ITEM
Application DC/072786 Reference Location: 236 to 218 Finney Lane, Heald Green SK8 3QA
PROPOSAL: Proposed conversion of the existing first floor storage space above 'Tesco' unit, first floor and two-storey rear extension, and two-storey extension above 'Betfred' unit for residential accommodation comprising 9 units in a mixture of 1 ·& 2 bedroom apartments over two floors, with associated parking, landscaping and segregated recycling and waste management, together with elevational alterations to the parade. Type Of Full Application Application: Registration 22.08.2019 Date: Target Date: Extension of time to 20.12.2019 Case Officer: Helen Hodgett Applicant: Mr Josh Senior, Cringle Corporation, Suite 17b, 111 Piccadilly, Manchester M1 2HY Agent: SP Architects Ltd., 4 Carlton Court, Hale WA15 8RP
DELEGATION/COMMITTEE STATUS
This application is before Planning and Highways Regulation Committee (PHR), as Cheadle Area Committee requested at their meeting on 10th December 2019 that a site visit be undertaken and matters be addressed regarding noise, parking and construction management.
The application was before Cheadle Area Committee, as Councillor Charles-Jones called the application up to Committee and as objections have been received from the occupiers of 19 properties.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
This application relates to a parade of predominantly commercial units, comprising numbers 236 to 218 Finney Lane, with associated curtilage, including car parking and landscaping, located within Heald Green.
Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing first-floor storage space above the existing 'Tesco' (A1 retail use) unit, a first-floor and two-storey rear extension, and a two-storey extension above the 'Betfred' (sui generis betting office use) unit, for residential accommodation comprising 9 units of a mixture of 1 ·& 2 bedroom apartments over two floors, with associated parking, landscaping and segregated recycling and waste management, together with elevational alterations to the parade.
The proposed development can be better appreciated by looking at the accompanying existing and proposed layout plans and elevational drawings.
The parade including 234 to 218 Finney Lane is two-storeys in height, with predominantly single-storey projections to the rear, whilst adjoining 236, which forms the Betfred unit, is single-storey.
The current parade is constructed of red facing brick, with grey roofing materials. It is proposed to render the existing brickwork to the existing Betfred unit, and the first- floor of the front elevation of the length of the parade, together with elements to the rear. The pitched roof of the existing parade would also be re-roofed in grey tiles. It is proposed to insert a new window, to match the existing, at first-floor level within the enlarged front elevation of the parade adjacent to the proposed two-storey extension above the Betfred unit.
The proposed two-storey extension above the existing Betfred unit would have a flat roof and would be faced in brick with a contrasting brick around the window frames, with a coping at roof level. Windows would be provided within the front, rear and side elevations of the two-storey extension to serve the apartments within.
The following elements would also have a flat roof and would be faced in bricks with a contrasting brick around the window frames, with a coping at roof level: the first- floor extension to the rear above the Tesco unit; the two-storey projection to the rear for the staircase; and the single-storey elements to the rear for storage and cycle storage. Openings would again be provided to the elevations of these extensions to serve the apartments and provide access. The rear elevation would continue to include ground floor rear/servicing access doors for the Tesco unit and for the Betfred unit.
Seven of the nine proposed apartments would have two-bedrooms, with associated living, kitchen and bathroom spaces. Two of the apartments would have one- bedroom, with associated living, kitchen and bathroom spaces. Two of the apartments, located to the rear, would have an external terrace area, with a balustrade.
Land to the front and rear of the parade is stated and shown to be within the same ownership as the parade 218 to 236, and includes private car parking and servicing space to the rear for use in association with the parade, together with landscaping. The submitted existing site layout drawing shows there is currently 53 car parking spaces. It is proposed there would be 50 car parking spaces, as three spaces would be lost to provide an enclosed storage area for segregated recycling and waste for the residential apartments.
It is proposed to retain the majority of existing landscaping upon the site, including the trees within the rear boundary area of the site, three of which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The development proposal requires the removal of the category A oak tree, (reference T5), which is 15 metres high and located to the rear of the Betfred unit. The oak is stated to be significant in terms of its contribution to the landscape and amenity of the area, although the oak tree is not subject to a TPO. It is proposed to plant 4 native extra-heavy standard trees in mitigation for the loss of the oak, including an oak, silver birch, scots pine and rowan (please see the accompanying landscape plan).
The proposed pedestrian and vehicular access routes to and from the development would be between the rear of the site and the adopted highway off Finney Lane adjacent to 218 and 216 Finney Lane.
The application has been amended and supplemented since submission, as follows: (Consultation has been carried out on both the original and amended schemes).
As detailed in the Croft Transport Planning and Design Highways Note, the site layout drawings have been amended to represent the existing and the now proposed external site layout, including swept path for a 11.3 metre refuse vehicle.
The scheme no longer proposes one specifically allocated car parking space for each of the 9 apartments. The applicant is prepared to reduce the maximum duration of stay within the car park to 1 hour for members of the public. The rationale given being that “Whilst this would still be sufficient to allow members of the public to visit the uses within the centre, it will ensure a more frequent turnaround of the spaces, thus reducing the maximum demand for parking.” (The Agent has confirmed that retailer’s employees number plates would be registered in the system).”
The cycle store size has been increased to 1.5m x 4m to house 9 vertical cycle racks @ 400mm centres. The store for receptacles for recycling and waste has been amended.
A detailed Arboricultural Statement and accompanying plans, including proposed planting and tree protection plans, has been submitted.
Additional information regarding noise and acoustic mitigation has been submitted.
SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
As outlined above, this application relates to a parade of predominantly commercial units, comprising numbers 236 to 218 Finney Lane, with associated curtilage, including car parking and landscaping, located within Heald Green.
The application site is located within the Heald Green Large Local Shopping Centre, and the parade is a Primary Shopping Frontage, as regards allocation within the development plan. To the east, adjacent to the Betfred Unit (236 Finney Lane), is a Co-op A1 use class retail unit, which rises to double-storey height adjacent to the road between Betfred and the Co-op; and to the west, adjacent to 218 Finney Lane, is another parade of similar two-storey commercial premises.
To the north, to the rear of the car park are residential semi-detached two-storey properties, with curtilages, along Eastleigh Road; and to the south, opposite the front of the parade, are two-storey, semi-detached residential houses, with curtilages, along the main road of Finney Lane. The residential properties located opposite and to the rear of the application site are located with a Predominantly Residential Area, as regards the development plan.
The site is located within an accessible location, and is, for example, within walking distance of Heald Green Railway Station, along a route for buses and within walking distance of local shops and services and open spaces for recreation.
The application site is located within an area affected by noise from aircraft and by aircraft safeguarding. In terms of the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) mapping system, the site is located within flood zone 1 (low risk).
POLICY BACKGROUND
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications/appeals to be determined in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Statutory Development Plan includes:-
Policies set out in the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (SUDP) adopted 31st May 2006 which have been saved by direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; &
Policies set out in the Stockport Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS) adopted 17th March 2011.
N.B. Due weight should be given to relevant SUDP and CS policies according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given); and how the policies are expected to be applied is outlined within the Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) launched on 6th March 2014.
Saved policies of the SUDP Review
EP1.7 – Development and flood risk EP1.9 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes and Air Navigation Facilities EP1.10 – Aircraft Noise L1.2 – Children’s Play HP1.5 – Living Over the Shop PSD2.3 – Use of Upper Floors in Shopping Centres PSD2.7 – Residential Development in Local Centres MW1.5 – Control of waste from development
LDF Core Strategy/Development Management policies
CS1: OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE SD-1: Creating Sustainable Communities SD-3: Delivering the Energy Opportunities Plans - New Development SD-6: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change
CS2: HOUSING PROVISION
CS3: MIX OF HOUSING
CS4: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING H-1: Design of Residential Development H-2: Housing Phasing H-3: Affordable Housing
Core Policy CS6: SAFEGUARDING AND STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE CENTRE HIERARCHY AS-1: The Vitality and Viability of Stockport's Service Centres
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
Supplementary Planning Guidance (Saved SPG’s & SPD’s) does not form part of the Statutory Development Plan; nevertheless it does provide non-statutory Council approved guidance that is a material consideration when determining planning applications.
Relevant guidance is as follows:
Design of Residential Development SPD Open Space Provision and Commuted Sum Payments SPD Sustainable Design and Construction SPD Sustainable Transport SPD Transport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
A Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on 19th February 2019 (updated 19th June 2019) replaced the previous NPPF (originally issued 2012 & revised 2018). The NPPF has not altered the fundamental legal requirement under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations (such as the NPPF) indicate otherwise.
The NPPF representing the governments up-to-date planning policy which should be taken into account in dealing with applications focuses on achieving a lasting housing reform, facilitating the delivery of a greater number of homes, ensuring that we get planning for the right homes built in the right places of the right quality at the same time as protecting our environment. If decision takers choose not to follow the NPPF, then clear and convincing reasons for doing so are needed.
N.B. In respect of decision-taking the revised NPPF constitutes a “material consideration”.
Extracts from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – link to full document - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
1. Introduction Para 1. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. It provides a framework within which locally-prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced.
Para 2. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements.
2. Achieving sustainable development Para 7. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Para 8. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives): a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
Para 10. So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11).
The presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
Para 12. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.
4. Decision-making Para 38. Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
Para 47. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Para 54. Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.
Para 55. Planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Agreeing conditions early is beneficial to all parties involved in the process and can speed up decision making. Conditions that are required to be discharged before development commences should be avoided, unless there is a clear justification.
Para 56. Planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Para 59. To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.
Para 63. Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re- use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
Para 68. Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should c) support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes.
6. Building a strong, competitive economy Para 80. Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future. This is particularly important where Britain can be a global leader in driving innovation, and in areas with high levels of productivity, which should be able to capitalise on their performance and potential.
7. Ensuring the vitality of town centres Para 85. Planning policies and decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities, by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation. Planning policies should: a) define a network and hierarchy of town centres and promote their long-term vitality and viability – by allowing them to grow and diversify in a way that can respond to rapid changes in the retail and leisure industries, allows a suitable mix of uses (including housing) and reflects their distinctive characters; f) recognise that residential development often plays an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and encourage residential development on appropriate sites.
8. Promoting healthy and safe communities Para 91. Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which: a) promote social interaction, including opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other – for example through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres, street layouts that allow for easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods, and active street frontages; b) are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion – for example through the use of clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas; and c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs – for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure, sports facilities, local shops, access to healthier food, allotments and layouts that encourage walking and cycling.
Para 92. To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: a) plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community; c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community; and e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.
9. Promoting sustainable transport Para 108. In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that: a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and
c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.
Para 109. Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Para 110. Within this context, applications for development should: a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.
11. Making effective use of land Para 117. Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.
Para 118. Planning policies and decisions should: a) encourage multiple benefits from both urban and rural land, including through mixed use schemes and taking opportunities to achieve net environmental gains – such as developments that would enable new habitat creation or improve public access to the countryside; b) recognise that some undeveloped land can perform many functions, such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbon storage or food production; c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land; d) promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively (for example converting space above shops, and building on or above service yards, car parks, lock-ups and railway infrastructure); and e) support opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes. In particular, they should allow upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, is well- designed (including complying with any local design policies and standards), and can maintain safe access and egress for occupiers.
Achieving appropriate densities Para 122. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; b) local market conditions and viability; c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.
Para 123. Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.
12. Achieving well-designed places Para 124. The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this. So too is effective engagement between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other interests throughout the process.
Para 127. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons58 and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
180. Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life; b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.
182. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.
Para 213 existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
PLANNING HISTORY
Reference: J/34806; Type: XHS; Address: Glass Court, Off Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Change of use from vacant garages to retail shop...; Decision Date: 03-DEC-85; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/020412; Type: LDCP; Address: 224 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Certificate of lawfulness for an existing restaurant ( A3 use); Decision Date: 16-AUG-05; Decision: GTD Reference: J/9324; Type: XHS; Address: 234, Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Proposed alterations and extension to supermarket.; Decision Date: 16-AUG-77; Decision: REF Reference: J/66367; Type: XHS; Address: 234 Finney Lane Heald Green; Proposal: Installation of roller shutters; Decision Date: 27-JAN-97; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/010668; Type: FUL; Address: 20 Eastleigh Road, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QS; Proposal: Single storey side extension.; Decision Date: 19-MAY-03; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/025344; Type: ADV; Address: Tesco Express, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport.Cheshire SK8 3QA; Proposal: Car Park entrance signs to grassed verge area opposite Tesco Express.; Decision Date: 02-MAR-07; Decision: WDN Reference: DC/059783; Type: FUL; Address: 226 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Alteration of existing shop front - currently high-silled windows, to be changed to entirely plate glass; Decision Date: 13-NOV-15; Decision: GTD Reference: J/37229; Type: ADV; Address: 224 Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Shop sign at first floor level.; Decision Date: 06-OCT-86; Decision: REF Reference: J/214; Type: XHS; Address: 222, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheshire.; Proposal: Shop front.; Decision Date: 29-MAY-74; Decision: GTD Reference: J/230; Type: ADV; Address: 222, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheshire.; Proposal: Fascia sign.; Decision Date: 29-MAY-74; Decision: GTD Reference: J/36641; Type: XHS; Address: 222 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport.; Proposal: New shop front to existing shop.; Decision Date: 14-JUL-86; Decision: GTD Reference: J/36642; Type: ADV; Address: 222 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport.; Proposal: Shop sign.; Decision Date: 14-JUL-86; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/025201; Type: ADV; Address: 222 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Installation of illuminated fascia and projecting signs; Decision Date: 13-FEB-07; Decision: GTD Reference: J/41157; Type: ADV; Address: 220 Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Shop Sign.; Decision Date: 29-FEB-88; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/065189; Type: FUL; Address: 220 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Removal of unserviceable shopfront and replacement with new including relocation of main entrance door.; Decision Date: 08-MAY-17; Decision: GTD Reference: J/21256; Type: ADV; Address: Rodger W. Dean & Co., Ltd., 218, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire.; Proposal: Projecting two sided box sign.; Decision Date: 27-OCT-80; Decision: REF Reference: J/21090; Type: XHS; Address: 218 Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: New shop front.; Decision Date: 27-OCT-80; Decision: GTD Reference: J/22531; Type: ADV; Address: 218 Finney Lane, Heald Green (Roger W Dean & Co Ltd); Proposal: Transome window signs.; Decision Date: 27-APR-81; Decision: REF Reference: J/34865; Type: XHS; Address: Glass Court, Off Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Change of use of vacant garages to retail shop...; Decision Date: 03-DEC-85; Decision: GTD Reference: J/33490; Type: XHS; Address: Garage Court To Rear Of Shopping Parade Off Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Conversion of garages into warehouse with retail counter.; Decision Date: 02-MAY-85; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/014337; Type: FUL; Address: Former Petrol Station, Finney Lane, Heald Green; Proposal: Erection of retail food store; Decision Date: 17-MAY-04; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/017782; Type: FUL; Address: Former Petrol Station, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport, SK8 3DQ; Proposal: Retail food store ( Revision to previous applications DC016519 and DC014337); Decision Date: 17-JAN-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/019394; Type: FUL; Address: New Co-Op Store, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3DQ; Proposal: Installation of of external 24 Hr ATM to side of building; Decision Date: 08-JUN-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/016519; Type: FUL; Address: Former Petrol Station, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire.; Proposal: Erection of retail food store (Revised scheme); Decision Date: 29-SEP-04; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/016611; Type: VC; Address: Former Petrol Station, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire.; Proposal: Variation of condition 6 of consent DC014337 to allow highway work to be approved before occupation of building rather than commencement of development.; Decision Date: 13-OCT-04; Decision: WDN Reference: J/28781; Type: ADV; Address: Heald Green Service Station, Finney Lane, Cheadle.; Proposal: Illuminated box sign..; Decision Date: 08-AUG-83; Decision: GTD Reference: J/28821; Type: XHS; Address: Heald Green Service Station, Finney Lane, Cheadle.; Proposal: New diesel pump and underground storage tank..; Decision Date: 16-AUG-83; Decision: GTD Reference: J/34050; Type: ADV; Address: Heald Green Service Station, Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Proposed illuminated adverts comprising illuminated gantry sign...; Decision Date: 08-JUL-85; Decision: GTD Reference: J/10072; Type: XHS; Address: 234, Finney Lane, Heald Green.; Proposal: Proposed alterations and extension of supermarket.; Decision Date: 09- NOV-77; Decision: GTD Reference: J/66764; Type: ADV; Address: 234 Finney Lane Heald Green; Proposal: Illuminated signs; Decision Date: 04-JUN-97; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/069648; Type: GPDE; Address: 24 Eastleigh Road, Heald Green, Cheadle, Stockport, SK8 3QS, ; Proposal: Proposed single storey rear extension, (i) The projection of the proposed extension beyond the rear wall of the original house is: 4.0 metres, (ii) The maximum height of the proposed extension is: 4.0 metres, (iii) The height of the eaves of the proposed extension is: 2.32 metres; Decision Date: 18-JUN-18; Decision: GCPD Reference: J/16707; Type: XHS; Address: 218-234B, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheshire.; Proposal: Proposed supports to existing concrete canopy..; Decision Date: 14-AUG-79; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/054746; Type: ADV; Address: 232 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport, SK8 3QA; Proposal: 1 no. internally illuminated and 1 no. non-illuminated fascia signs, 1 no. internally illuminated projecting sign and non-illuminated vinyl window signage, ; Decision Date: 25-MAR-14; Decision: GTD Reference: J/22384; Type: XHS; Address: 22 Eastleigh Road, Heald Green, Stockport.; Proposal: Porch, garage and kitchen extension.; Decision Date: 30-MAR- 81; Decision: GTD Reference: J/69266; Type: XHS; Address: 228 Finney Lane Heald Green; Proposal: Change of use from shop (A1) to restaurant and takeaway (A3); Decision Date: 06- APR-98; Decision: GTD Reference: J/71785; Type: XHS; Address: 228 Finney Lane Heald Green; Proposal: INSTALLATION OF ROLLER SHUTTER DOOR TO SHOP FRONT; Decision Date: 05-JUL-99; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/021172; Type: FUL; Address: Co-Op Store, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport; Proposal: Installation of 1.1 m high galvanised steel tube trolley store (RETROSPECTIVE); Decision Date: 12-DEC-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/020255; Type: FUL; Address: Co-Op, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QB; Proposal: Installation of 1m satellite dish for connection to ATM; Decision Date: 07-SEP-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/019662; Type: ADV; Address: 234 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Two illuminated fascia signs.; Decision Date: 07-JUL-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/012656; Type: FUL; Address: Co-Op Welcome Store, 234 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport, Cheshire, SK8 3QB; Proposal: Installation of 24 hour ATM cashpoint.; Decision Date: 27-OCT-03; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/002762; Type: FUL; Address: 234/236 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Alterations to existing shop front; Decision Date: 01-DEC-00; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/025191; Type: FUL; Address: 236 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Change of use from Retail (A1) to Betting Office (A2); Decision Date: 06-MAR-07; Decision: REF Reference: DC/005914; Type: FUL; Address: Co-Op Store, 234/236 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport, Cheshire; Proposal: Installation of a wall mounted satellite antenna (1 metre diameter); Decision Date: 29-NOV-01; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/003067; Type: ADV; Address: Lo-Cost Stores Ltd, 234 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: 2 internally illuminated fascia and projecting signs; Decision Date: 02-FEB-01; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/042820; Type: FUL; Address: 236 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport, SK8 3QA; Proposal: First floor extension over existing bookmakers to provide two 1-bedroom self-contained flats.; Decision Date: 15-DEC-09; Decision: REF Reference: DC/003639; Type: ADV; Address: Co-Op Welcome Store, 234 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Stockport SK8 3QA; Proposal: Advertisement consent for ATM and projecting illuminated signs; Decision Date: 23-APR-01; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/003636; Type: FUL; Address: Co-Op Welcome Store, 234 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Stockport. SK8 3QA; Proposal: Installation of ATM cashpoint to front elevation of shop; Decision Date: 23-APR-01; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/023685; Type: ADV; Address: 234 Finney Lane Heald Green Cheadle Cheshire SK8 3QA; Proposal: Provision of internally illuminated Main Fascia sign and internally illuminated Projecting sign.; Decision Date: 12-SEP-06; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/022406; Type: FUL; Address: 232-234, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Demolition of ground floor separating wall to form 1 unit including infilling of passageway; Decision Date: 27-APR-06; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/023684; Type: FUL; Address: 232 And 234 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Stockport. SK8 3QA; Proposal: Internal fit out of existing shell to house new Tesco Express retail outlet. The proposal includes the installation of an ATM to the front elevation and installation of split cooling units to the rear; Decision Date: 11- OCT-06; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/017645; Type: FUL; Address: 232 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Change of use to restaurant; Decision Date: 10-JAN-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/015036; Type: FUL; Address: 232 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Change of use fom retail (A1) to Estate Agents (A2); Decision Date: 01-JUN-04; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/017880; Type: FUL; Address: 230 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Change of use from retail shop to beautician.; Decision Date: 09-FEB-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/017637; Type: FUL; Address: 228 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Change of use from retail shop to internet cafe/community meeting room.; Decision Date: 10-JAN-05; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/070304; Type: TWTT; Address: Street Record, Outwood Road, Heald Green, Cheadle, Stockport, , ; Proposal: For tree works, crown lift trees for highways clearance, Work to be carried out on Outwood Road, Finney Lane to Cross Lane. TPO: 9W, 145W, 146W, 196W; Decision Date: 24-AUG-18; Decision: GTD Reference: DC/016238; Type: ADV; Address: 218 Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3QA; Proposal: Non-illuminated advertisement; Decision Date: 26-AUG-04; Decision: GTD Reference: J/11585; Type: XHS; Address: 234, Finney Lane, Heald Green, Cheshire.; Proposal: Proposed alterations and extension of existing supermarket to give increased retail and storage facilities.; Decision Date: 03-MAY-78; Decision: GTD
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES
The occupiers of neighbouring properties were notified of this planning application by letter. A site notice has also been displayed adjacent to the site from 6/9/19 for public consultation.
1st Consultation: Representations have been received from contributors at 19 addresses in response to the original consultation on this application.
The individual representations in response to the scheme as originally received can be reported as follows:
Parking, Highways, Travel and Access Heald Green already has a shortage of parking spaces for the public to use the shops of Finney Lane. Most afternoons the car park is at capacity. The parking capacity situation is worse on a Friday afternoon during Friday prayer time. Approximately 1/3 or 30% of the existing parking spaces will no longer be available. Will cause a severe parking issue for the public and for businesses, many of which are small local businesses. People’s cars are being damaged now, as the car park is not large enough for the demand for spaces. If people cannot park they will park on the already congested roads. Reducing car parking spaces in the car park will make the surrounding roads busier and even more unsafe than they currently are. Will promote non-compliant or illegal parking on the surrounding roads/paths increasing the risks to pedestrians and traffic from reduced visibility. The businesses pay a substantial management fee for the car park per year. Would urge the reconsideration of the proposal or efforts to make sure the number of spaces is not affected. I try to walk whenever possible, but there are a lot of older people living in the area who have to use the car park. It is already tight for space when the Tesco delivery truck comes. Any extension to the rear of the Tesco store, will push their empty trollies even further into the car park and make getting round any delivery trucks even harder. According to recent reports, local councils are going to have to introduce more parking spaces for "Blue Badge Holders". If this were to be the case in the car park behind this proposed redevelopment, then that would also reduce the currently available parking spaces. Given the recent financial parking restrictions at the airport this car park (which is currently free to use) also now attracts cars/taxi's waiting to attend the airport, further reducing the capacity for visitors to the shops: which is it's existing purpose. Parking capacity in Heald Green is a huge issue. Affected by people parking for free whilst they go on holiday. Do not want my access gate to the rear of the car park blocked, as rely upon this route to access the shops. Have significant concerns regarding the impact of the 9 proposed residential car parking spaces and additional vehicles movements that will take place as a result of the proposed development. Deliveries at the Tesco store are scheduled as early as possible due to the complexity of the car park and resultant vehicle congestion. There is already significant issues associated with car park users and delivery vehicles both accessing and egressing the site, which at times results in gridlock. The proposed 9 allocated residents car parking bays are located next to the area used for deliveries. No documents or plans have been provided that show the tracking of delivery and residential vehicles, or any assessment of how the various vehicles movements will take place. It is our view that the additional vehicle movements resulting from the proposed residential dwellings will exacerbate an already heavily congested car park. It is considered that there has been no assessment of the traffic impacts within the car park and consider this to be a material consideration in the determination of the application.
Vitality and Viability A reduced number of shoppers will ultimately reduce trade and impact tremendously on Heald Green. Doesn’t Stockport have a policy of keeping core shopping alive? Without parking it will not happen. Businesses have been struggling since the opening of the A555, and the reduction in passing trade, let’s not make it worse. If customers cannot park when passing, they do not stop. Heald Green has been quieter since the A555, but gridlock expected on the A34, due to the overdevelopment of land for houses by Cheshire East. A reduced footfall will lead to a decline in the viability of the shopping facilities. People publish daily on Facebook that they cannot park and go to the supermarkets. There is a need for affordable housing, however, this should not be at the expense of people wanting to shop or local businesses. People will avoid shopping here if there is nowhere to park. No compensatory parking is proposed. The noise will have a detrimental impact upon our business. Situation would be worsened if the fields adjacent to the village hall are also developed; more pressure on parking, local residents unable to shop and local businesses close as a result. Construction work will put people’s jobs at risk, as building work would be carried out to existing business premises. There are already 4 charity establishments and the greengrocer ceased to trade leaving an empty unit. Heald Green does not need any more accomodation especially in the heart of the village. If anything you should be trying to save our small high street, not destroy it further.
Construction Betfred will be impacted upon by the building work to provide the structural support. Health of workers affected if working during building work. There will be issues with connecting to the sewers; Betfred recently had issues. The construction period, including large delivery vehicles, would cause a serious risk to the safety of children and the elderly using the shops and car park. One child has already been run over, and one building and a car have been hit by vehicles.
Trees Removing the iconic oak tree should be given serious consideration, as it would be detrimental to the environment. The oak tree was growing in the grounds of the previous building before the parade was built in the 1960’s. The tree appears to be in good health, with healthy leaf cover this summer. There seems no good reason to destroy an attractive, healthy oak tree. The tree is a reasonable distance from the building and would not impact access. The car park and businesses have operated for many years without it causing an issue so it is difficult to understand why it's removal is necessary. It is arguable that the tree actually forms a natural aid to the one way traffic on site and therefore enhances the road safety issues in a busy car park. To remove the tree to enhance future residents view does not seem credible as their 'unrestricted' view would be of a busy car park and waste/refuse facilities. Cutting down the tree would also be a huge loss to the birds/wildlife. The tree should have a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). There is no tree report. The trees in the car park have not been maintained for approximately 30 years. Would hope that consideration will be given to lopping the trees to the car park perimeter, as they reduce sunlight and there is an issue with a tree with an insect infestation. Have had to have some roots removed. Several large branches have fallen off in the wind, which could have resulted in injury.
Living environment The apartments would not provide an acceptable living environment for their occupiers, with aircraft noise, noise from cars and businesses, odours from food outlets, and noise and disturbance from the supermarkets, which are open from 6am to 22pm daily. The rear of my property would be overlooked by the proposed apartments. Object to the loss of the oak and to trees being planted to the rear, as will affect light within the garden area. This development is proposed above an operational Tesco Express. Have significant concerns in relation to the noise impact of the operational businesses on the proposed residential dwellings. A noise assessment has been submitted with the planning application, but do not believe this does not reflect the true impact of the operational uses on the site on the proposed residential dwellings. On most days of the week the Tesco Express store receives three Tesco deliveries, plus milk, bread and newspaper deliveries. These deliveries start from 5am and not 5:30am as suggested in the noise report. Produce roll cages are off-loaded and empty cages reloaded via a tailgate lift at the rear of the delivery vehicles. Based on our understand of the noise characteristics associated with Tesco delivery activity, and from the limited noise survey data in the noise report submitted, it is considered highly likely that the highest measured peak noise levels should be attributable to Tesco delivery activity. The very nature of delivery activity noise is that it is characterised by short duration peak noise levels, as roll cages are moved within the wagon and onto and off from the tailgate lift. This includes noise from produce cages rattling and banging as they are moved from the tail gate into the Tesco Express store. Given the location of the Tesco Express loading location, and the likely delivery activity noise levels impacting upon the façade of the proposed residential development above the Tesco Express store, it appears that the noise report underestimates the level of sound insulation required to ensure adequate internal noise levels. Cannot see any assessment of the noise levels generated in the Tesco demise, nor of noise intrusion to the proposed dwellings from Tesco Express operations, in the submitted noise report. The report should have considered structure-borne noise cage movements and other store operations within the Tesco demise. There is no assessment presented of how structure-borne noise arising from activities within the Tesco Express would impact the proposed dwellings. From experience of residential dwellings being developed above stores, structure-borne noise can have significant impacts on occupants of new dwellings. The store is served by mechanical services plant equipment, which is located to the rear of the store. Despite comments in the noise assessment, we are concerned that there may arise complaints from future occupants of the proposed residential dwellings in relation to plant noise, particularly during the summer months. The noise assessment does not provide adequate comfort that the proposed residential dwellings can be made suitable in terms of noise impacts, particularly those resulting from Tesco deliveries. Given these concerns in relation to noise it is considered that the proposed residential development would be contrary to paragraph 182 of the NPPF. Should the council be minded to grant consent we consider it essential that appropriate noise conditions are attached to the planning consent to ensure measures to mitigate noise impacts are installed and maintained within the proposed development. We also consider that a condition should be attached to ensure additional assessment of structure-borne noise arising from activities within the Tesco Express on the proposed residential dwellings and wording included in the condition to ensure mitigation measures to address structure-borne noise impacts are installed and maintained.
Other matters The flight path has to be taken into consideration if you are planning to build higher than the Co-op. Being so close to the airport, this is an important concern.
The request to put one storey of flats above Betfred was previously denied, how come a request for two storeys is now being proposed?
The following matters are material considerations, parking, highways, traffic, noise and no disabled person access.
2nd Consultation: Neighbours and contributors have subsequently been notified by letter/email of the receipt of amendments. Representations have been received from contributors at 3 addresses. All have previously made representations.
The individual representations in response to the scheme as amended can be reported as follows:
The loss of any parking spaces in this very popular and busy car park would be disastrous for not only the residents of Heald Green but for the many people passing through the village to and from Manchester Airport, seeking places to park in order to use the shops. Also in this very environmentally conscious age, the removal of a fine and well established oak tree must be questioned. It is yet another, poorly thought through application, by greedy property developers, giving little thought to parking and traffic management. The car park behind Tesco, Heald Green is at full capacity during various times of the day, especially at lunch times, late afternoons and weekends. The loss of any parking spaces plus the room taken for waste bins will create huge problems for parking and traffic congestion in the centre of Heald Green. It is not only residents of Heald Green who use these shops, but people passing through the village and people who work at the large local business units also need to park in the car park!
Wish to re-affirm our objection to the application on the same grounds as our earlier letter. On behalf of many in the Heald Green Community and the retailers in the Heald Green Village Centre, we make the following observations.
1. The parking provision for the shopping area adjacent to the application site comprises six spaces on the service road and 60 spaces in the applicant owned, free public car park. Whilst there is also a car park in front of the Heald Green Hotel, there are two reasons why it is not of relevance. Firstly, it is so far from the application site that drivers destined for the units on the site do not consider using it. Secondly, the free parking area at the Hotel is full with rail station users and the rest is P & D, which deters motorists from its use.
The current situation during shopping hours is that the applicant's car park is always almost full and for extended periods is completely full, especially at lunchtimes. Motorists often drive into the car park, drive round looking for spaces, then drive out again having found none and shop elsewhere. At Friday lunchtimes, the large influx of additional cars of worshippers for Friday Prayers at the nearby Muslim Prayer Room solidly packs the car park for about two hours. The current, week-long shortage of parking spaces reduces the viability of the shopping centre, contrary to Council policy for Large Local Centres, such as Heald Green. The application seeks to reduce the already insufficient public spaces available in the car park by 30%. The effect of this reduction will be to seriously undermine the future of the centre. There are already four charity establishments in the centre and the greengrocer has ceased to trade, leaving an empty unit in an adjacent block.
In addition to parking for the large Local Centre, additional parking is generated by commuters using the Train Station, to travel to work both in Manchester City Centre and at Manchester Airport. Holidaymakers also park on residential roads to avoid airport parking charges. The surrounding roads are covered with double yellow lines and beyond them indiscriminate on-street parking. The officers have recently granted Planning permission (DC/074911) was recently granted for a 44 cover daytime only Cafe, with no customer parking, only 80m from the application site. This recent permission will add to the parking pressure on the applicant's already overused car park.
For policy reasons, the application should be refused on two grounds: firstly the loss of already insufficient parking and secondly viability of the Large Local Centre.
2. The application proposes the felling of the superb, mature oak tree at the West end of the site. This tree dominates what would otherwise be a featureless asphalt area and hence has tremendous amenity value. Its destruction would be contrary to Council policy and hence the application should be refused.
3. The location of the proposed flats is surrounded on three sides by parking and by moving vehicles. Several of the shops operate late night opening. Several take- aways and the two restaurants also operate till late. There will, therefore, be a noise problem for residents late into the evening and early night-time from patrons, traffic and car doors. In addition, there will be the health hazard of continuous emissions from slow moving vehicles on three sides of the block. The health impacts of the noise and emissions on the site are valid reasons for refusal.
4. There is a problem of aircraft noise on the proposed dwellings. Whilst the noise of individual aircraft has decreased over the last couple of decades, this is due to a fundamental change in the design of aircraft engines. Almost all airliners now have this type of engine and there is no future technology which will continue the reductions of the last 20 years. However, to counter the improvements in the noise of individual aircraft, the number of flights has increased. Manchester Airport has a £1B improvement project partly finished. The Government's Consultation Document "Aviation 2050", published last December, states that annual passenger numbers at Manchester have increased by 57% since 2010. The Airport's Sustainable Development Plan quotes Government forecasts of passenger numbers per annum increasing from the current 29M to 50M by 2030. As the consequential number of flights increases, the noise nuisance will increase. The recent World Health Organisation Report on Noise and Health strongly recommends external levels of no more than 45dBLden average and 40dBLnight. It should be noted that Manchester Airport has two parallel runways and the two flightpaths, which are only 390m apart, straddle the application site. The aircraft noise will vary considerably dependent on which runway is in use and whether the runways are operating in an easterly or westerly mode. The effects of aircraft noise can only be determined by reference to the airport's figures. They cannot be assessed by measurements taken over a few days. Furthermore, no measurement can be made of the of the increased nuisance as flight numbers increase. Whilst retail and office uses may be acceptable, this location is unsuitable for residential use, particularly with increasing night jet noise, which is less relevant with respect to business and retail use, as they operate during the day. Due to aircraft noise, its associated disturbance and the resultant health effects, this application should be refused.
For the above reasons and others, we consider the current application in breach of sustainable development considerations and several planning policies. We would, therefore, request the Council to refuse the application.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
SMBC Highways – Final comments – Further to my original comments a package of revised drawings and a supporting highways note have been received. Final comments as follow.
The proposal is for the creation of 9 apartments above existing commercial units. The site is in an accessible location with convenient access to public transport, amenities and services and is considered an appropriate location for residential development.
To the rear of the site is a privately managed car park with a time restricted period for stay. Whilst the car park has been and will it is understood continue to be available for public usage and for the benefit of the frontage shopping parade, it has to be acknowledged that it is private with maintenance and management being the land owner’s responsibility. The submission proposes use of this car park to meet the likely demand for parking that will arise from the proposed residential use.
A development of nine apartments does not generate a significant or unacceptable volume of traffic and have no concern with associated additional traffic movements being imposed on the highway network or circulating around the rear car park.
In terms of parking demand, a residential use in an accessible location where residents have good access to public transport, amenities and services is unlikely to generate a high demand for parking space or see a reliance on car travel. This is not a location whereby having access to a car will be highly likely or indeed essential and this should influence the development being less car travel dependant.
It is acknowledged that the proposed development is to some extent reliant on the use of this car park to meet any demand for parking space that will arise from the residential use and it is intended that spaces in the car park will remain shared in usage with no specific allocation of spaces proposed.
In assessment of parking demand, regard also has to be given to the existing use of upper floor space of the building as offices. Such a use generates a demand for parking that is comparable to the proposed office use in terms of numbers although the likely time for usage differs. An office use has a typical demand for parking space during the weekday daytime whereas residential use is focused towards evening time and weekend when pressure on the car park is less. As such the demand for space and pressure on the car park would be demonstrably reduced and a residential use would appear more compatible with the shared use nature of the car park, to the potential benefit all car park users.
To accommodate refuse and recycling facilities to service the residential use, there would need to be a small reduction in the number of spaces within the overall car park, down from 53 to 50 spaces. There is no reason or evidence to demonstrate that this would materially or unacceptable harm the operation of the car park, adversely affect the vitality off the shopping parade or give rise to unacceptable parking on the adjoining highway network. Whilst it is appreciated that parking pressure exists, a loss of three spaces is not considered material or sufficient justification to oppose a use that generates its peak demand for parking at times when spaces are more readily available.
Satisfied that the refuse and recycling facility will have sufficient capacity for the relevant receptacles and swept path drawings have shown that a refuse sized vehicle can continue to negotiate a route through the car park, as it already does, without material harm or risk to other user safety.
The development also proposes an integrated cycle store with capacity for nine cycles and this satisfies requirement and Council Policy.
In summary, there is no reason or justification to oppose a residential development in a location that benefit from good accessibility, would prove sustainable and has potential for shared use of available parking space.
Any permission granted will require conditions that cover construction management, provision and retention of cycle parking and provision and retention of refuse and recycling facilities.
Initial comments on original scheme - The proposal is for the creation of 9 apartments above existing commercial units. The site is in an accessible location with convenient access to public transport, amenities and services and is considered an appropriate location for residential development.
To the rear of the site is a privately managed car park that is and has been for many years readily available for public usage, albeit with a time restricted period for stay. This car park is heavily used by visitors to the frontage shopping parade and provides a useful facility and benefits the viability and vitality of the centre. Whilst it is acknowledged it could probably be removed or closed off at any time there would inevitably be issues arising from the impact on parking in the centre and displacement of parked vehicles which could give rise to highway operational and safety concerns.
The submission makes reference to 10 bays within the rear car park to be allocated for residents within the new development (although I note this could perhaps be reduced to 9 following reduction in the number of apartments). This gives rise to concern as dedicating spaces can only give rise to public parking being displaced from the car park and potentially onto the frontage highway, with consequent concerns. There is no supporting evidence that 10 spaces could effectively be lost without adverse harm being caused and it is noted from experience and regular visits to the area that the car park is heavily utilised. It is considered that the applicant needs to evidence with survey data, usage levels in the car park throughout the weekday, weekends and evening periods, so a robust assessment of potentially dedicating spaces can be undertaken.
It is questioned as to how the spaces will be allocated and how public use of the spaces would be prevented. Would not wish to see any bollards or similar that would cause standing traffic on circulatory areas and potentially impact on the safe operation of the car park.
The proposal could remove any reference to dedication of spaces and existing controls and usage could remain within the car park, with residents utilising spaces should they be available. Considered it would be difficult to sustain an objection to a development of 9 apartments without bespoke car parking in this location, noting the accessibility of the site and potential to make use of existing shared and public parking areas. It would be difficult to argue and evidence that the accessibility of the site is so deficient that residents in this location would be reliant on access to a car.
It is noted from the submitted drawings that an enclosed stairwell would be constructed at the rear of the building and this causes some concern. Any new projection from the rear of the building and encroachment into the parking area is likely to inhibit the free and safe movement of vehicles within the car park and in particular the routing of delivery and refuse vehicles through the car park. The submission does not include any evidence that a new structure can be accommodated without consequent harm and as a minimum would expect swept path drawings for an 11m refuse and recycling vehicle, to enable a review of whether such manoeuvres would still be possible.
Finally, the drawings indicate refuse and recycling facilities and cycle parking for the development. The locating of these facilities will further impact on the car park with 4 additional spaces being lost. This exacerbates my concern with displaced parking and potential consequent adverse impact on highway operation and safety.
Furthermore, do not consider the parking layout accurately represents the existing layout of spaces and no indication is given that bays are intended to be remarked. An accurate drawing is required to enable proper assessment of the impact of development on the car park and the total number of spaces that are affected and would remain.
In addition to this concern, are sceptical that the refuse facility would be adequate in size to house the necessary receptacles for new residents. For paper, card and cartons one 1100L eurobin and one 770L bin are required, for glass, cans and plastic bottles again one 1100L eurobin and one 770L bin. For food waste one 360L bin is required and for residual waste one 1100L eurobin and one 360L bin are required. In total space is required for 7 receptacles. Also remain to be convinced that the cycle parking area, which needs to be covered and secure, is capable of accommodating 9 cycles.
In summary, do not consider the submission accurately details or evidences that the proposed development can reasonably be accommodated without adversely affecting the operation and availability of the car park or without giving rise to displacement parking with potential consequent harm. Additional information is required before I can offer support in full to the proposal.
Recommendation: Defer for additional information and drawings.
SMBC Environmental Health – Land Contamination – Informative in case of the unexpected discovery of contaminated land.
SMBC Environmental Health – Noise –Do not object to the development in principle.
The site is situated under the flightpath for Manchester airport, adjacent to a major road network and situated above commercial premises that operate early until late.
An Acoustic report has been submitted along with the application and assesses ambient background noise level from road, air and commercial sources. Unattended measurement were undertaken over a period of 3 days and attended measurement on one day therefore, content that a big enough sample of noise was taken.
The report advises that mitigation measures will be needed for the proposed apartments to enable them to meet recommended internal noise levels for the proposed apartments.
The report gives window and ventilation specifications for the South, West and North elevation; this will enable internal noise levels to be met, but also provide ventilation.
“The glazing to bedrooms on the northern elevations is onerous due to Tesco delivery. If a canopy could be installed which acted as an acoustic barrier to the window the performance of the glazing could be down-graded” - Details of this would need to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning authority.
The report does advise that “prior to any glazing being installed, octave band sound insulation performance data of the glazing build-ups and ventilators selected must be verified by AEC or others.” - The details of this will need to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning authority.
Windows will be left openable for purge ventilation and should the occupant choose to do so. However, occupants should be aware that if they choose to open the windows, they will be bypassing the mitigation measures and internal noise levels will be high.
The sound insulation performance for the ventilation is detailed within the report - it will be provided via trickle vents through wall or mechanical ventilation; if mechanical ventilation is to be used we would need details of the system to be provided.
The report does look at the separating floor between the commercial and proposed residential, and has specified a higher sound insulation performance of 55dBDnT,w + Ctr, to be achieved by a floating floor.
SMBC Environmental Health – Air – Have no objections. The development is just outside the Air Quality Monitoring Area (AQMA). Also the development will not generate sufficient vehicle movements to have an effect on the AQMA.
SMBC Nature Development Officer – Legislative and Policy Framework Nature Conservation Designations The site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise.
Legally Protected Species Many buildings and trees have the potential to support roosting bats and nesting birds. All species of bats and their roosts are protected under UK (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) and European legislation (The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2017). All breeding birds and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Paragraph 016 of the Natural Environment Planning Practice Guidance states that the local authority should only request a survey if they consider there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present and affected by development.
The building has a felt roof (part is flat and part is pitched) and appeared to offer limited potential to support roosting bats. Similarly no obvious potential roosting features were observed in the mature oak tree scheduled for removal, although it should be noted that suitable potential bat roosting features may have been obscured by leaves. The works are considered to be low risk to roosting bats and in this instance therefore, do not consider it reasonable to request a bat survey as part of the current planning application.
Recommendations: Would not consider it reasonable to require a bat survey as part of the current planning application. However, bats can roost in unlikely places and can be highly cryptic in their roosting behaviour so there is still some potential (albeit low) that roosting bats could be affected by the proposals. Would therefore, recommend that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential for buildings and trees to support roosting bats. It should also include information stating that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to abide by the laws which are in place to protect biodiversity. Should at any time bats, or any other protected species be discovered on site, work should cease immediately and a suitably experienced ecologist/Natural England should be contacted.
Similarly, the following informative would also be relevant if works are proposed during the nesting bird season (which is typically March-August, inclusive) [BS42020 D.3.2.2]: Trees, scrub and structures are likely to contain nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. Structures are present on the application site and are to be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates, unless a recent survey has been undertaken by a competent ecologist to assess the nesting bird activity on site during this period and it is absolutely certain that nesting birds are not present.
Replanting would be required to mitigate for the proposed tree loss. Developments are expected to provide net gains for biodiversity (in accordance with national and local planning policy). This should include the provision of bat and/or bird roosting/nesting facilities within the building and landscape planting to comprise a mix of species beneficial to wildlife (e.g. nectar-rich, berry/fruit producing species). The plans submitted with the application show the proposed planting of an oak, silver birch and rowan heavy standard along with a Scot’s pine. Would ask that if possible, planting within the site is further increased so as to reduce biodiversity impacts associated with the loss of the mature oak tree – Would be happy to defer to the council’s Arboriculture Officer comments on this matter to ensure an appropriate level of planting for the site is achieved.
SMBC Arborist – Final response - further to receipt of a detailed Arboricultural Statement and accompanying plans, including proposed planting and tree protection plans – whilst disappointed they are not offering any hard landscaped tree pits in the car park area to further enhance the site and SUDs capacity of the scheme, it is acceptable in species and replacement numbers.
In response to the Nature Development Officer - There is no further room for tree planting unless we want to pursue a hard landscaped tree pit within the car parking surface area together with the proposed additional 4 extra heavy standard trees. Other biodiversity enhancements are options if no further tree planting is feasible.
Initial response – There are legally protected trees within this site or affected by this development (Cheadle & Gatley UD No.7 Beech House, Finney Lane 1963).
Request a full tree survey and proposed landscaping scheme, including consideration for several new trees on site within SUDs enhancing hard landscaped tree pits in the gaps in the car park spaces (ideally four) as well as potential further off site planting making sure of local provenance and improved amenity and interest; the following species should be considered; Quercus robur ‘Fastigiata’ (Upright Oaks), Sorbus aucuparia (Rowan) or Betula pendual (Birch).
If the development does not increase the tree replacement proposal, including something within the car park area to improve SUDs, Green Infrastructure and local environment, then it could not be accepted in its current format.
A sketch proposal has been detailed up and sent to the agent to consider the level of replacement planting of appropriate species for the site and will look for a minimum of four to one due to the fact a large English oak as in existence would not be appropriate for the new layout and so reduced species size need to be considered.
In addition there are several opportunities to further enhance the local environment at the front of the site subject to services in the ground and land ownership.
This information needs to show the improved landscaping design which considers the enhancement of the front and rear of the site on a greater number, improved species choice, as well as taking care with the proposed siting of the trees and the species of the trees to offer some diversity in the species and improved biodiversity the trees offer increasing wildlife benefits to an ever increasing urban area.
SMBC – Conservation and Heritage – The application site is not located within a conservation area and is not a listed or locally listed building. The site is entered on the Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record (HER), which is a material planning consideration, however the HER description related to a ‘Tanyard and Bark Mill/ Brook House & Beech House (site of)’ (HER ref: MGM14387), which previously occupied the site. As such, the building to which the HER pertains is no longer extant. In light of this, have no comments to make, but recommend that GMAAS are consulted in order to assess whether any archaeological considerations are required.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS) – Having checked our records are satisfied that the proposed development does not threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage. On this basis there is no reason to seek to impose any archaeological requirements upon the applicant.
Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) – Request condition regarding proposed drainage.
Manchester Airport – The Safeguarding Authority for Manchester Airport has assessed this proposal and its potential to conflict aerodrome Safeguarding criteria. We have no aerodrome safeguarding objections to the proposal.
We do advise that the applicant follows our advice on using tall equipment - cranes and TE may present a hazard to aircraft and will need to be assessed separately to ensure that aircraft safety is protected. We therefore, request that an Informative is attached to any approval granted regarding cranes or other tall construction equipment, to ensure that Manchester Airport’s Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are protected to avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft.
SMBC Plan Policy Energy - All new development is required to submit an energy statement showing evidence of full consideration of all low / zero carbon (LZCs) technologies including specific evidence such as site relevant constraints and estimated technology costs.
This statement does not commit the applicant to any use of renewable energy technologies but does provide appropriate assessment of the LZCs as required by Stockport’s Core Strategy Policy SD3, taking account of technologies for their technical feasibility (pertinent to the site) and, where relevant, their financial viability (evidence of costs).
ANALYSIS
Principle of development
Stockport is not currently able to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply. Policy CS2 of the core strategy, which relates to housing provision, states that a wide choice of quality homes will be provided to meet the requirements of existing and future Stockport households. The focus will be on providing new housing through the effective and efficient use of land within accessible urban areas, and making the best use of existing housing.
Policy CS3 of the core strategy advises that a mix of housing, in terms of tenure, price, type and size will be provided to meet the requirements of new forming households, first time buyers, families with children, disabled people and older people. It states that new development should contribute to the creation of more mixed, balanced communities by providing affordable housing in areas with high property prices and by increasing owner occupation in areas of predominantly social rented housing.
Policy CS4 of the core strategy, which relates to the distribution of housing, sets out how new housing development should be distributed across the Borough, advising that the distribution of housing across the Borough should be broadly in line with the following spatial proprieties – firstly within the Central Housing Area (50%), secondly within the Neighbourhood Renewal Priority Areas and the pedestrian catchment areas of district and large local centres (35%) and thirdly within other accessible locations (15%).
Policy CS4 also advocates the use of brownfield land within urban areas as a priority, with development on urban greenfield sites being undertaken in line with the following sequential approach;
firstly on accessible urban sites that are not designated as open space, or considered to be areas of open space with amenity value;
secondly in private residential gardens in accessible urban locations where proposals respond to the character of the local area and maintain good standards of amenity and privacy for the occupants of existing housing, in accordance with Development Management Policy H-1 'Design of Residential Development';
thirdly on accessible urban open space where it can be demonstrated that there is adequate provision of open space in the local area or the loss would be adequately replaced, in accordance with Core Policy CS8 'safeguarding and improving the environment';
fourthly, and only if it is essential to release additional land to accommodate the borough's local needs, particularly the need for affordable housing or to support regeneration strategies in Neighbourhood Renewal Priority Areas, a limited number of the most suitable Green Belt sites will be used for housing provided such sites are accessible, attached to the urban area, maintain openness between built-up areas, and there are no exceptional substantial strategic change to the Green Belt or its boundaries.
Policy H2 of the Core Strategy seeks to phase the supply of housing across the Borough over the plan period by prioritising and focusing development in the most sustainable locations and those in greatest need of regeneration, including sites with an accessibility score of 50+. Paragraph 3.117 of the policy states that in the absence of a five year housing supply, housing development in less accessible and sustainable locations will be supported, with the minimum accessibility score for new houses in the context of the current undersupply being 34/100 and the minimum accessibility score for new flats in the context of the current under supply being 45/100. Policy H2 also requires 80% of new housing development to be located on previously developed land.
Until the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.
Annex 2 of the NPPF provides a definition of what constitutes ‘previously developed land’ stating that “Previously-developed land is land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure”. It advises that land in built up areas, such as private residential gardens are not included in the definition of ‘previously developed land.’
Given that the application site is a brownfield, accessible urban site, located within walking distance of Heald Green Railway Station, along a route for buses and within walking distance of local shops and services and open spaces for recreation, and adjacent to a predominantly residential area; introducing residential accommodation at the application site is deemed to be, in principle, acceptable and appropriate, in accordance with the NPPF and policies CS2, CS3, CS4 and H2 of the Core Strategy; the proposal would provide additional residential accommodation and contribute towards meeting the housing needs of the Borough.
Vitality and Viability of the Shopping Centre
The application site is located within the Heald Green Large Local Shopping Centre, and the parade is a Primary Shopping Frontage, as regards allocation within the development plan.
Core Policy CS6: Safeguarding and Strengthening the Service Centre Hierarchy and AS-1: The Vitality and Viability of Stockport's Service Centres, seek to safeguard and strengthen centres in order to provide a network of accessible main town centre uses, particularly A1 retail use and including A2 service use.
The application proposes the provision of 9 one and two-bedroom apartments (7 x two-bed and 2 x one-bed) within a vacant first-floor A1 retail space above the ground floor A1 Tesco, and within additional floor space constructed above the existing sui generis use Betfred and Tesco floor spaces.
Saved UDP policies HP1.5 – Living Over the Shop, PSD2.3 – Use of Upper Floors in Shopping Centres and PSD2.7 – Residential Development in Local Centres, together with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), do not preclude the provision of residential accommodation within centres, provided a sustainable form of development can be realised.
Section 7 of the NPPF, regarding ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’ states within paragraph 85. “Planning policies and decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities, by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation. Planning policies should: a) define a network and hierarchy of town centres and promote their long-term vitality and viability – by allowing them to grow and diversify in a way that can respond to rapid changes in the retail and leisure industries, allows a suitable mix of uses (including housing) and reflects their distinctive characters;… f) recognise that residential development often plays an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and encourage residential development on appropriate sites.”
Representation has been received regarding the negative impacts the residential development would have on the vitality and viability of the Heald Green Large Local Shopping Centre and the Primary Shopping Frontage, especially due to the loss of existing car parking spaces for shoppers, as a result of allocating spaces to the residential apartments.
As outlined above, the scheme has been amended since submission and it is now not proposed to allocate spaces for parking for the apartments, and it is proposed to regulate the car parking within the private car park serving the parade, in terms of duration of parking. Three spaces are still proposed to be lost to provide space for refuse and recycling storage. 50 car parking spaces would remain.
It is assessed that the development, including the loss of three parking spaces, and demand for parking from the occupiers of the 9 apartments, would not threaten the vitality and viability of the shopping centre and primary shopping frontage. Despite the stated predominant use of private cars for travel, this is an accessible location for staff, shoppers and occupiers to travel by a range of modes, and 50 parking spaces would remain; proposed to be regulated by stay duration controls. Given the accessible location of the site, residents of the apartments may or may not choose to own a car.
With the proposed regulation of parking duration, potential for increase in multi- destination car trips, together with the use of cycles, buses, trains and walking, the site could become more sustainable in terms of accessibility and transport choices.
The development would, as advocated by the NPPF, diversify the mix of uses within the centre, and with that the vitality and viability of the centre, as sought by Core Policy CS6: Safeguarding and Strengthening the Service Centre Hierarchy and AS- 1: The Vitality and Viability of Stockport's Service Centres, including an increase in patrons within the immediate locality.
The context of development must also be considered in terms of what would be permitted development in this case; i.e. development not requiring planning permission. Under Class G of the GPDO, it would be permitted under Planning Legislation, for the existing use class A1 first-floor floor space above the Tesco shop floor to be changed into up to 2 flats, for use by no more than 6 residents in each.
Parking and highway safety
Policy CS9 of the core strategy states that the Council will require that development is located in locations that are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. Policy T1 reiterates this requirement, with this policy setting out minimum cycle parking and disabled parking standards.
Policy T2 of the core strategy states that developments shall provide car parking in accordance with maximum parking standards for each type of development as set out in the existing adopted parking standards, stating that developers will need to demonstrate that developments will avoid resulting in inappropriate on street parking that has a detrimental impact upon highway safety or a negative impact upon the availability of public car parking.
Policy T3 of the core strategy states that development which will have an adverse impact on the safety and/or capacity of the highway network will only be permitted if mitigation measures are provided to sufficiently address such issues. It also advises that new developments should be of a safe and practical design, with safe and well- designed access arrangements, internal layouts, parking and servicing facilities.
Para 109. of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”
The application has been reviewed by a council highway engineer who has advised that the proposal is for the creation of 9 apartments above existing commercial units. The site is in an accessible location with convenient access to public transport, amenities and services and is considered an appropriate location for residential development.
To the rear of the site is a privately managed car park with a time restricted period for stay. Whilst the car park has been and will it is understood continue to be available for public usage and for the benefit of the frontage shopping parade, it has to be acknowledged that it is private with maintenance and management being the land owner’s responsibility. The submission proposes use of this car park to meet the likely demand for parking that will arise from the proposed residential use.
A development of nine apartments does not generate a significant or unacceptable volume of traffic and have no concern with associated additional traffic movements being imposed on the highway network or circulating around the rear car park.
In terms of parking demand, a residential use in an accessible location where residents have good access to public transport, amenities and services is unlikely to generate a high demand for parking space or see a reliance on car travel. This is not a location whereby having access to a car will be highly likely or indeed essential and this should influence the development being less car travel dependant.
It is acknowledged that the proposed development is to some extent reliant on the use of this car park to meet any demand for parking space that will arise from the residential use and it is intended that spaces in the car park will remain shared in usage with no specific allocation of spaces proposed.
In assessment of parking demand, regard also has to be given to the existing use of upper floor space of the building as offices. Such a use generates a demand for parking that is comparable to the proposed office use in terms of numbers although the likely time for usage differs. An office use has a typical demand for parking space during the weekday daytime whereas residential use is focused towards evening time and weekend when pressure on the car park is less. As such the demand for space and pressure on the car park would be demonstrably reduced and a residential use would appear more compatible with the shared use nature of the car park, to the potential benefit all car park users.
To accommodate refuse and recycling facilities to service the residential use, there would need to be a small reduction in the number of spaces within the overall car park, down from 53 to 50 spaces. There is no reason or evidence to demonstrate that this would materially or unacceptable harm the operation of the car park, adversely affect the vitality off the shopping parade or give rise to unacceptable parking on the adjoining highway network. Whilst it is appreciated that parking pressure exists, a loss of three spaces is not considered material or sufficient justification to oppose a use that generates its peak demand for parking at times when spaces are more readily available.
The refuse and recycling facility will have sufficient capacity for the relevant receptacles and swept path drawings have shown that a refuse sized vehicle can continue to negotiate a route through the car park, as it already does, without material harm or risk to other user safety.
The development also proposes an integrated cycle store with capacity for nine cycles and this satisfies requirement and Council Policy.
In summary, there is no reason or justification to oppose a residential development in a location that benefit from good accessibility, would prove sustainable and has potential for shared use of available parking space.
Any permission granted will require conditions that cover construction management, provision and retention of cycle parking and provision and retention of refuse and recycling facilities.
Having regard to the comments of the highway engineer, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or severe impact on the road network, subject to the attachment of the recommended conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies CS9, T1, T2 and T3 of the Stockport Core Strategy, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including paragraph 109.
Trees
Policy SIE3, which relates to protecting, safeguarding and enhancing the environment, states that development proposals affecting trees, woodland and other vegetation which make a positive contribution to amenity should make provision for the retention of the vegetation, unless there is justification for felling, topping or lopping to enable the development to take place. It goes on to advise that even where there is a strong justification for a proposal, the design should maximise the potential for retaining some mature planting, and replacement planting of appropriate species and covering a similar area should be provided within the site or nearby.
It is proposed to retain the majority of existing landscaping upon the site, including the trees within the rear boundary area of the site, three of which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The development proposal requires the removal of the category A oak tree, (reference T5), which is 15 metres high and located to the rear of the Betfred unit. The oak is stated to be significant in terms of its contribution to the landscape and amenity of the area, although the oak tree is not subject to a TPO. It is proposed to plant 4 native extra-heavy standard trees in mitigation for the loss of the oak, including an oak, silver birch, scots pine and rowan (please see the accompanying landscape plan).
The Council’s arborist has reviewed the proposal and confirmed they would not object to the removal of the oak tree, subject to the attachment of a condition to secure the appropriate replacement, as part of a landscape scheme and conditions to protect retained trees and trees planted as part of the landscaping scheme. It is regrettable that planting is not proposed within tree pits within the tarmac car park area, however, it is assessed on balance that the provision of tree pits, whilst of benefit in terms of SuDS and amenity, would adversely impact upon available car parking spaces.
The loss of the Category A Oak tree is significant, given the assessment and value of the tree, however, it is not considered that the proposed felling of the oak tree to facilitate the development is a reason to refuse planning permission for 9 apartments in an accessible brownfield location, given the identified need for housing in the borough and the proposed mitigation measures, including the planting of 4 extra heavy standard native trees and the maintenance of the existing landscaping.
On balance, it is not considered that the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy policy SIE-3: Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment.
Ecology
Policy SIE-3, which relates to protecting, safeguarding and enhancing the environment, states that the Borough’s biodiversity shall be maintained and enhanced, with planning applications being required to keep disturbance to a minimum and where required identify mitigation measures and provide alternative habitats to sustain at least the current level of population.
The application has been reviewed by the Council’s Nature Development officer who has advised that the site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise.
Many buildings and trees have the potential to support roosting bats and nesting birds. All species of bats and their roosts are protected under UK (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) and European legislation (The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2017). All breeding birds and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Paragraph 016 of the Natural Environment Planning Practice Guidance states that the local authority should only request a survey if they consider there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present and affected by development.
The building has a felt roof (part is flat and part is pitched) and appeared to offer limited potential to support roosting bats. Similarly no obvious potential roosting features were observed in the mature oak tree scheduled for removal, although it should be noted that suitable potential bat roosting features may have been obscured by leaves. The works are considered to be low risk to roosting bats and in this instance therefore, do not consider it reasonable to request a bat survey as part of the current planning application.
However, bats can roost in unlikely places and can be highly cryptic in their roosting behaviour, so there is still some potential (albeit low) that roosting bats could be affected by the proposals. Would therefore, recommend that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential for buildings and trees to support roosting bats. It should also include information stating that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to abide by the laws which are in place to protect biodiversity. Should at any time bats, or any other protected species be discovered on site, work should cease immediately and a suitably experienced ecologist/Natural England should be contacted.
Similarly, the following informative would also be relevant if works are proposed during the nesting bird season (which is typically March-August, inclusive) [BS42020 D.3.2.2]: Trees, scrub and structures are likely to contain nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. Structures are present on the application site and are to be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates, unless a recent survey has been undertaken by a competent ecologist to assess the nesting bird activity on site during this period and it is absolutely certain that nesting birds are not present.
Replanting would be required to mitigate for the proposed tree loss. Developments are expected to provide net gains for biodiversity (in accordance with national and local planning policy). This should include the provision of bat and/or bird roosting/nesting facilities within the building and landscape planting to comprise a mix of species beneficial to wildlife (e.g. nectar-rich, berry/fruit producing species). The plans submitted with the application show the proposed planting of an oak, silver birch and rowan heavy standard along with a Scot’s pine. A condition would be required to ensure net gains for biodiversity, including additional planting and roosting/nesting facilities.
Subject to conditions and informaties regarding the above matters, it is not considered, on balance that the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy policy SIE-3: Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment. Design
The NPPF establishes the following within section 12 “Achieving well-designed places.” Para 127. of the NPPF states: “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.”
Policy MW1.5 of the UDP relates to the control of waste from development. It states that new development should make appropriate provision for the storage, handling and removal from the site of waste arising from the development.
Policy H1 of the Core Strategy states that the design and build standards of new residential development should be high quality, inclusive, sustainable and contribute to the creation of successful communities. It goes on to advise that proposals should respond to the townscape and landscape character of the local area, reinforcing or creating local identity and distinctiveness in terms of layout, scale and appearance.
Policy SIE-1 of the core strategy states development that is designed and landscaped to the highest contemporary standard, paying high regard to the built and/or natural environment, within which it is sited, will be given positive consideration.
These policy requirements are reiterated in the Design of Residential Development SPD, which provides advice and guidance on the design of new development with the aim of (a) promoting high quality inclusive design; (b) ensuring efficient use of resources; and (c) endorsing developments that make a positive contribution to the townscape and landscape character of the local area.
Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing first-floor storage space above the existing 'Tesco' (A1 retail use) unit, a first-floor and two-storey rear extension, and a two-storey extension above the 'Betfred' (sui generis betting office use) unit, for residential accommodation comprising 9 units of a mixture of 1 ·& 2 bedroom apartments over two floors, with associated parking, landscaping and segregated recycling and waste management, together with elevational alterations to the parade.
The proposed development can be better appreciated by looking at the accompanying existing and proposed layout plans and elevational drawings.
The brick and tile built parade, including 234 to 218 Finney Lane, is two-storeys in height, with predominantly single-storey projections to the rear, whilst adjoining 236, which forms the brick-built Betfred unit, is single-storey.
To the east, adjacent to the Betfred Unit (236 Finney Lane), is a Co-op A1 use class retail unit, which is faced in brick and cladding, rising to double-storey height adjacent to the road between Betfred and the Co-op. To the west, adjacent to 218 Finney Lane, is another parade of similar, brick and tile built, two-storey commercial premises.
To the north, to the rear of the car park are brick-built residential semi-detached two- storey properties, with curtilages, along Eastleigh Road; and to the south, opposite the front of the parade, are two-storey, brick and render, semi-detached residential houses, with curtilages, along the main road of Finney Lane.
The current parade is constructed of red facing brick, with grey roofing materials. It is proposed to render the existing brickwork to the existing Betfred unit, and the first- floor of the front elevation of the length of the parade, together with elements to the rear. The pitched roof of the existing parade would also be re-roofed in grey tiles. It is proposed to insert a new window, to match the existing, at first-floor level within the enlarged front elevation of the parade adjacent to the proposed two-storey extension above the Betfred unit.
The proposed two-storey extension above the existing Betfred unit would have a flat roof and would be faced in brick with a contrasting brick around the window frames, with a coping at roof level. Windows would be provided within the front, rear and side elevations of the two-storey extension to serve the apartments within.
The following elements would also have a flat roof and would be faced in bricks with a contrasting brick around the window frames, with a coping at roof level: the first- floor extension to the rear above the Tesco unit; the two-storey projection to the rear for the staircase; and the single-storey elements to the rear for storage and cycle storage. Openings would again be provided to the elevations of these extensions to serve the apartments and provide access. The rear elevation would continue to include ground floor rear/servicing access doors for the Tesco unit and for the Betfred unit.
Seven of the nine proposed apartments would have two-bedrooms, with associated living, kitchen and bathroom spaces. Two of the apartments would have one- bedroom, with associated living, kitchen and bathroom spaces. Two of the apartments, located to the rear, would have an external terrace area, with a balustrade.
It is assessed that the scale, design and form of the proposed development would not serve to detract from the surrounding mixed street scene context. The adjacent Co-op building similarly rises in height to also hold the corner of the site. The development would appear acceptably in a corner position along a main road frontage, as a modern addition to the street scene, with the similar renewal of the exterior of the remainder of the parade.
A pallet of grey/silver materials has been identified for the building and renewed parade. It is assessed that the agreement of materials would be required to be a condition of any planning approval, in order to ensure the development would not appear incongruous and visually intrusive within the street scene context.
Subject to conditions to ensure the use of satisfactory materials, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with policy MW1.5 of the UDP, policies H1 and SIE1 of the Core Strategy, the Design of Residential Development SPD.
A Crime Impact Statement has been submitted with the application outlining measures that need to be installed to protect the development from crime. A condition can be imposed, pursuant to policies, to ensure the provision of the measures recommended within the submitted Crime Impact Statement ,which was compiled by GMP Design for Security Unit.
The development does not include a lift and is accessible by stairs. Accessibility has been queried with the Agent and with Building Control, who have confirmed that the development would be acceptable in terms of, for example, Part M of the Building Regulations.
It should be noted that planning application DC/042820 for a first-floor extension over the existing bookmakers at 236 Finney Lane, to provide two 1-bedroom self- contained flats was refused on 15th December 2009. The reasons for refusal were the design, scale and inaccuracy of plans, with an additional reason given, in case of Appeal, for the need for contributions to recreation and play space provision. The previous refusal of consent does not set a precedent for the refusal of development, as each application is considered on its own merits, as regards the development and relevant planning policy. Also, the principle of residential development was not refused and the decision does not appear to have been tested at Appeal.
Residential Amenity
As discussed above, the NPPF advises Councils to seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (paragraph 127).
The NPPF also states that “para. 180. Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life; b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.
182. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.”
Policy EP1.10 of the UDP relates to aircraft noise, setting standards that should be attained in order to ensure that occupants are not subjected to unacceptable levels of aircraft noise during the day or night.
Saved UDP policies HP1.5 – Living Over the Shop, PSD2.3 – Use of Upper Floors in Shopping Centres and PSD2.7 – Residential Development in Local Centres, together with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), do not preclude the provision of residential accommodation within centres, provided a sustainable form of development can be realised.
Policy H1 of the Core Strategy states that new development should provide good standards of amenity, privacy, safety / security and open space should be provided for the occupants of new housing. It also advises that good standards of amenity and privacy should be maintained for the occupants of existing housing.
Policy SIE-1 of the core strategy states that new development should provide, maintain and enhance (where suitable) satisfactory levels of access, privacy and amenity for future, existing and neighbouring users and residents.
Policy SIE-3 of the core strategy advises that in some parts of the borough constraints will be placed on development so as to avoid unacceptable levels of noise from aircraft from Manchester Airport.
These policy requirements are reiterated in the Design of Residential Development SPD, within policies DCD1.1 and CDH1.1 stating that new development should provide satisfactory levels of privacy and amenity for future, existing and neighbouring users.
The document advises that the following separation distances should be maintained - 21m between facing habitable room windows located on the public or street side, 25m between facing habitable room windows on the private or rear, 12m between a habitable room window and a blank elevation/an elevation with non-habitable rooms/high level windows and 6m between a habitable room window and the site boundary, with these distances being increased by 3m per storey for 3 or more storey buildings.
With regards to the advocated space standards for separation and privacy between properties within the Design of Residential Development SPD, the proposed development is compliant.
Having regard to the design and siting of the proposed development, and the relationship of the proposed apartments to the surrounding neighbouring properties, it is not considered that the introduction of the proposed apartments would result in neighbouring residents experiencing an undue loss of amenity by virtue of a loss of light, privacy and/or overbearing impact. Proposed replacement tree planting would not be immediately adjacent to boundaries and it is proposed to maintain landscaping.
With regard to noise and disturbance, it is not considered that the introduction of 9 apartments to the site, within a mixed shopping and predominantly residential area, would generate a level of activity that would result in neighbouring land users being exposed to an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance. This is due to the compatible nature of the use and commensurate level and nature of activity.
With regard to the level of residential amenity future occupants of the proposed apartments would enjoy, future occupants would be provided with adequate space, together with light and outlook from their habitable room windows. It is preferable in terms of security and legibility, to locate accesses for buildings to the front street elevation, however, the staircase access to the apartments from the rear car park area is necessary in this case to achieve access for this already developed site; the rear curtilage is also not a confined space and would be overlooked by natural surveillance from people coming and going and occupiers. Measures are additionally proposed to be implemented as stated above, as regards the achievement of GMP Secured by Design standards.
Two of the apartments would have an area of external balcony space to the rear, the remaining seven apartments would not have private external amenity space. It is not assessed that this is a reason to refuse development, as it is usual to find apartments in this context without access to private amenity space; provision has been made for communal cycle storage and refuse and recycling management; and the site is located in an accessible location with public open space within the vicinity.
Policy SIE-2 advises that adequate formal recreation and children’s play space and facilities should be provided to meet the needs of the residents of the development, therefore, in accordance with the policy and the Council’s SPD Open Space Provision and Commuted Sum Payments, prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, a scheme for the provision and maintenance of formal recreation and children’s play space and facilities, including a timetable for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The application site is located within an area affected by noise from road traffic and from air traffic using Manchester Airport during both the day and night. The application site is also affected by noise from the adjoining commercial units, including the Tesco retail unit, including as regards plant, and noise and disturbance from external servicing when people might ordinarily wish to be asleep.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that an Acoustic report has been submitted with the application and assesses ambient background noise level from road, air and commercial sources. Unattended measurement were undertaken over a period of 3 days and attended measurement on one day therefore, content that a big enough sample of noise was taken.
The report advises that mitigation measures will be needed for the proposed apartments to enable them to meet recommended internal noise levels for the proposed apartments.
The report gives window and ventilation specifications for the South, West and North elevation; this will enable internal noise levels to be met, but also provide ventilation.
“The glazing to bedrooms on the northern elevations is onerous due to Tesco delivery. If a canopy could be installed which acted as an acoustic barrier to the window the performance of the glazing could be down-graded” - Details of this would need to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning authority.
The report does advise that “prior to any glazing being installed, octave band sound insulation performance data of the glazing build-ups and ventilators selected must be verified by AEC or others.” - The details of this will need to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning authority.
Windows will be left openable for purge ventilation and should the occupant choose to do so. However, occupants should be aware that if they choose to open the windows, they will be bypassing the mitigation measures and internal noise levels will be high.
The sound insulation performance for the ventilation is detailed within the report - it will be provided via trickle vents through wall or mechanical ventilation; if mechanical ventilation is to be used we would need details of the system to be provided.
The report does look at the separating floor between the commercial and proposed residential, and has specified a higher sound insulation performance of 55dBDnT,w + Ctr, to be achieved by a floating floor.
In accordance with the NPPF, including paragraphs 180 and 182, and the development plan, it is therefore, considered that conditions should be attached regarding the soundproofing of the apartments and as regards proposed plant, in order to ensure that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a satisfactory standard of living.
The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies including, HP1.5 – Living Over the Shop, PSD2.3 – Use of Upper Floors in Shopping Centres and PSD2.7 – Residential Development in Local Centres, and EP1.10 - Aircraft Noise of the UDP, policies H1, SIE-1, SIE-2 and SIE-3 of the Stockport Core Strategy, the objectives of the Design of Residential Development SPD and the thrust of the NPPF, as the development would not unduly adversely affect the level of residential amenity neighbouring residents can reasonably expect to enjoy and the development would provide future occupants with a satisfactory standard of living.
Air Quality
The development is just outside the Air Quality Monitoring Area (AQMA). Also the development will not generate sufficient vehicle movements to have an effect on the AQMA.
Airport Safeguarding
The development accords with airport safeguarding considerations, pursuant to policies including EP1.9 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes and Air Navigation Facilities and SIE-5: Aviation Facilities,Telecommunications and other Broadcast Infrastructure, subject to the imposition of a informative regarding cranes and tall construction equipment.
Heritage and Conservation
The application site is not located within a conservation area and is not a listed or locally listed building. The site is entered on the Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record (HER), which is a material planning consideration, however the HER description related to a ‘Tanyard and Bark Mill/ Brook House & Beech House (site of)’ (HER ref: MGM14387), which previously occupied the site. As such, the building to which the HER pertains is no longer extant.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS) are satisfied that the proposed development does not threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage. On this basis there is no reason to seek to impose any archaeological requirements upon the applicant.
The development is accordingly considered to adhere to planning policy regarding heritage and conservation of the built environment, including policy SIE-3: Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment.
Energy Efficiency
Policy SD-3 of the Core Strategy, which relates to delivering the energy opportunities plan, states that minor developments should give consideration to incorporating low carbon and renewable technologies in order to make a positive contribution towards reducing CO2 emissions. An energy statement has been submitted that gives consideration to the use of various energy saving technologies.
Land contamination
Pursuant to Core Strategy policy SIE-3, an informative would be attached in case of the unexpected discovery of contaminated land.
Drainage
Policy SD-6 of the Core Strategy states that all development will be required to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), so as to manage the run off of water from the site. The policy requires development on Brownfield sites to reduce the rate of un-attenuated run off by a minimum of 50%, with any development on Greenfield sites being required to ensure that the rate of run off is not increased. In order to ensure compliance with the policy, a condition requiring the submission, approval and subsequent implementation of a scheme to manage surface water run- off from the site. This condition will also deal with foul drainage.
Conclusion
The development would make a small, but nonetheless valuable contribution to addressing the shortage of new housing in Stockport, whilst delivering a form of development that would appear acceptably within the mixed street scene, a scheme that would ensure the amenity of occupiers and neighbouring residents is not unduly impacted upon and acceptable, a development that would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the shopping centre, and a development where matters regarding travel and highway management are satisfactory. The loss of the category A oak tree is regrettable, however, it is considered acceptable on balance, given the proposed provision of residential accommodation in a sustainable location, with mitigation to be provided for the loss of the oak.
Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the development plan and the NPPF for the reasons set out within the report and therefore, the NPPF requires the development to be approved without delay.
RECOMMENDATION Grant subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE (10/12/19):
(Full details can be viewed within the webcast for the Committee meeting upon the Council’s website).
The Planning Officer introduced the application, including the following:
This application relates to a parade of predominantly commercial units, comprising numbers 236 to 218 Finney Lane, with associated curtilage, including car parking and landscaping, located within the Heald Green Large Local Shopping Centre.
Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing first-floor above the existing 'Tesco' unit, a first-floor and two-storey rear extension, and a two-storey extension above the 'Betfred' unit, for residential accommodation comprising 2 one- bedroom apartments and 7 two-bedroom apartments, with associated parking, landscaping and segregated recycling and waste management, together with elevational alterations to the parade.
It is proposed to retain and maintain the majority of existing landscaping upon the site, including the trees within the rear boundary area of the site, three of which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The development proposal requires the removal of the category A oak tree, (reference T5), which is 15 metres high and located to the rear of the Betfred unit. The oak is stated to be significant in terms of its contribution to the landscape and amenity of the area, although the oak tree is not subject to a TPO. It is proposed to plant 4 native extra-heavy standard trees in mitigation for the loss of the oak, including an oak, silver birch, scots pine and rowan (please see the accompanying landscape plan).
The application is before you for your consideration, as objections have been received from the occupiers of more than 4 addresses and Cllr. Charles-Jones has called the application to Committee. Cheadle Area Committee can make a decision upon this planning application.
As detailed within the report, the application scheme has been amended since submission. It is now not proposed to allocate parking spaces for the apartments. It is proposed that 50 vehicle parking spaces would be provided within the rear car park. There are 53 spaces now. 3 would be displaced by the proposed segregated waste and recycling area.
Objections have been received from contributors at 19 addresses in response to the original consultation on this application, as outlined within the report. Objections relate to Parking, Highways, Travel and Access, Vitality and Viability, Construction, trees, living environment for future occupiers and other matters including airport safeguarding.
There are no updates to make to the Committee report before you.
The development would make a valuable contribution, upon an accessible, brownfield site, to addressing the shortage of new housing in Stockport, whilst delivering a form of development that would appear acceptably within the mixed street scene, a scheme that would ensure the amenity of occupiers and neighbouring residents is not unduly impacted upon and acceptable, a development that would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the shopping centre, and a development where matters regarding travel and highway management are satisfactory. The loss of the category A oak tree is regrettable, however, it is considered acceptable on balance, given the proposed provision of residential accommodation in a sustainable location, with mitigation to be provided for the loss of the oak.
It is assessed, for the reasons set out within the report, that the proposal accords with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Stockport’s development plan, and it is respectfully recommended therefore, that planning permission be granted.
Cllr. Nottingham asked the planning officer to confirm as to whether the site is brownfield?
The Planning Officer confirmed a brownfield site.
Cllr. Nottingham asked as to whether the Highways Engineer’s original comments have been satisfied, including details of swept path?
The Planning Officer confirmed that the Highway original comments have been satisfied, including plans showing swept paths.
Cllr. Nottingham queried the need for the significant oak tree to be felled?
The Planning Officer confirmed that the oak would be compromised by the development and that although regrettable, with a mitigation scheme, including the planting of 4 new trees, the proposed removal would, on balance, be acceptable. The officer read out some additional information received from the Agent’s arborist – “Works to improve foundations to accommodate the erection of the second-storey will be required within the root protection area (RPA) of the tree. Whilst these foundations could most likely be carried out to an engineer-designed specification to minimise tree impacts, the tree would also need pruning to an extent which doesn’t adhere to the current best practice as set out in BS3998, and the relationship between the tree and the building isn’t ideal in the long-term.”
“Whilst the tree could possibly be retained (not in accordance in current best practice), it is likely that the tree would be damaged by a combination of construction works and the long-term physiological effects of foliage removal through over- pruning. Whilst it would be unprofessional to suggest anything can be ‘fully mitigated’, the tree officer’s suggested mitigation plantings have been met by the applicant, on what is a somewhat limited site in terms of scope for new plantings.”
Cllr. Greenhalgh queried the number of parking spaces that occupiers of the development could occupy; 9 units could have 18 plus cars. Concerned at the impact of the loss of car parking upon the vitality and viability of the existing shops.
The Planning Officer responded to confirm that this is a sustainable location in terms of travel. People may or may not own a car. Better management of the car park is proposed going forward, therefore, there should be more turnover of available spaces.
Cllr. Nottingham queried impacts on working practices of Tesco with residential development?
The Planning Officer confirmed that acoustic information has been submitted and there would be an acoustic scheme to mitigate impacts of Tesco and the airport upon occupiers of the apartments.
Cllr Nottingham queried the lack of access for disabled people to the development.
The Planning Officer confirmed that this has been raised with the Agent and the Council’s Building Control, who have confirmed that the conversion scheme could be designed to comply with Part M of the Building Regulations.
Cllr. Roberts queried as to what is currently located above the Tesco unit?
The Planning Officer confirmed the space to be Use Class A1, which could be used for up to 2 flats with up to 6 people in each without planning permission under Permitted Development.
Cllr. Morrison queried the parking. Queried whether consideration has been given to cars associated with the apartments being parked all day in the car park?
The Planning Officer responded to confirm the sustainable nature of the site and that people may or may not own cars. It would be possible to live here without a car, with Heald Green Railway Station nearby, buses and amenities within walking distance. Also, the car park is a private rather than public car park.
Cllr. Charles-Jones queried the number of parking spaces to be lost to the proposed bin store? Appears that 2 would be lost, however, the report states 3.
The Planning Officer confirmed that 3 would be occupied by the bin store.
Persons wishing to speak in objection to and in support of the application were then invited to speak.
Speaker in objection to the application – (Please see webcast for full details) - The speaker expressed concern with the reliability/representative nature of the acoustic survey work and the contents of the acoustic report. Regarding the acoustic survey work, concern was expressed regarding, for example, the monitoring duration and the location of the monitor to the south façade, with roof insulation not mentioned.
Raised the issue of parking. Cars in association with the apartments will still exist even if not now in allocated/reserved spaces. A new café with 44 covers has just been granted, with parking to be provided within this car park. Cars left all day in car park by commuting occupiers. Will reduce the viability of the centre.
No questions were asked of the objector.
Speaker in support of the application – (Please see webcast for full details). The speaker spoke in support of the application.
Questions were then asked of the speaker in support of the application.
Cllr. Nottingham – enquired as to whether the properties would be for rental or owner-occupied?
The speaker suggested that both could be applicable.
Cllr. Meller queried the proposed parking durations.
The speaker – Currently 3 hours but not rigorously enforced. Proposed to be an hour and a half to allow people to shop etc.. Residents not restricted.
Cllr. Nottingham queried the proposed management of the car park.
The speaker – confirmed residents of the apartments would have concessions.
Cllr. Nottingham – Number of concessions now?
The speaker – Confirmed unsure of number, but that occupiers of existing units have concessions now for staff parking.
Cllr. Morrison – Made point that residents may park all day and commute on public transport. Why reduce duration from 1.5 hours to 3 hours?
The speaker advised that residents would be primarily parking when shops are closed. Confirmed that the units are small units. There would be time within 1.5 hours to carry out shopping etc…
Cllr. Charles-Jones – Queried as to how a 1.5 hour parking limit has been arrived at? Concerned at impacts on staff and vitality of centre if time periods reduced.
The speaker - Confirmed that the management of the site is with the client. They will review the parking and employ outside contractors to manage the car park.
Cllr. Charles-Jones – Concerned that a reduction in parking time will affect staff and the vitality of the centre.
The speaker - Confirmed that units have concessions for the car park for staff.
Cllr. Charles-Jones – stated that there then would be concessions added for the occupiers of the apartments. There won’t be many spaces left for users of the village centre.
The Planning Officer responded to matters raised from the public speaking section of the meeting, to confirm that matters raised are covered within the Committee report. Also, the Environmental Health Officer and the Highways Engineer have found the scheme to be sustainable.
Members debated the application.
Cllr. Greenhalgh – The site is brownfield and there is demand for affordable housing, but concerned the impacts of the reduction in parking spaces and duration will strangle the vitality of Heald Green. Needs to be taken to the next level and we have a site visit? There are night flights.
Cllr. Nottingham – acknowledged the divisive nature of planning; wins and losses. The scheme would be much needed brownfield development, pressure from greenfield and greenbelt sites. Would be an attractive development. Uses the centre of Heald Green for longer. Footfall would increase in the evenings. The proposal would diversify the offer in the centre. Residential already to the front and rear. Parking is an issue. Need to move away from car dependence and investment in public transport. The car park is private. Car parking should not dominate development. Issues around concessions. Spaces are not being occupied by shoppers. Shoppers – footfall - should have priority for spaces. Policy basis is clear within the report. Would support on balance, however, further to the comments of the speaker, not clear regarding noise and need more insight into the matter of noise and construction management regarding car parking during construction. Would like to refer to PHR for further consideration.
Cllr. Meller – Supports referral to PHR to look at noise. The NPPF and lack of a 5 year housing land provision within the Borough will be a guiding factor. Need behavioural change regarding car use.
Cllr. Roberts – We need more homes. Sustainable residential development in centres increases vitality and viability. Less building on greenfield sites. Agree that application be referred to PHR for more exploration of matters including as regards noise.
Cllr. Charles-Jones – Have concerns regarding construction and loss of car parking spaces - impacts on vitality and viability, especially with already reduced footfall further to the A555. Elderly and disabled people in particular are reliant upon there being parking spaces close to shops and services.
Recommendation – Cheadle Area Committee recommended referral to Planning & Highways Regulation Committee (PHR), with a site visit be undertaken and matters addressed regarding noise, parking and construction management.
Update further to Cheadle Area Committee:
Noise: Further to Cheadle Area Committee, the Applicant’s acoustician has responded as follows regarding noise:
• The acoustic report discusses the acoustic trickle vents and glazing as they are the weakest elements of the external envelope. However, the sound insulation performance of the roof would need to be discussed and can be assessed as part of design development.
• Our monitoring position is justified as aeroplanes pass directly over the building giving full line of site to the sound level meter installed on the south façade.
• A three day period is suitably long and the measured noise levels were in line with Manchester Airport’s noise contours which are produced in order to assess average aeroplane noise over a year.
• The airport does limit air traffic during the 2300 to 0500h period to just quieter aircraft. Our exact words in paragraph 3.8 of the report are: The night time ambient noise levels presented in Table 1, below, demonstrate the periods in which aeroplane fly overs are more frequent during the 2300-0100h and 0500-0700h periods. Between 0100h and 0500h there are no flights and, therefore, ambient and maximum noise levels are significantly lower.
As you can see I have mentioned above that there are aeroplane fly overs 2300 – 0100h. However in the next sentence where I said there are no flights between 0100 and 0500h it should have read ‘there were no flights’ as this refers to the period in which was measured and not in general throughout the year. We will change this.
• Reducing outdoor aircraft noise levels to below 45dBLDEN ¬outdoors would not be possible at this site and is not a requirement when assessing new housing developments.
The Council’s EHO confirms that they agree with the Acoustic Consultant`s response and await an updated report on the basis of the above.
In accordance with the NPPF, including paragraphs 180 and 182, and the development plan, it is considered that conditions should be attached regarding the soundproofing of the apartments and as regards proposed plant, in order to ensure that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a satisfactory standard of living.
The proposal is therefore, considered to be in accordance with policies including, HP1.5 – Living Over the Shop, PSD2.3 – Use of Upper Floors in Shopping Centres and PSD2.7 – Residential Development in Local Centres, and EP1.10 - Aircraft Noise of the UDP, policies H1, SIE-1, SIE-2 and SIE-3 of the Stockport Core Strategy, the objectives of the Design of Residential Development SPD and the thrust of the NPPF, as the development would provide future occupants with a satisfactory standard of living.
Parking: Regarding parking, the Applicant’s agent has advised that parking is currently limited to 3 hours. Circa 50 staff permits have been issued to tenants for employee parking. There are current issues with overstaying, taxi parking and abuse of permits. The framework for future management is to instruct a new management company. It is proposed to reduce the parking to a maximum stay of 90 minutes.
The Council’s Highways Engineer confirms in response - have to acknowledge that the car park is private and the Council has no involvement or control over the means of maintenance and management and this cannot therefore be a determinant factor for any planning application.
Notwithstanding this, would offer comment that the proposed management strategy should optimise the use of spaces much better than currently exists and this would inevitably benefit the general and public use of the car park. It has to be accepted, given that it is beyond the Council’s reasonable control, that there may be the intention for prospective residents to be exempt from parking control.
Finally, would add that the proposal is entirely transport Policy compliant and we could not justify or sustain a refusal of permission for a residential use of this scale in this location noting the relative accessibility of the site and proximity of services and amenities. Are supportive of shared use parking with evening residential use, daytime employment/retail use and some weekend overlap and consistent and optimised use of the car park should help ensure that the viability and vitality of the Centre is not adversely affected.
Construction management: The matter of construction management, including any proposed displacement of parking spaces during construction, can be managed through planning condition, pursuant to amenity, highways and vitality policies of the Development Plan and the NPPF.
Having regard to the comments of the highway engineer, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or severe impact on the road network, subject to the attachment of the recommended conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies CS9, T1, T2 and T3 of the Stockport Core Strategy, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including paragraph 109.
The development would, as advocated by the NPPF, diversify the mix of uses within the centre, and with that the vitality and viability of the centre, as sought by Core Policy CS6: Safeguarding and Strengthening the Service Centre Hierarchy and AS- 1: The Vitality and Viability of Stockport's Service Centres, including an increase in patrons within the immediate locality.