scheme, which is regrettable and contrary to the requirements of Core Strategy DPD policy H-3. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal in order to demonstrate that the required affordable housing provision would unduly impact on the viability of the scheme and the deliverability of the development. As such, Members must balance the policy conflict with the benefits of the scheme and whether or not the safeguarding of the Grade II listed building would outweigh the normal requirements for affordable housing provision.

Members are advised that should the proposal be recommended for approval, it is considered to be a departure from policy, justified on the very special and unique case set out. This is a critical consideration so as to ensure that a precedent is not set that may undermine the Councils ability to appropriately manage other development proposals that come forward either at the site or elsewhere in the borough.

Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

Open space and commuted payments

Saved UDP policy L1.2 and Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-2 identify the importance of open space and childrens play facilities to meet the community. With regard to childrens 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. Notwithstanding these comments, the proposed scheme would include on site childrens play facilities in the form of the provision of a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) to the North of the site and three Local Areas for Play (LAP) within the site. For a development with a population capacity of 611, the Planning Policy Officer considers that there would be sufficient provision on site. With regard to formal provision and maintenance, the Planning Policy Officer calculates that there is a requirement for a financial contribution of £244,381. No financial contribution is offered as part of the scheme which is regrettable and, as such, the proposal would be contrary to saved UDP policy L1.2 and Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-2

The NPPF recognises that careful attention to viability and costs is required in decision making and that plans should be deliverable. Therefore the sites and scale of development should not be the subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to the development should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns for a developer to enable the development to be deliverable. The NPPF goes on to state that where obligations are being sought, Local Planning Authorities should take account of market changes over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.

In order to attempt to justify the failure to provide any financial contribution towards open space, the applicant has submitted an extensive and robust developer viability appraisal which has been independently assessed by suitably qualified officers. It is noted that the required financial contribution would unduly impact on the viability of the scheme and the deliverability of the development and, as such, the normal required financial contribution to meet policy cannot be met. The submitted viability appraisal demonstrates that the proposed development would only be viable without the required contribution.

It is acknowledged that, in order to provide the required financial contribution, the quantum of development on the site may need to be further increased. This would have further implications upon the openness of the Green Belt and on the setting of the Grade II listed building. It is also noted that the residential development granted in 2013 at the site (DC052222) also offered no such contributions and the current scheme would include the provision of an additional LAP within the site. What also must be taken into consideration is the financial contribution of over £200,000 previously provided on the back of the previous planning permissions.

In summary, it is noted that the full open space requirement for the development is Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 not met by the proposal, which is regrettable and contrary to saved UDP policy L1.2 and Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-2. However, the submitted viability appraisal demonstrates that the required contribution would unduly impact on the viability of the scheme and the deliverability of the development. As such, Members must balance this policy conflict with the benefits of the scheme and whether or not the safeguarding of the Grade II listed building would outweigh the normal requirements for open space provision.

Members are advised that should the proposal be recommended for approval, it is considered to be a departure from policy, justified on the very special and unique case set out. This is a critical consideration so as to ensure that a precedent is not set that may undermine the Councils ability to appropriately manage other development proposals that come forward either at the site or elsewhere within the borough.

Trees and landscaping

The site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Statement have been submitted with the application. The detailed comments of the Council Arboricultural Officer and Landscape Officer are contained within the consultee responses section above.

No concerns are raised with regard to the conversion of the former hospital building, however it is considered that the proposed new residential units would have a negative impact on the mature and semi-mature trees within the site, which offer a high amenity value. It is recommended that a root protection zone is established to prevent storage and encroachment within the woodland area which will need to be detailed in a root protection plan and fencing will need to be installed around the trees to be retained. The submitted Tree Survey, detailing the proposed retention and removal of trees, is considered to be a realistic representation of the tree stock and situation. A full woodland management plan is required to off-set the loss of some sections of woodland, details of and implementation of which can be secured by condition. A construction method statement is also required. A draft landscaping scheme has been submitted with the application. Notwithstanding this information, the submission, approval and implementation of a scheme of landscaping to include details of all hard and soft landscaping, open space, LAP’s/LEAP’s and earth bunds would be required by condition.

In view of the above, in the absence of objections from the Arboricultural and Landscape Officers and subject to the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions to protect retained trees on site and to require the submission, approval and implementation of a detailed landscaping, landscape management and woodland management scheme, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on trees, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies SIE-1 and SIE-3.

Ecology and protected species

The detailed comments of the Council Nature Development Officer and the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit are contained within the consultee responses section above. It is noted that ecological surveys have been submitted with the application Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 and surveys for bats, barn owl and badger have been carried out.

The site is not subject to any nature conservation designations. The site is located approximately 450 metres from a Local Nature Reserve and Site of Biological Importance, however no significant impact on these designated sites are anticipated due to the distance from the site.

The former hospital building and some of the trees within the site have the potential to support roosting bats, a protected species. Many roosting opportunities were recorded and bats were recorded roosting within the buildings. Results indicate that the building is likely to be used by small numbers of bats throughout the year. The former hospital buildings are considered to offer bird nesting habitat, including barn owl, the nests of which are protected. No evidence of barn owls was recorded and their presence is considered unlikely due to the location of the site surrounded by motorways. Tree and shrubs within the site offer suitable bat foraging habitat and suitable habitat for breeding birds. No evidence of roosting bats was recorded within the trees, the potential tree roosting sites are isolated and subject to high levels of light disturbance, which makes the site less suitable for bats. A pond is located within the site which has the potential to support amphibians such as great crested newts, a protected species. The pond is considered to be of below average suitability for great crested newts, no evidence of such was recorded within previous surveys and it is considered unlikely that such have colonised the pond in the interim period. As such, the risk to great crested newts is considered to be low. Potential reptile habitat, a protected species, is present within the woodland, scrub, grassland and bare ground on site. No evidence of reptile presence was identified during the survey and it is considered unlikely that reptiles are present within the site. Suitable habitat for badgers, a protected species, is present within the site. However no signs of current badger presence were recorded during the survey. Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam have been recorded within the site and it is an offence to plant and cause such invasive species to spread.

The Nature Development Officer considers that the proposed development will impact on the bat roost identified within the former hospital building, therefore a European Protected Species License will be required from Natural England. The EC Habitats Directive 1992 only allows disturbance, deterioration or destruction of breeding sites and resting places :-

• In the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

And provided that there is :-

• No satisfactory alternative; and • No detriment to the to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Local Planning Authorities must consider these tests in the determination of planning applications. With regard to the first test, it is considered that, whilst the restoration of the Grade II listed former hospital building would not be in the interests of public Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 health or public safety, its restoration would be in the public interest in terms of its social and economic benefit and importance to the environment. In terms of the second test, it is considered that there is no satisfactory alternative from a planning or viability perspective than the redevelopment of the site. The Nature Development Officer is of the opinion that the submitted bat survey indicates, with appropriate mitigation measures, that there would be no significant impact on the conservation status of bats, thus the third test is satisfied.

It is recommended that suitably worded planning conditions are imposed to require the submission of a mitigation plan for bats (to be submitted in the form of a Natural England license), update surveys for bats and badgers, prevention of building work or vegetation clearance in the bird nesting season, submission of a lighting scheme, prevention of the spread of Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam, the submission of a woodland and habitat management plan and incorporation of habitat creation and biodiversity enhancements within the development. The replacement pond is welcomed, the recommendations of the submitted ecological report should be followed to prevent impact in any amphibians when infilling the existing pond.

In summary, in the absence of objections from the Council Nature Development Officer and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit and subject to mitigation measures that can be controlled by planning condition, it is considered that the proposal would not unduly impact in protected species or the ecological interest of the site, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-3.

Flood risk and drainage

Due to the size of the application site in excess of 1 hectare, a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application. It is noted that the site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1, therefore the risk of flooding on the site is low. The applicant states that the site will be provided with a dedicated surface water drainage system that will provide drainage for the site and reduce the impact of surface water on the combined sewer. As such, in the absence of objections from the Environment Agency and United Utilities and subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure the provision of an appropriate sustainable drainage system for the site, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the issues of flood risk and drainage, in accordance with saved UDP policy EP1.7 and Core Strategy DPD policies SD-6 and SIE-3.

Land contamination

The detailed comments of the Council Environment Team are contained within the consultee responses section above.

Whilst it is noted that no Phase 1 report and study to identify potential risks from contamination has been submitted with the application, no objections are raised to the proposal from the Environment Team. It is considered that risks from contamination can be minimised by the imposition of a phased planning condition to ensure the submission of an investigation and risk assessment into potential contamination on the site, the submission of a remediation scheme to include all remedial works to be undertaken and the validation of the remediation works prior to Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 occupation of the development. As such, subject to compliance with these conditions as recommended by the Environment Team, the proposal is not considered to be at risk from contamination, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-3.

Noise and air quality

A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application. The detailed comments of the Council Environment Team are contained within the consultee responses section above.

No objections are raised from the Environment Team with regard to the issue is noise, subject to the development being constructed in accordance with the mitigation measures recommended in the submitted Noise Impact Assessment. It is also recommended that, should any plant and equipment be proposed, adequate noise attenuation measures should be incorporated. As such, in the absence of objections from the Environment Team and subject to the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions to protect the occupants of the proposed residential units from noise, the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy DPD policy SIE- 3.

Archaeology

The detailed comments of the Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Services are contained within the consultee responses section above.

It is noted that an archeological desk based assessment has been submitted within the application which describes the archeological potential of the site. Whilst it is clear that much of the site has been disturbed by previous development, the assessment has identified some areas which seem not to have has much disturbance and where archeological potential is greater. The report recommends that a programme of evaluation should be undertaken to determine the presence/absence of archeological remains, their extent and relative significance. GMAAS is satisfied that such work can be undertaken by way of a suitably worded planning condition.

In view of the above, in the absence of objections from GMAAS and subject to conditional control, the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-3 with regard to the impact of the proposed development on archaeology.

Other issues

An Energy Statement has been submitted with the application, detailing the proposed energy efficiency measures that would be incorporated within the development and an explanation as to why other energy efficiency measures are not feasible. A number of design considerations would be incorporated into the design of the scheme, including orientation of dwellings to maximise solar gain and natural light, maximising natural ventilation, allowing sufficient space on site for trees and planting, communal waste, recycling and composting facilities and the use of high grade insulation and water conservation and recycling measures. The provision of green roofs has been discounted on the grounds of viability and impact on the Grade Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

II listed building. On the basis of the submitted Energy Statement and in the absence of objections from the Council Technical Policy and Planning Officer, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the issue of energy efficiency, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS1, SD-1, SD-3, SD-4 and SD-6.

The comments of the Director of Public Health, contained within the consultation responses section above, are noted. The Director of Public Health welcomes the provision of open and play space and improvements to active travel infrastructure and future opportunity to create more direct pedestrian routes to Cheadle Centre and Gatley Station should be taken. The Director of Public Health has raised concerns to the failure to provide an element of affordable housing within the scheme, however as explained in previous sections, this is not possible for reasons of viability.

The detailed comments of Sport England are contained within the consultee responses section above. Concerns were raised by Sport England to the proposal as originally submitted due to the potential impact of the scheme on an unused playing field to the North of the site. In order to overcome this concern, the proposal has been amended with the playing field to be retained in accordance with the scheme as granted as part of planning permission DC052222. As such, the amended proposal is considered to accord with Sport Englands playing fields policy and, subject to the imposition of a suitable worded planning condition to ensure that the playing field would be fit for purpose, no objections are raised to the proposal from Sport England.

The detailed comments received to the application from United Utilities and Network Rail, with regard to the relationship of the site to existing apparatus and the operational railway line to the South are noted. A number of the issues raised are not material planning considerations and are therefore not sustainable reasons for the imposition of planning conditions, however the applicant will be advised of such comments by way of informative. Relevant issues relating to site drainage, noise, fencing and location of trees will be controlled by condition.

SUMMARY

The former Barnes hospital building, a Grade II listed building and designated heritage asset, has been vacant since 1999. During this time, a number of development proposals have been submitted to and approved by the Council, involving the repair and adaptation of the former hospital building and enabling residential development within the site. For various reasons, these previously approved schemes have not progresses. Due to the length of time in which the former hospital building has been vacant, it is currently in a very poor state of repair and has been highlighted by English Heritage as a building at risk. If left subject to the effects of weather and vandalism, the condition of the building will deteriorate further unless a viable use for it can be found.

The current proposal for the repair and conversion of the former hospital building with associated enabling residential development within the site is welcomed and supported by both the Council Conservation Officer and English Heritage. As such, the submitted listed building consent application (DC057383) for the restoration, conversion, extension, alterations and partial demolition of the former hospital Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015 building to provide 38 no. residential units is recommended for approval.

With regard to the full planning application (DC057381) for the restoration, conversion, extension, alterations and partial demolition of the former hospital building to provide 38 no. residential units and the erection of 117 no. new houses within the site, the support received from the Council Conservation Officer and English Heritage for an enabling scheme to secure the future of the Grade II listed building is a material consideration which is considered to justify a recommendation of the application for approval. The extant planning permission from 2013 (DC052222), for a total of 300 no. residential units within the site, for an overall greater quantum of development, floorspace, volume, height and number of units than for which permission is currently sought is a key material consideration which adds further considerable weight to justify approval of the current proposal.

In addition to the benefits of securing the future of the Grade II listed building at risk, the proposal has a number of other benefits in terms of a form of sustainable development, the overall quality of the scheme and the contribution and delivery of housing within the borough. No fundamental objections have been received from consultees, subject to conditional control and legal agreements. As such, the proposal is generally considered acceptable in terms of the issues of design and siting, the principle of residential development on the site, access, highways and parking, impact on trees, ecology and protected species, flood risk, land contamination, noise and air quality, archeology and energy efficiency. These positive aspects of the scheme provide additional weight in favour of the proposal and a recommendation for approval.

However, notwithstanding the above positive aspects to the scheme, the level of policy conflict cannot be ignored. Whilst the main enabling development would be confined to the MEDS boundary, the quantum of development proposed would inevitably result in a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt and therefore represent inappropriate development. The current proposal offers no formal affordable housing and no financial contribution towards open space. This is regrettable and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy in these respects.

A developer viability appraisal has been submitted with the planning application which demonstrates that the quantum of development proposed is the minimum development required to ensure a viable scheme. Furthermore, the requirement for the provision of affordable housing provision and developer contributions would render the scheme unviable and undeliverable.

The site has remained undeveloped for a number of years. Whilst regard must be had to the fact that the developer purchased the site in full knowledge of the policy requirements in place, the appraisal has demonstrated that the costs associated in restoring the listed building into a positive use are considerable and for a development to proceed and a scheme to be deliverable the development simply would not take place if a loss was to be made or a level of return below the normally expected rate which enables a develop to gain finance to build. Therefore, the key consideration is whether the benefits to the listed building and the fact that the site will deliver a significant number of units towards meeting the housing target outweigh all other matters. Planning and Highways Committee - 26 March 2015

In view of the above, it is clear that the acceptability of the proposal is finely balanced. The main issue for Members to consider is whether or not the policy conflict is outweighed by securing the future of the heritage asset and the balance of the policy conflict against a need for a viable and deliverable scheme to secure the future of the Grade II listed building at risk.

The assessment of this application clearly must be on its own individual merits. However, it should be noted that in recommending approval for the application this should not be seen as setting a precedent for other sites within the borough. It is the very detailed and specific circumstances of this site and application that have led to this recommendation and as such no precedent should be set.

In the event that planning permission is granted, the permission would be subject to a section 106 agreement which will secure a number of items including a contribution towards cycle parking, control over the phasing of the development as well an overage provision which would enable the Council to claw-back any additional profit made by the developer which would be used towards meeting the policy shortfalls of the current proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

• DC057383 : Listed building consent application for the restoration, conversion, extension, alterations and part demolition of former hospital building to provide 38 residential units : Grant.

• DC057381 : Full planning application for the restoration, conversion, extension, alterations and part demolition of former hospital building to provide 38 residential units and erection of 117 new houses, with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space : Grant.

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE COMMENTS (10/3/15)

The Planning Officer presented the report to committee; updated the committee of two additional letters of objection (which raised matters relating highways issues already specified in the report) and comments of Manchester Airport and confirmed the application was a Planning and Highways Regulation Committee decision. Committee asked questions of the Planning Officer in respect of the access arrangements to the site off the A34. One person spoke in support of the application and answered questions relating to the phasing and the envisaged delivery timescales for the development. Committee were generally very supportive of the application and recommended that permission should be granted.