Public Document Pack
Date of meeting Tuesday, 17th April, 2012
Time 7.00 pm
Venue Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Merrial Street, Newcastle Under Lyme, Staffordshire ST5 2AG Contact Peter Whalan
Planning Committee
AGENDA
PART 1– OPEN AGENDA
1 Apologies 2 DEC LARATIONS OF INTERES T To receive Declarations of Interest from Members on items included on the agenda.
3 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS (Pages 1 - 6) To consider the minutes of the meetings of this committee held on 14 February and 6 March 2012.
4 Application for Major Development - Wolstanton Retail Park. (Pages 7 - 32) Marks and Spencer/McLagan Investments. 11/00611/FUL 5 Application for Major Development - Land at Charter Road, (Pages 33 - 46) Cross Heath. Barratt Mercia/Aspire Housing. 12/00036/OUT 6 Application for Major Development - 140 Gloucester Road, (Pages 47 - 54) Kidsgrove. Ideal Care Homes Ltd. 12/00069/FUL 7 Application for Major Development - Former Twyford (Pages 55 - 62) Bathrooms Site, Linley Lane, Alsager. Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and Lagan (Alsager) Ltd. 348/188 8 Draft Madeley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management (Pages 63 - 100) Plan SPD 9 Provisional Planning Commit tee Site Visit Dates (Pages 101 - 102) 10 Open Enforcement Cases (Pages 103 - 104) 11 URGENT BUSINESS To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
12 Part 2 13 DISCLOSURE OF EXEMPT INFORMATION To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item(s) because it is likely that there will be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
14 Quarterly Report on Progress on Enforcement Cases Where (Pages 105 - 116) Enforcement Action Has Been Authorised 15 Keele Golf Cen tre, Keele Road, Keele. Nick Worrall/Keele Golf (Pages 117 - 120) Centre. 11/00257/FUL
Members: Councillors D Clarke (Vice-Chair), E Boden, G Cairns, M Clarke, J Cooper, A Howells, I Matthews, M Reddish, R Studd, S Sweeney, A Fear (Chairman), G Williams, J Williams, B Lewis, T Hambleton and S White
‘Members of the Council: If you identify any personal training / development requirements from the items included in this agenda or through issues raised during the meeting, please bring them to the attention of the Committee Clerk at the close of the meeting’
Officers will be in attendance prior to the meeting for informal discussions on agenda items. Agenda Item 3 Planning – 14/02/12
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Tuesday 14 February 2012
Present :- Councillor A Fear – in the Chair
Councillors Boden, Cairns, Clarke D, Clarke M R, Cooper, Howells, Matthews, Miss Reddish, Studd, Sweeney, Mrs Williams and Williams
1. APOLOGIES
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Hambleton.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 24 January 2012 be approved as a correct record subject to the addition of Councillor D Clarke to the list of those present.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor D Clarke declared an interest in planning application 12/00001/TDET and took no part in its determination.
4. VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 11/00058/FUL ALLOWING AMENDMENTS TO DETAILS OF THE ELEVATIONS OF WING B AND WING C ON INNOVATION CENTRE 5 (IC5). KEELE IC5, PLOT 5, KEELE UNIVERSITY SCIENCE AND BUSINESS PARK. STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL. 11/00655/FUL
Resolved:- That permission be granted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-
(i) Approved drawings. (ii) Approval of colour finish of proposed louvers. (iii) All other conditions attached to permission 11/00058/FUL shall continue to apply.
5. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (176 DWELLINGS), AREA OF COMMUNITY WOODLAND, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND FORMATION OF NEW ACCESSES. LAND SOUTH OF WEST AVENUE, LAND WEST OF CHURCH STREET AND CONGLETON ROAD AND NORTH OF LINLEY ROAD, BUTT LANE. REVELAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD. 11/00645/OUT
Resolved:- That the application be refused for the following reasons:-
(i) The provision of that proposed and any pedestrian/cycle link from the development to Church Street would be likely to cause crime and disorder, and a consequential loss of residential amenity by the occupiers of dwellings adjacent to the link, and it is not required to achieve an appropriate development.
1 Page 1 Planning – 14/11/12
(ii) In the absence of obligations secured by agreement or undertaking, the development would fail to secure an appropriate level of affordable housing, the provision of adequately and appropriately maintained open space and measures to ensure that the development achieves sustainable development outcomes.
6. RETENTION OF GROUNDWORKS. MAERFIELD GATE FARM, MAER. MR S BOOTH. 11/00601/FUL
Resolved:- (a) That the application be refused on the grounds that the development has an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of Maer Conservation Area and upon the landscape within which it is located contrary to relevant policies on such matters within the development plan.
(b) That, having regard to the retrospective nature of the application, officers enter into discussions with the applicant concerning any revision of the scheme that he may propose and, if necessary following consultation with the Chair, a further report be brought to a future meeting of the committee regarding the expediency of enforcement proceedings.
7. RETENTION OF GROUNDWORKS AND FORMATION OF A 1500 SQUARE METRE MANEGE OR HORSE EXERCISE AREA. MAERFIELD GATE FARM, MAER. MR S BOOTH. 11/00599/FUL
Resolved:- (a) That the application be refused because the development has an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the Maer Conservation Area and upon the landscape within which it is located contrary to relevant policies on such matters within the development plan.
(b) That having regard to the retrospective nature of the application, a report be submitted to the Planning Committee at the earliest opportunity regarding the expediency of enforcement action with respect to the earthworks carried out to date on the site of the proposed building.
8. TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION. 77TH AUDLEY SCOUT GROUP HALL. 72-74 WERETON ROAD, AUDLEY. 77TH AUDLEY SCOUT GROUP. 11/00632/FUL
Resolved:- That the application be refused because the proposed extension to the Scout Hall would, by reason of its increased height and length, relative to the existing building, result in a loss of residential amenity to the occupier of 70 Wereton Road due to its impact on the aspect of that property’s ground floor window in its rear elevation.
9. INSTALLATION OF 15.3 METRE HIGH SHARED CU PHOSCO. PHASE 4 MONOPOLE. UNIT 3, NELSON INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WEST AVENUE, KIDSGROVE. VODAFONE UK LTD. 12/00001/TDET
Resolved:- That permission be granted.
A FEAR Chair
Page 2 2 Planning – 06/03/12
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Tuesday 6 March 2012
Present :- Councillor A Fear – in the Chair
Councillors Boden, Cairns, Clarke D, Clarke M R, Cooper, Matthews, Miss Reddish, Studd, Sweeney, White, Mrs Williams and Williams
Also in attendance - Councillor D Richards during consideration of planning application 11/00627/FUL only
1. APOLOGIES
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Howells.
2. MINUTES
Resolved:- That the minutes of this Committee held on 14 February 2012 be approved as a correct record.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were none.
4. EXTENSION TO SKI SLOPE. KIDSGROVE SKI CENTRE, BATHPOOL PARK, KIDSGROVE. NORTH STAFFS SKI CLUB. 11/00627/FUL
Resolved:- (a) That subject to the applicant entering into a S106 Obligation by 6 April 2012 to secure a contribution of £4490 for the maintenance of the replacement landscaping for a period of 5 years the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-
(i) Approved drawings. (ii) Standard time limit. (iii) Boundary treatments. (iv) Landscaping scheme to include replacement woodland planting. (v) Tree protection measures. (vi) Details of button ski lift. (vii) Car park to be appropriately resurfaced and demarcated (viii) Cap on membership of the ski club to be set at 1200. (ix) Construction Management Plan to include routing of construction vehicles and hours of operation.
(b) That in addition to the above conditions residents be consulted regarding any submitted scheme and signage to the site.
(c) That should the S106 Obligation not be secured by 6 April 2012, the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated authority to refuse the application because without such a maintenance contribution being secured the development would fail to secure provision of appropriately maintained replacement
1 Page 3 Planning – 06/03/12
planting or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which the obligation can be secured.
5. APPLICATION TO REPLACE OR EXTEND TIME LIMIT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION 08/00949/FUL THAT EXPIRED ON 5 FEBRUARY 2012. (REAR EXTENSION TO SHOWROOM TO REPLACE A PORTCABIN AND STORAGE UNIT). MADELEY HEATH MOTORS, KEELE ROAD, MADELEY HEATH. MR MARSON (MADELEY HEATH MOTORS). 08/00949/EXTN
Resolved:- That permission be granted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-
(i) External materials to match the existing building. (ii) Contaminated land conditions.
6. EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO FRONT PORCH. 52 BERESFORD CRESCENT, NEWCASTLE. DR DAVID ALLEN. 12/00050/FUL
Resolved:- That permission be granted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-
(i) Standard time limit. (ii) Approved plans. (iii) Materials as detailed within the application.
7. QUARTERLY REPORT ON EXTENSIONS TO TIME PERIODS WITHIN WHICH OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 106 CAN BE ENTERED INTO
Consideration was given to a report providing details of actions taken, using delegated powers, by the Head of Planning and Development in consultation with the Chairman and/or Vice-Chair of the Committee to extend time periods within which previously approved planning obligations could be secured.
Resolved:- (a) That the report be noted.
(b) That the period of time for the applicant to enter into the S106 Obligation in respect of planning application 11/00430/FUL be extended to 23 March 2012 and that the period of time previously agreed in respect of planning applications 11/00284/FUL and 11/00509/FUL be extended to 27 March 2012.
(c) That the above revised dates be further extended in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair but only if very exceptional circumstances exist to justify such an extension.
(d) That the Head of Planning and Development continue to report on a quarterly basis on the use of his delegated authority to grant further extensions of time allowed to secure Section 106 Obligations and of any similar decisions made by the Chair and Vice-Chair.
8. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (TREES) REGULATIONS 1999. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO 143 (2011) - WOODLAND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN HALF OF BATHPOOL PARK, KIDSGROVE
Page 4 2 Planning – 06/03/12
Consideration was given to a report outlining the contents of a written representation received in respect of the above order that had been made on 13 September 2011 using delegated powers.
The Order had been made following a site visit by the officers to investigate an allegation that tree clearance works were being carried out in the woodland. The officers felt that an Order was required to safeguard the longer term visual amenity provided by the woodland.
Resolved:- That Tree Preservation Order 143 (2011) be confirmed without modification and that the owners of the woodland be informed accordingly.
9. APPEAL DECISION - ERECTION OF DETACHED HOUSE IN THE GARDEN OF THE OWL HOUSE, TOWER ROAD, ASHLEY HEATH. MR T FLACKETT. 11/00225/OUT.
It was reported that an appeal lodged against the Council’s decision not to grant planning permission for the above development had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
Resolved:- That the information be received.
10. APPEAL DECISION - ERECTION OF A PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH A CONDITION ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION 06/00855/FUL REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF TWO PARKING BAYS. REAR OF PLOT 2, MUCKLESTONE ROAD, LOGGERHEADS. MR C GEE. 11/00270/FUL
It was reported that an appeal lodged against the imposition of the above condition on planning permission 11/00270/FUL for the above development had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
Resolved:- That the information be received.
A FEAR Chair
3 Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 6 Agenda Item 4
WOLSTANTON RETAIL PARK MARKS AND SPENCER/McLAGAN INVESTMENTS. 11/00611/FUL
The Application is for full planning permission, on a site measuring 4.82 hectares (ha), for the demolition of 5 existing units with a gross floor area of 7,511 square metres (sqm ). and their replacement with a two storey building, within a footprint of 6,505 sqm., and with a total gross floor area of 13,010 sq m. which will comprise the following elements:-
• Convenience goods (food hall) 989 sqm • Furniture/homewares 1,858 sqm • General Merchandise (clothing, footwear etc.) 6,115 sqm • Hospitality 372 sqm • Storage/staff facilities 3,676 sqm
together with ancillary works including the redevelopment of a methane pumping station and provision of both car parking and service yard.
The site lies within the Newcastle Urban South and East Neighbourhood Area on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.
The site is accessed off Grange Lane (A527), which links the A500, which is part of the Staffordshire Strategic Highway Network as indicated on the key diagram of the Structure Plan, to May Bank and Wolstanton. The A500 is also part of the Primary Route Network as identified in the Regional Spatial Strategy
The statutory 13-week period for the determination of this application expired on 2 March 2012.
RECOMMENDATION S
(a) That the Council should notify the Secretary of State that it is minded to grant the planning permission on the following terms.
Subject to the Secretary of State not ‘calling in’ the application and subject to the applicant entering into Section 106 obligations by 18 June 2012 that secure the following:
(i) The proposed store to only be occupied by M&S for a period of 5 years from date of occupation. (ii) Under the Marks and Start programme, M&S to work with a number of local residents that are long term unemployed, homeless or under care of local charities and provide them with work placements at the store within 12 months of opening. This will be repeated each year after. The number of placements to be offered to be agreed. (iii) Within the public area of the store, M&S to provide an area for community displays in order to promote Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre in accordance with details to be agreed and appropriate parameters that are specified; (iv) If Newcastle-under-Lyme operates either a Town Centre Management Scheme or a Business Improvement District (or similar) then M&S Wolstanton to contribute £10,000 per annum. This will continue until the earlier of M&S ceasing to trade at Wolstanton or M&S opening a Simply Food store in the town centre with an option for M&S to continue thereafter; (v) No more than 10% of the gross internal floorspace of the building to be occupied in aggregate by concessions/franchises. (vi) M&S to commit to operate at least a full Simply Food store, of a minimum size to be agreed, on a site which provides for a tenancy at market-prevailing terms within Newcastle Town centre prior to them opening to trade on this out of centre site; (vii) M&S to participate in up to 6 half day workshops in order to provide training and advice for both existing and potential retailers in the town centre during
Page 7 the first year of opening at Wolstanton; (viii) The provision of a bus service to connect the site to/from Newcastle town centre for a minimum period of 3 years from the date of occupation to run at a 30 minute frequency between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Monday to Saturday; (ix) A payment of £94,331 towards the Newcastle Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS); (x) The provision of a Travel Plan bond of £75,000; (xi) A Travel Plan monitoring fee of £6,200 to be paid to the Highway Authority; (xii) £10,000 towards the provision of bus stop infrastructure on the public highway in the vicinity of the site; (xiii) A commitment to trade from Hanley for a period of 5 years from opening at Wolstanton.
Permit subject to conditions relating to the following matters:-
(1) Standard time limit condition. (2) Implementation in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documents. (3) The permission relates to a single retail unit of 13,010 sq.m. of gross floorspace with a sales area floorspace of no more than 8,962 sq.m. of which no more than 7,973 sq.m. will be for the display of comparison goods and no more than 989 sq.m. shall be for the display and sale of convenience goods. (4) No subdivision of the store without the express consent of the lpa. (5) Prior approval of a construction management plan to include wheel washing facilities and the management and routeing of construction traffic, hours of construction, delivery times and internal compound arrangements. (6) Prior approval of external facing and surfacing materials. (7) Prior approval of a landscaping scheme and implementation in first planting season after commencement of development. (8) Prior approval of a tree constraints plan. (9) Prior approval and implementation of a tree protection plan to BS5837:2005. (10) Development to proceed in accordance with the Travel Plan. (11) Prior approval of piling. (12) Contaminated land conditions. (13) Prior approval and implementation of any combined heat and power system. (14) Prior approval and implementation of a fume extraction system. (15) Prior approval and implementation of a grease trap. (16) Prior approval and implementation of a safe and drainage system. (17) Construction of store to achieve a BREEAM Retail 2008 rating of at least ‘very good’, with an Energy Performance Certificate A-rating. (18) Provision of parking/turning/servicing/bus stops/improved pedestrian links before the development is brought into use and maintained as such for the life of the development. (19) Prior approval of the recyclable materials and refuse storage and collection arrangements.
(b) That should the matters referred to above not be secured within the above period, that the Head of Regeneration and Planning Services be given delegated authority to refuse the application on the following grounds:-
(i) In the absence of a planning obligation that secures the obligations referred to in (i)-(v) the proposed development would have an unacceptable and adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Newcastle Town Centre. (ii) In the absence of a planning obligation that secures a Newcastle (urban) Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS) contribution, and Travel Plan monitoring contribution, and the provision of a bus service to the site, the proposal would not achieve a sustainable form of development. (iii) In the absence of a planning obligation that secures a Travel Plan Bond necessary off site highway improvements could not be undertaken should the modal targets set out in the Travel Plan not be achieved and additional
Page 8 vehicular movements are generated by the proposal than is expected. (iv) In the absence of a planning obligation that secures the continued presence of Marks and Spencer on a site within the defined City Centre (Hanley) boundary for a minimum period of five years; the trigger date being the date of first occupation of the proposed Wolstanton store; and secures their occupation in a single store of no less than 4400sq.m Net Sales Area (the same size as their existing City Centre Store), the proposed development would have an unacceptable and adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Hanley City Centre.
Reason for Recommendation
It is considered, on balance, that the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal meets the sequential test and would not have an adverse impact on planned investment in the Town Centre or on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre or other centres. In addition the proposal will create a significant number of jobs and result in visual improvement to the retail park. Whilst the proposal, by virtue of its location which does not have good access to modes of transport other than the private car, could not be considered to be as sustainable as a town centre location it is considered that the broader locational context (i.e. within the conurbation) taken together with the benefits of the development would outweigh the above concerns. Notwithstanding this due to the scale and nature of the development the application must be notified to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009
Policies and Proposals in the Approved Development Plan Relevant to This Decision:-
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) 2008
Policy UR1: Implementing Urban Renaissance – the Major Urban Areas (MUAs) Policy UR3: Enhancing the role of city, town and district centres Policy PA1: Prosperity for All Policy PA6: Portfolio of employment land Policy PA11: The Network of Town and City Centres Policy PA13: Out of Centre Retail Development Policy QE1: Conserving and Enhancing the Environment Policy QE2: Restoring degraded areas and managing and creating high quality new environments Policy QE3: Creating a High Quality Built Environment for all Policy T2: Reducing the Need to Travel Policy T7: Car Parking Standards and Management
Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan (SSSP) 1996 – 2011
Policy D1: Sustainable Forms of Development Policy D2: The Design and Environmental Quality of Development Policy D3: Urban Regeneration Policy D8: Providing Infrastructure Services, Facilities and/or Mitigating Measures Associated with Development Policy T1A: Sustainable Location Policy T4: Walking Policy T6: Cycling Policy T7: Public Transport Provision Policy T12: Strategic Highway Network Policy T14: Routes of National and Regional Significance Policy E8: Loss of Employment Land and Buildings Policy T18A: Transport and Development Policy NC18: Listed Buildings Policy TC1: Ensuring the future of Town Centres
Page 9 Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 (CSS) (adopted 2009)
Strategic Aim 7: To enhance the City Centre of Stoke-on-Trent’s role as a sub regional commercial centre: to help Newcastle Town Centre to continue to thrive as a strategic centre, both within a network of accessible and complementary, vital, vibrant and distinctive North Staffordshire town centres. Strategic Aim 16: To eliminate poor quality development and establish a culture of excellence in built design by developing design skills and understanding, by requiring good, safe design by developing design skills and understanding, by requiring good, safe design as a universal baseline and distinctive design excellence in all development proposals, and by promoting procurement methods which facilitate the delivery of good design. Policy SP1: Spatial Principles of Targeted Regeneration Policy SP2: Spatial Principles of Economic Development Policy SP3: Spatial Principles of Movement and Access Policy ASP4: Newcastle Town Centre Area Spatial Policy Policy ASP5: Newcastle and Kidsgrove Urban Neighbourhoods Area Spatial Policy Policy CSP1: Design Quality Policy CSP2: Historic Environment Policy CSP3: Sustainability and Climate Change Policy CSP10: Planning Obligations
Newcastle under Lyme Local Plan (NLP) 2011
Policy E11: Development of Employment Land for Other Uses Policy T16: Development - General Parking Requirements Policy T18: Development – Servicing Requirements Policy IM1: Provision of Essential Supporting Infrastructure and Community Facilities
Other Material Considerations include:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)
This sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where such applications are in accordance with the development plan and unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In seeking to deliver sustainable development it sets out policy under a number of headings including ensuring the vitality of town centres.
Other National Guidance/Documents
Companion document to PPS1: The Planning System: General Principles (2005)
Planning for Town Centres - Practice guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach – (2009)
Circular 11/1995 – The use of conditions in planning permissions Circular 02/2009 – The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (October 2007) Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document (2009) Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2010)
The Newcastle-under-Lyme Retail and Leisure Study 2011 Newcastle (urban) Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS) Reports to Full Council meetings of 23 March and 29 June 2011 regarding the strategic site acquisition (Sainsbury’s) and town centre regeneration partnership
The Secretary of State’s Announcement of His Intention to Abolish RSS
The Secretary of State has made it clear that it is the Government’s intention to revoke RSSs and the Localism Act 2011, which includes powers to give effect to that intention, received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. However, pending the making of a revocation order in accordance with the new Act, the
Page 10 RSS remains part of the statutory development plan. Nevertheless, the intention to revoke the RSS and the enactment are material considerations.
Relevant Planning History
Outline planning permission was granted in 1987 (reference N16472) on part of the former Wolstanton Colliery site for the demolition of existing buildings, reclamation of land and retail development incorporating a multi-screen cinema and covered tennis courts with access from A500. All matters of detail, other than the means of access, were reserved for subsequent approval. The amount of area to be used for retailing under this permission was restricted to an area not exceeding 245,000 square feet (22,760 square metres) gross floor space, measured internally. A further restriction was imposed on the amount of retail floor space to be used for the selling of food and other convenience goods to an area not exceeding 27,000 square feet (2,508 square metres) net, measured internally.
In 1988 reserved matters approval was granted for a retail development measuring 245,000 square feet (22,760 square metres) gross floor space. The approved layout provided an Asda supermarket and a further five retail units (some capable of subdivision).
In 1991 (reference N20658) planning permission was granted for the change of use of vacant non food retail units (totalling 9,331 square metres) for uses falling with classes B1, B2 and B8. The planning permission included the remaining units that were not occupied by Asda and Texas Homecare (now Homebase). This planning permission has been partially implemented and three of the 5 units to be demolished are considered to have a lawful use falling within Class B (this amounts to approximately 5,783 sq m of floorspace).
Views of Consultees
The Environmental Health Division indicate that the demolition and construction has the potential to create noise and fugitive dust disturbance to nearby properties, in addition the traffic generated by the development has the potential have an impact upon air quality. Further discussion is being undertaken with regard to noise from loading/unloading and vehicle movements in the service yard. In view of the issues arising from this development conditions relating to the following are recommended:-
• Prior approval and implementation of a Construction Management Plan • Piling • Contaminated land • Prior approval and implementation of the combined heat and power system • Prior approval and implementation of air cooling/air extraction systems. • Prior approval and implementation of external lighting. • Prior approval and implementation of a fume extraction system. • Prior approval of a grease trap, and installation prior to opening.
The Environment Agency considers, on the issue of flood risk, that the proposed development will only be acceptable if a condition requiring prior approval and implementation of a safe and sustainable drainage scheme is imposed. In respect of the protection of controlled waters they have no objection subject to the requirement that if contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the site the developer must submit and gain approval for a remediation strategy.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no comment to make on the external layout. He fully supports and endorses the intention to have monitored CCTV on the site. All potential points of access should be designed at least to the minimum standards for security or higher.
The Landscape Development Section indicate that they cannot fully comment upon the application until they have had sight of an appraisal of existing landscaping that has been referred to in the submitted Design and Access Statement. In addition they state that a significant number of existing trees are to be removed to accommodate the proposed car parking areas and, although these are not mature, their removal will mean a delay in establishing a sufficient tree cover. They therefore request that trees within the car park areas, and a proportion of trees in the proposed buffer planting areas, are planted as larger extra heavy standards and semi-mature trees. Also, that the proposed buffer planting on the northern boundary is increased in width. Consideration should be given to carrying out planting on the slopes within the application site to the north of the site to better integrate the proposals with the surrounding area.
Page 11
A tree constraints plan and tree protection plan to BS5837:2005 for the construction phase should be submitted for approval before any works commence on site.
Following receipt of the appraisal they further observe that there are a not insignificant number of category B trees that are proposed to be removed. These are mainly relatively immature however it is hoped that it would be possible to retain some of them (which would involve a revision to the car park layout). All category B trees to be removed should be replaced by semi-mature trees to mitigate their loss.
The Highways Agency initially issued a direction to the Council not to permit the application while additional information and clarification was sought; however the direction has now been withdrawn. They welcome the applicants’ commitment to significantly increase their Travel Plan Bond from £30,000 to £75,000 should modal targets set out in the Travel Plan not be achieved. They direct that a condition relating to the following should be imposed on any planning permission:-
• The development to proceed and be maintained in accordance with the Travel Plan. The results of the monitoring to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within one month of each monitoring period. Where the targets are not achieved the Travel Plan co-ordinator will be notified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Highway Authority has no objections on highway grounds subject to the following conditions:
• Provision of parking/turning/servicing/bus stops before the development is brought into use and maintained as such for the life of the development. • Wheel cleaning/washing facilities to be installed on site in accordance with approved details before construction commences. • Before construction commences a Traffic Management Plan to be agreed detailing the management and routing of construction traffic, delivery times and internal compound arrangements.
It further states that the applicant must enter into S106 Agreement to secure the following;
• An NTADS contribution of £94,331. • A “Measures Travel Plan” containing targets and remedies. • A Travel Plan monitoring fee of £6,200. • The provision of a bus service to connect the site to/from Newcastle town centre for a minimum period of 3 years from the date of occupation to run at a 30 minute frequency between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Monday to Saturday. • £10,000 towards the provision of bus stop infrastructure on the public highway in the vicinity of the site.
They go on to state that the development proposal is located close to the A500 which comes under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency. It is understood that the impact of this development on its network has been assessed by the Highways Agency and the resulting consultation response has been sent under separate cover to the Local Planning Authority.
In respect of the impact on the Staffordshire County Council highway network this has been assessed by quantifying the predicted traffic generation of the proposals (making an allowance for traffic generated by the existing uses to be demolished) and distributing this traffic onto the highway network. Junctions on the surrounding network were modelled (future date of 2021) to quantify this impact which showed sufficient capacity existed to accommodate the development traffic. The main reason for this is the predicted distribution of development traffic being an 80% split to/from the A500, with 20% of traffic being predicted to use the A527.
A contribution towards the Newcastle Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS) is sought from the applicant to assist in the mitigation of additional traffic generated by the development onto the public highway. NTADS is a 5 year plan which contains measures to ease congestion, encourage public transport use and improve safety within the Newcastle urban area.
The Highway Authority acknowledges the sustainable challenges of the site and accordingly no reduction on vehicular trip rates to reflect public transport use has been due to the limited appeal of non car access to the
Page 12 site. However the applicants’ agent has proposed measures as part of the application to make the site more sustainable. This includes the submission of a travel plan which will attract subsequent monitoring and the provision of a bus service (and associated infrastructure) that directly serves the site for a minimum period of 3 years; both these measures (and the NTADS contribution)are recommended to be included within a Section 106 agreement if the application is recommended for approval.
MADE , the Midlands based Design Review Panel, have considered the proposal and their comments are summarised as follows:-
• The issue of sustainability is a matter for the local planning authority but remains pertinent even though the proposal involves the replacement or upgrading of an existing ‘strip mall’. • As much as possible must be done to make pedestrian routes to, and within, the site as pleasant and straightforward as possible. Existing pedestrian routes are poorly defined and the sweeping access/service road around the site gives a clear message that this is not a place to come on foot. A clear commitment to bringing a regular bus service to the site needs to be secured. • Throughout the site, and around it, the environment seems inhospitable and degraded. Improving the architecture of a section of some of the retail buildings may not trigger the wider improvements that are needed. This should be the opportunity to look at the environment of the entire site. • The developer and local authority should work together on a major landscape design and improvement initiative for the site and its environs. This should be led by a firm with specific expertise in landscape design and should precede the design of the car park. Further tree-planting on the slopes could be part of this. • The current regimented arrangement of the car park should be broken up and consideration given to how users walk across the car park once they leave their cars. The windswept nature of the car park needs to be mitigated by suitable planting. The pedestrian quality of areas around the building should be improved, and aside from the provision of a small ‘drop-off’ area there is no reason why either should be a road across the front of the store. • The panel was generally content with the massing, the elevations and choice of materials for the building, but expressed concern about the roofscape. The roof is overlooked from nearby areas and it would be better if items of plant were either removed from the roof or were completely screened. Opportunities should be taken to introduce natural light to the store, particularly around the entrance and restaurant areas. • Given the opportunity of designing a new store with a client keen to display their green credentials, the aim of BREEAM Very Good seemed under ambitious.
The Recycling Strategy and Commissioning Manager in the Waste Management Division indicates that he is generally happy with the layout of the proposed store. The Council has an existing recycling centre on the site, located near to Asda, which he would be keen to keep and enhance should there be any further development of this site. With regard to the current proposal he would wish to see a condition on any planning approval for approval of full and precise details of the recyclable materials and refuse storage, including designated areas to accommodate sufficient recyclable materials and refuse receptacles to service the retail development and the collection arrangements for waste and recycling materials.
The Coal Authority agrees with the recommendations of the submitted Geo-Environmental Appraisal that the void beneath the cap of one of the mine shafts should be treated prior to the commencement of development and this should be secured by condition. They consider that the content and conclusions of the Geo- Environmental Appraisal are sufficient and as such raise no objection.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council comment that whilst it would like it to be noted that they are supportive of economic development, it is concerned that the ‘City Sentral’ site is an in-centre, sequentially preferable, location which is critical to the planned regeneration of the City Centre and that without a Marks and Spencer store within the City Centre the impact of the proposed Wolstanton store would be significantly higher and a major cause for concern. As such the City Council objects to the proposed development, unless such objections can be overcome by the conclusion of any necessary Section 106 (S106) Agreement which:
(a) secures the continued presence of Marks and Spencer on a site within the defined City Centre (Hanley) boundary for a minimum period of five years; the trigger date being the date of first occupation of the proposed Wolstanton store; and (b) secures their occupation in a single store of no less than 4400sq.m Net Sales Area (the same size as their existing City Centre Store).
Page 13 No comments have been received from the East Newcastle and Town Centre LAPs, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust , and Staffordshire County Council as Strategic Planning Authority by the due date and therefore it must be assumed that they have no observations.
Representations
A representation in support of the application has been received from Cllr Sophie Olszewski and is summarised below:-
• The development would benefit Wolstanton and the Borough as a whole. M&S have a keen interest in the Wolstanton Retail Park site and this is an opportunity that the Council would be foolish to push aside. • A store of that size (which will rival stores in Manchester and London) would attract a vast amount of visitors, in turn improving our economy and may even attract further development from other well known retailers. Representatives of M&S have suggested that this will be the only location in which they wish to site their megastore, knowing this, would it not be more beneficial for the Borough to accept this fantastic opportunity rather than lose this highly profitable possibility. • More locally, it would be great to see Newcastle-under-Lyme aspire to achieve retail parks on par with Stoke on Trent’s Festival Park. That is a successful out of town shopping complex that even offers food outlets. The only solution to our longing to attract shoppers is to offer them a store like this which cannot be found in close proximity to Newcastle. • Furthermore, this M&S development will attract people from Crewe, Nantwich to the north and Stone, Stafford or the south. It is highly likely that these visitors may decide to spend part of the visit in the town centre as they have had to travel so far, whereby without such an attraction a visit to the area would not be worthwhile.
A letter has been received from the Newcastle Civic Society which indicates that they welcome the intention to establish a department store in Newcastle but consider that the Blackfriars site would be more suitable, both in terms of footfall and ease of access. They indicate that the Blackfriars site was considered to be too small for the enlarged, single-storey Tesco proposal, however the M&S proposal is for a two storey building that was approximately the size suggested at the Tesco inquiry as a suitable size for that site. They note that the application offers a subsidised bus service to the Wolstanton site and wish to remind the Committee that the free bus services to both ASDA at Wolstanton, and to Tesco at Trent Vale soon stopped, with the consequent increase in car traffic. A condition must be made extending the M&S support (for such a service) for a minimum of 10 years.
A letter of objection has been received from the Newcastle-under-Lyme Chamber of Trade and Enterprise for the reasons summarised below:-
• The impact upon the town centre is understated as is the loss of convenience shopping from town centre stores because shoppers will probably make linked trips to the ASDA and this will exacerbate diverted expenditure. • Linked trips to ASDA will divert more convenience expenditure from edge of centre stores and this will have the effect of removing footfall from the town centre. • Many retail premises are in a marginal position and loss of consumer expenditure may cause their failure. • The sequential test as submitted is not definitive. • The developer indicates that the route to the store should be the A500 which will draw local traffic onto a route that is crucial for the regeneration of North Staffordshire and will undermine the work that has been done to remove holdups. • They note that the 2011 Retail and Leisure Study records a significant leakage to Festival Park. If the development is permitted it is possible that Wolstanton could become a rival destination to the town centre.
The Chamber consider that, whilst they welcome a M&S major store in Newcastle Borough, the application should be refused and that the applicants consider one of the vacant development sites in the town centre. In addition the Council should delay the determination of the application until the Government decides upon its High Street Policy following the Mary Portas Review.
Page 14 The Thistleberry Residents Association are not averse to the proposal and a large M&S store in Wolstanton which would be more accessible geographically and in terms of parking than in any of the current sites available in the town centre but they have the following reservations:-
• As this is not an outline application this could deny residents their say in the type of store they would like. • There is concern that this could be a ‘reduced price’ store and there are already sufficient of these in Newcastle. • It is difficult to assess the impact on the surrounding area before the store is up and running. • The proposed development would be an improvement on this site. Whilst the architecture is shed-like it would not be out of place. • There could be more glazing at first floor level given the lack of roof glazing shown on the plan. • Its green credentials are impressive. • A lot more planting than is proposed is necessary and this should be secured by condition. • The proposal could have a negative impact on Wolstanton and Newcastle High Street stores and some form of academic study should be undertaken before and after to assess any impact, adverse or otherwise. • Small family enterprises can’t compete with large companies such as M&S. To this end a condition should be placed on any approval requiring M&S to pass on some of their expertise to small family run businesses. This could require M&S taking on an empty shop in both high streets to advertise jobs and services and a help line for small businesses. They could sponsor new private enterprises. A S106 agreement could incorporate a scheme for improved parking in both towns with the money being ring-fenced for that purpose. • A condition should be imposed requiring, once the store is up and running, details of the jobs created in terms of full/part time by gender and ethnicity, the same by salary scale, numbers of local people employed and at what grade, numbers of employees imported from outside the locality etc. and that this information is published.
Three further letters of representation have been received, the main points of which are summarised below:-
• Visibility at the Church Lane pedestrian crossing is obscured to a large degree by the height and location of the Moreton House boundary wall and people using that crossing, which includes infant and junior school children, are not visible to drivers bound for May Bank. • The curved line of the Moreton House boundary wall results in a restricted width of the footpath serving Grange Lane and the Church Lane crossing. • With the cooperation of the owners of Moreton House a short part of the curved boundary wall should be demolished and rebuilt in order to increase the footpath width at the area adjacent to both crossings which will improve lines of visibility. Any S106 money should be in part used for this work. • Whilst a M&S store is long overdue it should be located in the town centre. • The developer’s public consultation exercise was flawed as questions asked have not been replied to. • It is hard to believe that the impact upon the town centre is minimal as stated. If shoppers divert to M&S from Morrisons and Sainsbury’s then they will probably also divert to ASDA and as such footfall will decline in greater numbers than suggested. • The applicant has not presented an impact assessment that is fit for purpose and has therefore failed to meet the requirements of PPS4 Policy 16.1a. • It is hard to believe that additional traffic flow to the site will be as low as suggested and this does not correlate with their expected turnover figure. It is worth noting that the M&S in Handforth Dean generates far more traffic than is projected for Wolstanton. • The Sequential Test submitted by the developer should not be accepted and the application has failed to address the requirements of PPS4 Policy 15.1 for sequential assessments. • Significant further evidence is required to satisfy these policy requirements in accordance with PPS4 policy EC17.1 • It would be premature for the planning application to be decided prior to the Government’s response to the Portas review being published. • If planning permission is to be granted a direct bus service to all parts of the Borough should be provided at regular frequency. • Additional works are required to ensure that the traffic generated by the proposal does not conflict with traffic using Church Lane and the nursery and schools in this location.
Page 15 • The dumbbell double roundabout arrangement under the A500 will need to be redesigned to cope with volumes, in particular the north-bound access onto the western roundabout where there is a poor sightline for drivers to spot traffic, with right of way, from the eastern roundabout. • M&S should do more work with town centre uses, the Chamber of Trade and Enterprise and the Council to find and develop a format that will work in, or near, the town centre.
The owners of the Blackfriars site have objected on the following grounds:-
• The PPS 4 Sequential Test Assessment supplied with the application is flawed, as Morston have not been approached regarding the possible use of the site for a 14,000 sq m Marks and Spencer Store. Morston are currently in detailed dialogue with all owners on the site (including the Telephone Exchange) who have expressed an interest in redeveloping the site for a large retail-led scheme. In particular, Morston would disagree with the findings of the report that the Telephone Exchange site is unavailable, as the operator has indicated to Morston that part of the building, plus the car parking, could be made available. This is not addressed in the Sequential Test and thus a scheme should be assessed which retains the essential infrastructure required at the Telephone Exchange, whilst developing part of the building and associated car park; • It is not possible for the applicants to determine whether the site is viable, as Morston have not had any dialogue with them regarding values or a method of disposal (freehold or leasehold); • The option of bridging over the A34 to create a link to the town centre has not been considered in the schemes presented in Appendix 3 of the Planning & Retail Statement. This option has been considered by Morston in the past to link the town centre to the Blackfriars site and it has in turn been discussed in some detail with the council; • The proposed mitigation to address highways impact upon the A500 Wolstanton Junction is insufficient. Due regard should be taken to the emerging proposals for development at Etruria Valley, which will be the subject of a forthcoming Supplementary Planning Document for an employment led mixed use regeneration scheme. This scheme should not, in particular, be seen to erode capacity on that junction, thus restricting the ability to access the Etruria Valley development site via the A500 Wolstanton Junction.
Applicants’/Agent’s Submission
The application is supported by a number of documents as follows:-
Planning and Retail Statement (which has been supplemented by further information) – a summary of the main points not set out in the key issues section is provided:-
The site and scheme development proposals
• The existing retail park was constructed in accordance with a planning consent granted in 1987 for development of 22,760 square metres of retail floor space to comprise a food superstore of approximately 7,900 square metres and non food retailing of 14,870 square metres. • The scheme represents an investment of £30m in the site.
The M&S shopping region
• The Stoke/Newcastle conurbation is one of the largest population centres in the UK that does not have easy access to the full range of M&S stores and has one of the narrowest offers throughout the UK. • In terms of the Stoke/Newcastle conurbation, customer information held by M&S shows that many people from the area are travelling to the company’s large stores at Handforth and Warrington (Gemini). As a result there is a significant outflow of trade and leakage of expenditure which from M&S perspective is not satisfying customer needs and choice and also results in unsustainable shopping patterns. • In order to address the needs of the Stoke/Newcastle conurbation M&S is considering a number of options including a store at Wolstanton, as proposed, and heads of terms has been agreed to take a new store within the City Sentral scheme in Hanley. In addition the company will be seeking opportunities to develop Simply Food outlets within the conurbation.
Page 16 The existing retail context
• The Newcastle Retail and Leisure Study 2011 concluded that there was capacity for additional convenience and comparison goods floorspace in the Borough. • A Household telephone Survey was undertaken in September 2011 which showed that a large percentage of residents are travelling to an M&S store outside their immediate area to undertake food and non-food shopping. A large proportion of the population are not using a M&S store because there is no local store or the nearest store is too far away.
Design and Access Statement – a summary of the conclusions are set out below:-
• The proposed development has taken account of an extensive consultation exercise. • It has taken account of a detailed appraisal of the site and the local area surrounding the site. • The proposal provides a well designed modern retail store which will promote the revitalization of an otherwise flagging retail park. • It delivers safe, secure parking spaces. • The scheme looks to encourage other non car forms of transport to the store by virtue of improved pedestrian access, provision of cycle parking, provision of a new bus stop and promotion of bus services. • It is well connected to a key transport corridor. • The proposal caters for people with special needs and provides access for all. • It incorporates a robust and sensitive landscape scheme. • It is environmentally and economically sustainable.
Transport Assessment – the conclusion of which is summarised:-
• The access is provided from an existing junction with the A500/A527. The A527 links to the A53/A52 and routes to local residential areas. The A500 is a strategic route offering access to destinations further afield and connecting with the M6. • The site is accessible by walking, cycling, bus and rail services. There are several bus services serving stops in the vicinity of Church Lane. The site is therefore accessible by a choice of transport. • Pedestrian and cycle access to the site will be improved and as part of the development 3-4 parking spaces with charging points will be provided for electric vehicles. • The developer is proposing to commit to a maximum contribution of £400,000 towards the cost of pump priming the diversion of an existing bus service into the site for 3-5 years. • Compared to the existing retail/industrial uses, it has been demonstrated that the proposed store would generate a net increase in new trips of 130 vehicles during the weekday PM peak hour and a net increase of 245 vehicles in the Saturday peak hour. • With regards to traffic impact, it has been demonstrated that the site access would operate within capacity. The wider highway network would also be able to accommodate traffic from the development. Therefore no mitigation measures are required. • It is propose to implement a Travel Plan. • This proposal will have a beneficial impact in terms of promoting alternative travel choices to the proposed M&S unit and the retail park as a whole.
Ecology Report – the conclusion of which is summarised:-
• No habitats recorded on site are of ecological importance. • No plant species listed in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England were recorded on site. • Two plant species listed in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (which lists species that it is an offence to cause to grow in the wild) occurred within the ornamental planting surrounding the car park. It is recommended that these species should be removed. • There is reptile habitat along the embankment on the edge of the site. With suitable mitigation measures any impact from construction could be avoided and therefore no further survey would be required. • The trees and scrub on site have potential to support nesting birds. All birds, their eggs and nests are protected by law and as such, where possible, the buildings and vegetation on site should be cleared outside of the breeding season which is March to September inclusive.
Page 17 • No other species of conservation interest were found to be present on site.
Flood Risk Assessment – which concludes that the proposed development will not be affected by current or future flooding from any sources and that the development will not increase the flood risk elsewhere.
Air Quality Assessment – concludes that impacts during construction of the proposed development, such as dust generation and plant vehicle emissions, are predicted to be of short duration and only relevant during the construction phase. Implementation of mitigation measures should reduce the impact of construction activities to medium, or even low risk. Changes in pollutant concentrations associated with the operation of the development are expected to be imperceptible and are not deemed significant. The proposed development does not conflict with policies at a regional or local level and there are no constraints to the development in the context of air quality.
Noise Assessment – the conclusion of which is summarised:
• Limiting noise levels for services plant have been set, based on the measured levels of background noise and following guidance of BS 4142:1997. • Providing the plant times and activities associated with the service yard are limited to the noise levels given within the document complaints regarding noise are unlikely. • Should planning permission be granted, it is anticipated that plant selections, activity schedules, working practices and mitigation measures could be detailed by the sub-contractors dealing with the core/fit out such that the levels given could be achieved.
Also provided is a Report on Consultation , Statement for Incoming/External Services ; a Drainage Statement ; details of External Lighting ; CCTV description ; Framework Travel Plan ; and a Geotechnical and Environmental Appraisal.
A letter has been received in response to points raised by consultees/interested parties. The main points, where not covered elsewhere in the report, are as follows:-
• M&S would not consider a town centre site for their current proposal or a reduced full offer store, and therefore if the proposal did not proceed at the Wolstanton site the investment would be lost altogether. M&S has indicated that it would give serious consideration to a Simply Food store within the Ryecroft site if a suitable scheme came forward even with the Wolstanton store in place. • Bus services to retail parks need to demonstrate their viability and the guarantee of a bus service to the Wolstanton site for 10 years cannot be given. • A bus service every 5 minutes into the site from all parts of the Borough during and after trading hours would be totally unviable. A viable bus service is put forward with a guaranteed operating period (3 years). • Accident records do not show highway safety issues on the pedestrian crossings at the junction of Grange Lane and Church Lane which can be attributed to issues of visibility or any other similar contributory factors. The NTADS contribution will be available to the Highway Authority to fund any appropriate improvements. • The public consultation event was undertaken even though there is no statutory obligation to do so. It was widely publicised and representatives were there to answer questions. Hard copies of main reports were provided even though they were available on the web site. • The conditions requested by the Thistleberry Residents Association would not meet the normal tests, but they confirm that M&S takes its responsibilities to the local community very seriously and does assist local enterprise and community groups.
Two letters have been submitted assessing the impact of the proposal on the planned redevelopment of the Ryecroft site, the main points of which are summarised below:
• The proposed development at Wolstanton and the Ryecroft site are materially different and aimed at a different ‘audience’. The Wolstanton proposals are designed to compliment the existing M&S town centre offer in Hanley in providing a full offer store with a regional draw that will prevent leakage of custom outside the larger catchment. • The proposal at Wolstanton is for M&S who have stated that they are not interested in the Ryecroft site for a large store and would not take space for a full offer store even if Wolstanton was refused. In
Page 18 addition M&S is a very unique retailer in that it sells own brand goods which are not currently sold in Newcastle. Therefore the impact of such sales on existing and proposed retailers in Ryecroft must by logic, be limited or negligible. • The redevelopment of the Ryecroft site would require an anchor store of circa 30,000sq.ft (2,787 sq.m.) and would be more likely to comprise a convenience food operator or one or more comparison retailer such as Next and Primark than a department store such as Debenhams. • Such a development will require considerable architectural input and consultancy with key stakeholders and at best take 5 years and potentially up to 10 years to deliver. • Given that the proposed M&S application at Wolstanton is proposed to open in 2014 there is likely to be a significant time lapse between the opening of this store and the completion of Ryecroft. • The presence of such a large destination store will only add to Newcastle Town Centre’s position in the retail hierarchy of the region. Unlike a department store which would have multiple brand names, M&S is a retailer that sells only its brand and therefore would not prevent other retailers entering the town centre. Furthermore, customers always want choice and therefore it is envisaged greater number of linked trips will take place from Wolstanton to the high street where there is a greater choice of shopping available. • Warrington is a town where M&S already have a flagship store at Gemini Park. Ten years ago Warrington town centre was a town centre in decline however investment was put into extending Golden Square and this is now anchored by Debenhams.
The following obligations/conditions have been offered in various correspondence:
• Acceptance that the proposed store can only be occupied by M&S for a period of 5 years. • An obligation by M&S to consider suitable sites within Newcastle town centre for a Simply Food store. This will run for 5 years from the grant of planning permission. If a site within the town centre comes forward for retail development and it offers car parking in close proximity to a unit of c.15,000 sq ft GIA, then M&S will enter into negotiations for a new store. If M&S can agree terms that are commercially acceptable then they will present the proposal to the Board. The final decision as to whether or not M&S proceed lies with the M&S Board. • Under the Marks and Start programme, M&S will work with a number of local residents that are long term unemployed, homeless or under care of local charities and provide them with work placements at the store within 12 months of opening. This will be repeated each year after. The number of placements to be offered is to be agreed. • Within the public area of the store, M&S will provide an area for community displays in order to promote Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre. • If Newcastle-under-Lyme operates either a Town Centre Management Scheme or a BID then M&S Wolstanton will contribute £10,000 per annum. This will continue until the earlier of M&S ceasing to trade at Wolstanton or M&S opening a Simply Food store in the town centre. • M&S will participate in up to 6 half day workshops in order to provide training and advice for both existing and potential retailers in the town centre during the first year of opening at Wolstanton. • A payment of £400,000 towards bus service provision to the site; • A payment of £94,331 towards Newcastle Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS); • A payment of £50,000 towards the improvement of cycling facilities; • The provision of a Travel Plan bond of £75,000; • A contribution of £100,000 for off site landscaping; • A commitment to trade from Hanley for a period of 5 years from opening at Wolstanton.
All of the above documents are available for inspection at the Guildhall, and on www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk
Key Issues
The application seeks full planning permission for a two storey building for use as a shop (Class A1). The proposal involves the demolition of existing units which are used for purposes falling within Class A1, B1/B2 (business or industrial) and B8 (warehousing and distribution). A redundant methane pumping station will be removed and it is proposed that the existing car park is reconfigured and extended.
The key issues for consideration in the determination of this application are:
• The principle of the development, including consideration of sustainability
Page 19 • Highway capacity and parking • Design and impact on the form and character of the area, and • Residential amenity
Principle of development
Planning permission was granted in 1988 for a retail development comprising 22,760 sq.m of floorspace.
Following planning permission in 1991 5,738 sq.m of the total floorspace was changed to uses falling within Classes B1, B1 and B8, leaving 16,977 sq.m. of retail floorspace.
The proposal involves the demolition of 5 units (and the construction of a new store with a total gross floorspace of 13,010 sq.m of which 8,962 sq.m is retail sales area floorspace.
In summary the gross additional retail floorspace is:-
• 11,282 sq.m. over and above the existing retail floorspace at the Retail Park, • 10,882 sq.m. over and above the existing, when additional retail floorspace is taken into consideration which could be added without the need for planning permission, or • 4,491 sq.m. over and above that originally granted planning permission in 1988.
In considering the principle of the proposed development it is necessary to consider four main areas: sustainability; the sequential assessment; the potential impact on planned Town Centre investment and the potential impact on Town Centre vitality and viability.
Sustainability
The application represents the development of a brownfield site, an existing out-of-centre retail park which, the applicants argue, is sustainable as it is accessible to the neighbouring residential area by foot and by bus. In addition the applicants’ submission also considers that the majority of vehicular trips to the site will not be new trips on the road network as people within the primary catchment area of the site are currently travelling to Handforth, Manchester, Chester and Warrington and as such their overall trip length will be shorter.
The site, however, is located at a lower level than the nearest residential properties and access into the site involves steps and ramps of varying steepness and, given that the nearest operating bus-stop is off-site and up a bank 600m away on Church Lane, access on foot and by bus is currently limited.
Some improvements to the existing pedestrian routes into the site are proposed, however the use of the pedestrian accesses would remain limited to those who are physically able to negotiate the steps and slopes as only one pedestrian access will be at grade and those using it would still have to negotiate the relatively steep gradient of Grange Lane (A527). It is not considered that any further improvements could be achieved without significant costs and as it is considered that such improvements would be limited it is considered that the cost would be unjustified.
Currently there is no bus service onto the site, although there is a bus stop sited close to the ASDA store within the Retail Park. The submission indicates that a further bus stop will be provided within the Retail Park and the applicant has offered a payment of up to £400,000 towards the provision of a bus service into the site. The Highway Authority has indicated that the subsidy of a bus service of a certain frequency for a period of at least three years is required although they have not calculated what that would cost. It is considered that a 3 year service of a certain frequency could be secured through a Section 106 obligation and at the end of this period hopefully the viability of the service will have been established - thus improving the sustainability of the site. In addition there is an opportunity to secure a commitment from M&S to promote Newcastle Town Centre and the bus service which would be beneficial to the Town Centre and improve sustainability be promoting linked trips.
The Highway Authority is seeking a financial contribution to NTADS of £94,331 to ensure appropriate funds are provided to the Strategy of public transport measures across the borough. The estimated number of additional trips on the network arising from the development has not been reduced to reflect public transport use as it is considered by the Highway Authority that the site has limited appeal for access by modes of transport other than the car. The applicants have proposed measures to improve the sustainability of the site
Page 20 including the submission of a travel plan and a contribution towards a bus service. The contribution to NTADS, together with the travel plan and bus service are considered necessary and appropriate for this development and can be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the proposed 3-year duration of the subsidised bus service.
The applicants have also offered through a Section 106 obligation a payment of £50,000 towards the improvement of cycling facilities. It is noted that the Highway Authority have not requested such a contribution and at this point in time no specific cycling facilities improvements have been identified that are directly related to the development and the site. Further views of the Highway Authority are sought on this matter and if any such improvements can be identified then a further report will be given
Notwithstanding the improvements proposed the site could never be viewed as being as sustainable in comparison with Newcastle town centre or the City Centre both of which have a bus station, with services of varying frequencies from a wide area. It is acknowledged, however, that when considered in the context of the wider conurbation the site is fairly centrally located, at a similar distance from Newcastle and Hanley and close to a large number of households.
Economic Development
One of the core planning principles set out in the NPPF is that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development. It goes on to state, at paragraph 19, that
“The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.”
The applicants indicate that a total of 250 people will be permanently employed in the store and up to 100 people will be employed in the construction and fit out stages of the scheme. However in order to enable an estimate to be made of the net additional employment impact generated by the proposed development, it is necessary to consider the potential for displacement of jobs from elsewhere, including Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre. The applicants state that no jobs would be lost from the two existing M&S stores in Hanley and Talke and assert that no other retailers would be likely to lose any jobs. There is potential for other retailers other than M&S to be affected by trade diversion – either directly or indirectly, as a consequence of reduced footfall levels, and so it is not accepted that there will not be a reduction in employment levels from other retailers as a result of this development. Nonetheless it is considered that the scheme is likely to deliver a significant number of new jobs, even though the number of net additional permanent jobs associated with the proposed development could conceivably be lower than the 250 figure put forward by the applicants.
Sequential Assessment
CSS Policies SP1 and SP2 seek to direct retail development to Newcastle town centre or Hanley City Centre. CSS Policy ASP5 indicates that any retail development outside of Newcastle Town Centre will be within a local centre and that its nature and scale should be appropriate to that local centre and will primarily meet the identified local requirements.
The NPPF, at paragraph 24, indicates that LPA should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
The NPPF therefore does not represent a significant national policy shift in that the requirement to apply a sequential test remains. It should be noted, however, that PPS4 which is replaced by the NPPF required that sites were assessed for their availability, suitability and viability whilst the NPPF no longer makes reference to viability in any sequential assessment.
Page 21 Paragraph 5.5 of the PPS4 Practice Guidance (which has not been replaced by the NPPF) indicates that significant weight is attached to the outcome of the sequential site assessment (and impact assessment), however it is for the decision maker to judge the extent to which the applicant has demonstrated, with evidence, compliance with the sequential approach.
Part 6 of the Practice Guidance provides advice in relation to ‘the need for flexibility’. It states that :-
‘The decision by an individual retailer to promote a business model which cannot be accommodated in an existing centre will not justify discounting more central sites where they are available, suitable and viable. In every case it will be necessary to strike an appropriate balance between the requirements of the commercial sector and the requirements of national policy based upon local circumstances. While there is no policy requirement to demonstrate need, an operator claiming that it is unable to be flexible about its chosen ‘business model’ would be expected to demonstrated why a smaller store or stores could not meet a similar need.’
Applicants’ case
The applicants have considered sites in Newcastle as part of the sequential assessment as follows:-
• The Ryecroft site (including the site of the Civic Offices). • The former St Giles and St George School. • Land in between Lower Friar Street and High Street (containing 13 shop premises with offices above, a multi-storey car park and the Vue Cinema). • Blackfriars site. • The Brunswick Street/Barracks Road site (including the Jubilee Baths, Cannon gym and other retail units).
As M&S already has a store in Hanley they have considered it inappropriate and unnecessary to consider sites in Hanley and it should be noted that they have indicated that they are prepare to commit to, within a S106 obligation, to trading from there for at least the next 5 years.
The applicants advise that the sequential assessment that has been undertaken was carried out on a number of criteria including the provision of a minimum of 450 car parking spaces. A further letter of clarification has been submitted indicating that for a large format store, as proposed, the minimum number of spaces required will be at least 650.
All of the sites considered are not commercially suitable to meet M&S’s format requirements or business strategy for the Staffordshire area. M&S are already a key retail anchor in both Hanley Town Centre and Stafford Town Centre. In nearby Hanley, M&S are committed to retaining their current store but would also like to provide a new flagship offer to serve the Staffordshire area, and particularly the conurbation of Stoke on Trent. A key component of the store will be household furnishings, home wear, textiles and other ‘bulkier’ items which are not generally stocked in M&S’s in-centre stores as they require collection by private car. Accordingly, the retail format proposed requires an appropriate level of car parking and accessibility to all M&S customers. As such, the above in-centre sites are not considered suitable for the business model proposed by the retailer.
In addition the earliest that a scheme could be open on the Ryecroft site would be 2017, although this is still optimistic given the difficulties many investors and developers are experiencing in funding projects.
Clearly, therefore, the timeframe for delivery of retail development at the Ryecroft site appears to be a considerable number of years in the future and it is noted that, unlike PPS4 and its accompanying Practice Guide, the NPPF does not set out a timescale over which the sequential test should be applied. The applicants consider that the inference is that if a suitable site is not available at the time the development is due to take place then it should be dismissed as the NPPF seeks to deliver investment and growth. As such, given the likely timescales for the delivery of retail development on the Ryecroft site it is considered that this location cannot be considered to be sequentially preferable in the context of the planning application currently before the Council.
Page 22 They indicate that if planning permission was refused at Wolstanton this would not result in M&S considering a town centre or edge of centre site. They have indicated, however, that if a suitable site is made available in time then they would actively pursue developing a Simply Food store as part of the Ryecroft redevelopment.
Officer comments (taking account of advice received from a specialist retail consultant)
The applicants’ conclusions in respect of the former St Giles and St George School, Lower Friar Street and High Street, and Brunswick Street/Barracks Road site are accepted. It is necessary, however, to give more detailed consideration of the Ryecroft site (an in-centre site) and the Blackfriars site (an edge of centre site).
In their original submission M&S do not refute that the Ryecroft and Blackfriars sites are physically capable of accommodating a 13,000 sq.m store, or that the sites are available. Instead within the Planning and Retail Statement they focus on the viability component of the sequential test, stating that they have a specific desire for a ‘major out-of-centre full offer store’ and that the store is ‘aimed at meeting the needs of car-borne shoppers (although reference is made within a letter attached at Appendix 4 that the incorporation of the Civic Offices into the Ryecroft site would lead to site costs rising significantly). M&S then dismiss the Ryecroft and Blackfriars sites on the basis that neither satisfies the specific business model that the company has in mind. The NPPF which was recently introduced and replaced the previous relevant national planning policy statement, PPS4, however no longer makes reference to viability rather it only refers to the suitability and availability of sites (although PPS4 Practice guidance which is not replaced by the NPPF still refers to viability).
The applicants have more recently sought to develop their case with regards to the sequential test largely focussing on the suitability of the sites in light of the NPPF, although the arguments advanced are very similar as considerations of suitability and viability overlap.
As indicated above the applicants highlight that M&S already have stores in two nearby town centres, Hanley and Stafford and that they are committed to retaining such stores. They, however wish to provide a new flagship store which sells ‘bulkier’ items that are not generally sold in their in-centre stores as they require collection by car. Whilst they have indicated that the Blackfriars and Ryecroft site can physically accommodate a building of the scale proposed they do not consider that either of the sites could provide an appropriate level of car parking and accessibility.
The application submission identifies a deficiency in M&S retail provision in the sub-region indicating that the Newcastle-Stoke conurbation is one of the largest population centres in the UK without easy access to a large format store that provides the full range M&S goods. Given that at present customers wishing to shop in such a large format store are currently travelling some distance to Handforth, Chester and Manchester, this is accepted. It is also accepted that a proportion of those customers travelling outside of the catchment area may not be attracted to a store in or on the edge of a town centre such as Newcastle because such a site is not as accessible by car as Wolstanton Retail Park which has very good access to the A500 and M6, regionally important routes. Notwithstanding this it is considered that the applicants have not conclusively proven that a large-format retail scheme with a suitable amount of car parking could not be provided on either the Ryecroft or Blackfriar sites.
It is clear that the applicants have a business model that does not solely focus on large scale out of centre stores but includes High Street Stores and Simply Food Stores both of which are suitable for in-centre and edge of centre sites. Nevertheless M&S’s unwillingness to operate from Newcastle Town Centre is, arguably, due to them being inflexible in their business model and not in accordance with Government guidance on the sequential test.
In addition to the arguments advanced regarding suitability of sites, the applicants have also more recently argued that Ryecroft site cannot be considered a sequentially preferable site as it would not be brought forward within a reasonable timeframe that would accord with the spirit of the NPPF which seeks to remove the perceived planning barriers that unacceptably delay economic development – and as such the site is unavailable.
It is accepted that any development on the Ryecroft, or the Blackfriars site, would not be available in the same time frame as the site at Wolstanton Retail Park. It is considered reasonable to assume that any development on these sites could be achieved within the next 3-5 years. In the absence of any appeal decisions that assist
Page 23 in the interpretation as to what is meant by ‘available’ this could be argued to be a reasonable time period and in accordance with the NPPF.
It is clear that the sequential test arguments are finely balanced and the Council has to consider whether it could advance a reason for refusal on the basis that the application fails the sequential test on the grounds that the applicants are operating a business model that is not flexible and that there are sequentially preferable sites that are suitable and available. Such concerns have to be balanced with the practical reality that M&S will not revert to either the Ryecroft or Blackfriars site for a large-format, or in-centre, retail store if planning permission is refused. It is also clear that the proposal will bring about benefits in terms of jobs created and improvements to the appearance of the Wolstanton Retail Park. In addition it has to be acknowledged that the site is fairly centrally located in the North Staffordshire conurbation, accessible to a very large population including the potential workforce. Weighing these factors against such concerns it is considered that, on balance, it is concluded that the development meets the spirit and intent of the sequential test and that the Council could not substantiate refusing the application on such grounds.
Impact Assessment
The NPPF requires the M&S proposal to be subject of an impact assessment; the criteria for this assessment contained in the NPPF is streamlined compared to the previous criteria set out in the replaced Policy Planning Statement 4. The relevant policy is as follows:
26. When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m). This should include assessment of:
• the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and • the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
Applicants’ case
• The vacancy rate of retail units in Newcastle Town Centre is in line with the national average. Overall the town centre is considered to be a generally healthy, vital and vibrant town centre which meets the local needs of its catchment but with scope for improvement. • Overall Hanley appears generally vital and vibrant especially within the core of the centre. Vacancy rates are notably above average which is of concern but some of this relates to site assembly issues related to redevelopment and oversupply of small units in secondary locations. • Only 1.1% of trade will be drawn from Hanley of which a sizeable proportion will be from the M&S store itself and the company has no concerns about this effect and is offering to enter into a S106 Agreement to ensure that its store remains in Hanley town centre or that the company relocates to new premises with a greater level of floorspace than existing. • Newcastle town centre has different characteristics to Hanley with no M&S and no large clothing and footwear outlets. Despite its proximity to Hanley City Centre it is a generally successful and robust shopping centre. They calculate, on the basis of the sales densities they consider they will achieve at this store, that trade draw from the centre will be less than 1% which would not be noticeable. Taking into account the applicants’ average sale densities, which they do not consider will be achieved at the proposed store, the trade draw from Newcastle would be 1.4% which is the worst case scenario. • No centre outside the Primary Catchment Area will experience any material trade diversion. • The indication of impact (regarding comparison goods) assumes that the new retail development is a wholly new scheme. However they say that there is existing retail floor space which will be demolished and as such it will involve some replacement retail floorspace. The impact set out in the submission is the ‘worst case scenario’. • M&S in Hanley is estimated to experience a draw from its food hall equating to an impact of 8.4% reflecting that it is the only M&S food representation in the conurbation. Other supermarkets on the edge of Newcastle town centre and Asda at Wolstanton Retail Park will be affected but not to the extent that it would be noticeable.
Page 24 • As the levels of impact predicted are generally low they do not expect a material effect on the vitality and viability of Newcastle town centre, Stoke City Centre or any other centre within the Primary Catchment Area (PCA). • There is more than sufficient capacity identified in the Newcastle Retail Study to accommodate both the comparison and convenience elements of the proposed M&S without it adversely impacting on existing, committed and planned public and private investment (including redevelopment of the Ryecroft site). In addition they consider that the development would not have a significant adverse impact upon any existing, committed or planned comparison goods retail investment within any other centres. • Assessing the proposal against advice in paragraph 7.21 of the PPS4 Practice Guidance there is no clear and robust evidence that the proposal would result in a significant adverse impact in relation to the prospects of the planned Ryecroft development coming forward at some point in the future.
Officer comments (taking account of advice received from a specialist retail consultant)
The NPPF requires an assessment of the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in Newcastle Town Centre and impact of the proposal on the Town Centre’s vitality and viability.
There is a clear intention by the owners (Newcastle Borough Council and the County Council) to secure a retail-led redevelopment of the former Sainsbury’s site at Ryecroft as evidenced by the site’s acquisition last year. It was made clear in the Borough Council’s resolution to purchase the site that any redevelopment scheme could incorporate the site of the Civic Offices which is also in the ownership of the Borough Council. This intent is further evidenced by the Councils’ recent appointment of a specialist advisor with a specific remit to secure a developer/investor to bring forward such a redevelopment scheme and it is considered that a retail-led scheme could be delivered within a reasonable period of time.
It should also be noted that the owners of the Blackfriars site have been seeking, over a number of years, to achieve an appropriate redevelopment of that site which may also include retail development. However as this site is not within the Town Centre the NPPF does not require any assessment of the impact of the application proposal on this planned private investment.
Paragraph 7.21 of the PPS4 Practice Guidance sets out a checklist of matters that must be taken into consideration when undertaking an assessment of whether a proposed development would have an adverse impact on planned investment in a town centre as follows:-
• What stages have they reached e.g. are they contractually committed? At present there is no contractual commitment with any developers or retailers and as indicated above no planning permission has been granted or development partner identified. It must therefore be concluded that the development of the Ryecroft site is at a very early stage. • The policy ‘weight’ attached to them? The site is not identified as a key provision within the Development Plan and as such the proposed redevelopment does not have any significant policy weight other than the fact that it is located within a town centre. • Whether there is sufficient ‘need’ for both? The Newcastle-under-Lyme Retail and Leisure Study 2011 has identified that there is sufficient capacity to support in excess of 13,000 sq.m. (net) of comparison goods floorspace within the catchment over the next ten years and this would be sufficient to support both the M&S proposals and a significant increase in town centre retail floorspace. • Whether they are competing for the same market opportunity, or key retailers/occupiers? As the Ryecroft scheme is in a very early stage with no development partner in place it is difficult to predict. However the proposal is for a single M&S store on a site that does not have any further capacity for retail development and as such the proposed development would not compete for other key retailers or occupiers. In addition the development at Wolstanton and the Ryecroft scheme would take place at different times and the M&S store would have been trading for some time before any development on the Ryecroft site opens. • Whether there is evidence that retailers/investors/developers are concerned; and whether the cumulative impact of both schemes would be a cause for concern? There have been two objections received from those with a commercial interest in sites however as these sites are not within a town centre the NPPF does not require that consideration be given to the impact on such planned
Page 25 investment. There is no evidence that there is any cause for concern with regard to the cumulative impact of the proposal at Wolstanton Retail Park and on the Ryecroft site.
Notwithstanding the clear intention to develop the Ryecroft site when the application proposal is considered against the checklist as set out above your Officer considers that it would be extremely difficult to argue that the proposal will have a significantly adverse impact on this planned investment. This is particularly the case when, as required by the Practice Guidance, this is balanced against the benefits arising from the proposal most particularly the jobs that are to be created. M&S have also offered a number of commitments (listed above under the heading applicant/agents submission). Such commitments are aimed at strengthening, and reducing the impact on, the Town Centre and with the possible exception of the intention to participate in training and advice workshops for existing and potential retailers in the town centre, are all considered to meet the tests set out at paragraph 204 of the NPPF in that they are necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Also evidence has been submitted to illustrate how some out-of-town M&S stores have traded in a complementary way to existing Town Centres and that this has not prevented major retailers from moving into such centres as follows:-
• Warrington and Gemini. • St Albans and Colney. • Newton Abbot and Torbay. • Leeds City Centre and Pudsey. • Brighton and Shoreham. • Cardiff and Culverhouse Cross.
The retail led development that is likely to be promoted on the Ryecroft site is expected to involve a number of retail units and, by the nature of such schemes, is likely to be anchored by one or two larger retail stores. The proposed M&S store if it were to be constructed on the Ryecroft site would leave no room for other retailers. Whilst there is no doubt that a single M&S on the site would bring benefits to the Town Centre it could be argued that such a development is unlikely to be as beneficial to the Town Centre as a range of individual and independently branded stores (given the restricted choice in goods that would be available – i.e. M&S brand only). That said it is necessary to consider whether allowing the proposed development at Wolstanton would undermine the prospects of a town centre scheme being anchored by a suitable retailer.
Turning to impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre, whilst it could be argued that the applicants have underestimated the trade diversion impacts on Newcastle Town Centre and therefore the trade diversion is likely to be higher than the 0.9-1.4% figure quoted, nevertheless it is anticipated that it would not exceed approximately 4% and, at this level, the impact could not be considered to be ‘significantly adverse’. Therefore there is no evidence that indicates that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre.
The applicants also assert that their store at Wolstanton would perform a complementary, and not a competing, role with the town centre. This is because the store will only sell M&S branded goods and therefore would not provide the same choice of comparison goods shopping as is found within a town centre. It is accepted that those wishing to have a large choice of comparison goods may choose to shop at M&S Wolstanton in addition to Newcastle (or Hanley) Town Centre and those who are only seeking to buy M&S branded goods may never come to Newcastle Town Centre in any event.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposal satisfies the impact test although in reaching this conclusion it must be acknowledged that the case advanced by the applicants and assessed by your Officer is to a very large extent based upon the proposal being for a single retail unit to be occupied by M&S.
Circular 11/95 on conditions indicates that a personal permission will scarcely ever be justified in the case of a permission for the erection of a permanent building and as such it would not be possible to ensure that only M&S can occupy the store. However through a combination of a S106 obligation and conditions it would be possible to ensure that M&S would be the first occupier of the building, no other retailer could occupy the building for a period of 5 years (although it is known that the applicant has entered into a 50 year lease with a 25 year break out clause), the building could not be subdivided and the amount of floorspace given over to concessions/franchises restricted. This would give the LPA control, which it wouldn’t otherwise have, over any proposals for the occupation of the building by another department store or a number of retailers at a later
Page 26 date, which would potentially have a greater impact on the Town Centre, and would also give some certainty for a reasonable period of time for those who are considering investing in the Ryecroft site. Importantly the applicants have sought to improve the economic viability of the town centre by supporting a number of initiatives which, in turn, should increase the likelihood of customers undertaking linked trips thereby achieving wider economic benefits to the Borough.
Highway capacity and parking
A Transport Assessment has been submitted to accompany the application. The site would continue to be served from the A527 which links to the A500 by a dumbbell roundabout, and from Church Lane, Wolstanton, via a traffic light controlled junction. The Assessment concludes that the wider highway network would be able to accommodate traffic from the development and that no mitigation measures are required.
The Highways Agency has considered the impact of the proposal on the A500 and is satisfied that subject to an agreed Travel Plan being secured by condition the amount of traffic generated by the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the capacity of this part of the Primary Route Network. In addition a Travel Plan Bond of £75,000, as offered by the applicants, is welcomed by the Highways Agency and would be used to carry out highway improvements if the measures within the Travel Plan are not as successful as predicted and more trips are therefore generated by the proposal. This could be secured by S106 obligation.
The Highway Authority have commented upon the impact of the proposal on the County Council’s highway network by quantifying the predicted traffic generation of the proposal, making an allowance for traffic generated by the existing uses to be removed, and distributing this traffic onto the highway network. They consider that, on the basis that 80% of the traffic will be distributed via the A500 junctions, the surrounding network would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic from this development.
The proposal involves the reconfiguration of the car park and the introduction of additional retail floor space which will generate a high level of demand for parking spaces. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposed level of parking is appropriate.
Policy T16 of the Local Plan sets out, in the associated Annex, maximum parking standards for different uses. The maximum number of parking spaces for ASDA, Homebase, Matalan and the proposed M&S store (given the level of floorspace for food retailing is 1 space per 14 sq.m of floor space and for non-food retailing 1 space per 20 sq.m) is 1,551 spaces. The submission indicates that there will be a total of 1,479 parking spaces for the whole retail park. Consequently the proposed number of spaces, just 72 spaces short of the maximum, is considered within a reasonable tolerance level.
Design and impact on the form and character of the area
The NPPF, at paragraph 56, indicates that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It goes on to state, at paragraph 57, that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. SSSP Policy D2 and CSS CSP1 reflect this national policy. In addition the Urban Design Guidance SPD sets out design principles and policies against which the design of the development should be assessed.
The proposal comprises a two storey building measuring around 10.1m to the eaves with a total ridge height of around 11.7m (which compares to the existing units that measure about 7.6m to eaves and 9.2m to ridge). The building will be clad in polished masonry blockwork at ground floor on the eastern elevation (facing towards the A500), the majority of the northern elevation (looking towards the Bloor Homes Grange Lane development), and a further two sections on the southern elevation (facing towards Matalan). The remainder of the walls are to be clad with flat panel cladding predominantly in white at first floor level, with mid grey sections at ground floor and the remainder of the first floor. The shallow pitched roof is to be clad in a colour- coated aluminium standing seam cladding system, with a mid grey standing seam aluminium parapet. There is to be plant sited on the roof and this is to be enclosed in white colour coated louvres.
The store is to have two entrances. One is located centrally on the eastern elevation with frameless glazing at either side at ground and first floor level. The second entrance is located on the northern elevation (close to the north eastern corner of the building). Glazing is proposed at ground and first floor level between the
Page 27 entrance on the northern elevation and the north east corner of the building. The first floor glazing extends around onto the eastern elevation where the café is located. Both entrances are sited beneath signage towers that project from the face of the building. A feature glazed canopy extends along the length of the eastern elevation and along part of the northern and southern elevations. A largely opaque glazing system is also proposed at first floor level along part of the northern elevation which will contain a small clear glazed section providing natural light to the staff areas.
The proposed building, whilst not innovative in design, is an improvement on the appearance of the existing buildings on site. The choice of materials for the building are considered to be appropriate, durable and easy to maintain and would accord with Policy E8 of the Urban Design Guidance SPD.
Due to the topography of the surrounding area, the rear service yard and roofscape of the building are visually important in this location however the design doesn’t reflect that it will be visually prominent from a number of views. This was a concern expressed by MADE, the urban design review panel that have considered the proposal and is also a matter that is addressed in Policy E9 of the Urban Design Guidance SPD which states that the design of roofs and roofscapes need to be carefully considered in relation to the context and should respond to whether and how they will be viewed. Discussions with the applicant have taken place with regard to possible amendments to the roof of the building however it is accepted that any meaningful amendments would be at a significant cost that could not be justified. Amended plans have been received incorporating an additional belt of trees along the top of the existing western bund alongside the A527 to filter/limit the views of the roof and the service yard and additional planting is shown along the service yard fence line.
The proposal involves the removal of areas of landscaping within the car park and around the methane pumping station. In addition the car parking area will extend in a northerly and easterly direction into the area at the top of the steep, landscaped, embankment adjoining the access road and the A527. A number of trees will be lost (28 category B trees in total). The trees to be lost are relatively immature and in principle the loss of these trees, where they cannot be retained, is acceptable providing that suitable replacement planting is secured.
The trees will, to some extent, be replaced by landscaping along the western and northern boundaries of the site, in addition to some within the parking area. As indicated above amended plans have already been received providing further planting of the embankment on the western side of the site is possible to fill in the gap between the existing landscaping and that proposed. In addition, in line with the advice of the Landscape Development Section, the amended plans received incorporate more tree planting and underplanting in the landscape buffer that adjoins the northern boundary of the parking area. The requirement, of the Landscape Development Section, that the replacement trees has been addressed as the plans identify that the trees are to be Extra Heavy Standards.
The plateau forming the retail park does not provide a pleasant environment for shoppers when arriving on foot, by bus or when parking their vehicles to access the buildings as has been raised by MADE. It is considered that the proposal provides an opportunity to significantly improve the customers’ experience of the retail park, and amended plans have been received in an attempt to achieve this. The amended layout achieves the following:-
• An improved and direct pedestrian link from the new bus stop to the front of the store. This link will be covered by a canopy and as such will provide a sheltered route through the car park. • The vehicle circulation route that ran along the entire frontage of the store has been ‘broken’ in three places. This should reduce traffic flows along the store frontages where the focus of pedestrian movements is greatest. • Additional tree planting (Extra Heavy Standard) is shown within the car park together with additional planting beds.
It is considered that these amendments improve the car park layout and internal access routes providing customers with an easier and safe route across the car park, with some shelter provided and increasing the amount of landscaping to soften the appearance of what otherwise is a “sea of tarmac”.
In response to MADE’s request that the developer and the local authority work together on a major landscaped design and improvement initiative for the site and its environs, the applicant has offered a financial contribution of £100,000 for off site landscaping. This is a significant sum of money and such off site landscaping is likely to require the cooperation of the Highway Authority and possibly the Highways Agency.
Page 28 At this point in time it cannot be concluded that such a contribution is justified and that the necessary agreement, in principle of the appropriate landowner can be secured. It is hoped that further information can be reported on this matter before the meeting.
Residential amenity
There is the potential that the noise from plant and vehicles loading and unloading could cause disturbance to nearby residents. The submitted acoustic assessment indicates, through noise modelling, that adequate noise attenuation will be achieved given the existing topography, landscaping and buildings. It is understood that a screen is to be provided which is to be a 3m masonry wall which will run into the existing 3m high earth bund.
Whilst further discussions are taking place between the Environmental Health Division and the acoustic consultant to ensure that the noise levels that the report advises can be achieved is realistic, it is considered that this matter can be satisfactorily resolved through the use of appropriate conditions.
The proposed building is located towards the northerly end of the retail park and therefore is located closest to the dwellings on Grange Lane and those recently constructed at Wulfstan Park (the Bloor Homes development). The proposed store is taller than the existing building by about 2.2m and closer to the nearest dwellings at Wulfstan Park by about 5m, and those on Grange Lane by about 18m. Nevertheless the dwellings will still be at a higher level than the proposed buildings and the separation and the intervening highway ensures that the development would not be overbearing or have an otherwise unacceptable impact on the outlook of the occupiers of these dwellings.
Conclusion
The NPPF indicates, at paragraph 27, that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on planned investment in a town centre or on town centre vitality and viability, it should be refused. It is considered that the applicants have submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy the sequential test and that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on these matters. In addition the proposal will create a significant number of jobs and result in visual improvement to the retail park. Whilst the proposal, by virtue of its location which does not have good access to modes of transport other than the private car, could not be considered to be sustainable it is considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh the above concerns.
Ability of the LPA to determine the application
The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 applies to any application for planning permission which is for certain development outside town centres. In this particular case the proposal involves the creation of more than 2,500 sq.m. of retail floor space which is not in accordance with the approved development plans for the area and as such if the Council are minded to approve the proposal the Secretary of State must be consulted. The purpose of this consultation is simply to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to decide whether to exercise his power to “call in “ the application.
Background Papers Planning file Planning documents referred to
Date Report Prepared 2 April 2012
Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 30 Wolstanton retail park – M & S proposals
11/611/FUL
385800.000000 385900.000000 386000.000000 386100.000000 386200.000000 7
B
2 oro 12 DAVE
C
onst
Y
& 2 C UA .000000 LO .000000
S B E dy
to 7 1 View arsh Pitm
348300 348300
to 28 to 6
A
500
SL
55 to 7
Und
1
LOWFIEL
50 t 50 o 66 o
D
WOLSTANTON DR
I VE
.000000 .000000 4
B ui
l der's Yard Works 348200 348200
GR
A
NGE L Mile Post 18
AN
E .000000 .000000 348100 348100
24 to 7 1
Grange Court 39
1 3 6 1 El Sub Sta to 9
El Sub Sta
16 8
1 to to 1 19 10 .000000 .000000
6
GRANGE 15
RC ary 2 348000 348000
ool LANE
11
7
1
E AN E L
GRANG
LOW .000000 .000000
FIEL
D DRI D
V
E 84
347900 3 Marsh Hal l 347900 6 e Communit y Centr
74
72
This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material 45 43
47 with the permission62 of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes
.000000 Tank .000000 Crown copyright31 and may lead to civil proceedings.
25
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654Wolstanton - 2012 Retail Park 40 5 0
347800 HIG HFIEL 347800
13
D 3 385800.000000 385900.000000 386000.000000 386100.000000 386200.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council 1:2,500 Planning & Development Services Date 17.04.2012 ¯ Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 32 Agenda Item 5
LAND AT CHARTER ROAD, CROSS HEATH BARRATT MERCIA/ ASPIRE HOUSING. 12/00036/OUT
The Application is for full planning permission for residential development of 117 dwellings. The site is currently vacant, previously containing residential properties, the last 60 properties being demolished in the last 12 to 18 months. The vehicular accesses are via the existing accesses onto Albemarle Road and King Street. The application site, of approximately 2.79 hectares in extent, is within the Newcastle Urban Neighbourhood as indicated on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.
The proposal would provide 88 open market dwellings and 29 affordable dwellings.
The 13 week period for the determination of this application expires on 3 May 2012.
RECOMMENDATI ON S
(a) That subject to the applicant entering into a S106 obligation by 1 May 2012 to secure the following:
(i) A financial contribution of £44,401 towards the Newcastle (urban) Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS). (ii) A financial contribution of £167,751 towards public open space. (iii) A financial contribution of £77,217 towards the provision of education facilities.
Permit subject to conditions relating to the following matters:
(1) Standard Time limit condition. (2) Approved plans/drawings/documents. (3) Approval of all external facing and roofing materials. (4) Landscaping scheme. (5) The provision of additional street trees. (6) Details of boundary treatments. (7) Construction management plan and method statement including construction hours. (8) Contaminated land conditions. (9) Approval of recyclable materials and refuse storage (10) Details of design measures to achieve acceptable internal noise levels in dwellings. (11) Road specification details. (12) Details of the proposed parking courts. (13) Approval of measures to provide adequate lengths of drives in front of proposed garages. (14) Surfacing details of proposed access drives. (15) Restriction of the use of proposed garages. (16) Submission of scheme to prevent surface water run-off. (17) Highway dropped crossing specification. (18) A management plan for the “Mews”. (19) Removal of property’s permitted development rights on identified plots. (20) Approval of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels.
(b) That should the matters referred to in (i), (ii) and (iii) above not be secured within the above period, the Head of Regeneration and Planning Services be given delegated authority to refuse the application on the grounds that without such matters being secured the development would fail to secure the provision of adequate public open space, measures to ensure that the development achieves sustainable development outcomes or provision for education as applicable, or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which the obligation can be secured.
Page 33 Reason for Recommendation
The use of the site for residential development has been established with its previous residential use. The development of this site has major regeneration benefits for the Knutton and Cross Heath area, and Newcastle as a whole. The site was within an Area of Major Intervention as designated by Renew and had been previously identified as an important site in the regeneration of the area generally, being a catalyst to kick start new development within the immediate area. The proposal provides an acceptable layout and design which is accordance with planning policy and design guidance. Whilst no planning obligation is being sought to secure the affordable housing which enables the applicant to secure further funding towards the scheme, it considered there is sufficient commitment by both the applicant and other public bodies to ensure the affordable housing is provided in this particular proposal. Other section 106 obligations and planning conditions are being recommended which will make the proposed development acceptable, the development accords with the provisions of the development plan and there are no material planning consideration that would justify refusing the proposed development.
Policies and Proposals in the Approved Development Plan Relevant to This Decision:-
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 (WMRSS)
Policy UR1: Implementing Urban Renaissance – the Major Urban Areas (MUAs) Policy CF1: Housing within the Major Urban Areas Policy CF3: Levels and distribution of housing development Policy CF4: The reuse of land and buildings for housing Policy CF5: Delivering Affordable Housing and Mixed Communities Policy CF6: Managing Housing Land Provision Policy PA1: Prosperity for All Policy QE1: Conserving and Enhancing the Environment Policy QE3: Creating a High Quality Built Environment for all Policy T2: Reducing the Need to Travel Policy T3: Walking and Cycling Policy T5: Public Transport
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 – 2011 (SSSP)
Policy D1: Sustainable Forms of Development Policy D2: The Design and Environmental Quality of Development Policy D3: Urban Regeneration Policy D8: Providing Infrastructure Services, Facilities and/or Mitigating Measures associated with development Policy H4: Portfolio of Sites Policy T1A: Sustainable Location Policy T4: Walking Policy T5: Cycling Policy T7: Public Transport Provision Policy T13: Local Roads Policy T18A: Transport and Development Policy R1: Providing for Recreation and Leisure
Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 (adopted 2009) (CSS)
Policy SP1: Spatial principles of Targeted Regeneration Policy SP3: Spatial principles of Movement and Access Policy ASP5: Newcastle and Kidsgrove Urban Neighbourhoods Area Spatial Policy Policy CSP1: Design Quality Policy CSP3: Sustainability and Climate Change Policy CSP5: Open Space/Sport/Recreation Policy CSP6: Affordable Housing Policy CSP10: Planning Obligations
Page 34 Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 (NLP)
Policy H1: Residential development: Sustainable location and protection of the countryside Policy T16: Development - General Parking Requirements Policy C4: Open Space in New Housing Areas
Other Material Considerations Include:
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework March 2012. This sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where such applications are in accordance with the development plan and unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In seeking to deliver sustainable development it sets out policy under a number of headings including amongst others promoting sustainable transport, delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, and requiring Good Design.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that it is the Government’s intention to revoke RSSs and the Localism Act 2011, which includes powers to give effect to that intention, received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. However, pending the making of a revocation order in accordance with the new Act, the RSS remains part of the statutory development plan. Nevertheless, the intention to revoke the RSS and the enactment are material considerations.
Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions
CIL Regulations, particularly Section 122
Manual for Streets (2006)
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
Developer Contributions SPD (September 2007)
Affordable Housing SPD (2009)
Space Around Dwellings SPG (SAD) (July 2004)
Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2010)
Newcastle Urban Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS) – adopted December 2008
North Staffordshire Green Space Strategy – adopted December 2009
Waste Management and Recycling Planning Practice Guidance Note (January 2011)
Relevant Site and Planning History
Members will be aware that the wider area of Knutton and Cross Heath has been subject to housing intervention over the last 8 years due to the area suffering from long term deprivation, anti-social behaviour and a poor environment. This intervention followed North Staffordshire being selected as one of nine housing market renewal pathfinders. Given the area’s ongoing problems an Area of Major Intervention was established by RENEW North Staffordshire.
As part of this Intervention the wider area has seen development/improvements take place including:
• the Primary Care and Extra Care facility on Lower Milehouse Lane, • the redevelopment of the remainder of the former Collins and Aikman site of Lower Milehouse Lane (Phase one affordable housing) (it is understood that building out of phase two of that site will commence in the near future providing further open market housing to the area). • The clearance of existing dwellings on the Wilmot Drive estate, and
Page 35 • Environmental improvements to the “Wammy” open space area
The application site was identified as a particular problem area suffering from long term deprivation and anti- social behaviour and as such a decision was made to demolish the existing properties and redevelop the site with a mix of open market and affordable dwellings so that it could become a catalyst for further improvements in the immediate residential area.
Approximately 8 years ago 22 bungalows in the south east corner of the site were demolished due to them suffering from the problems highlighted and two outline planning permissions were granted on that land - one for residential development and one for a Primary Health Care Centre. Neither of these permissions were implemented and they have since expired - the Health Care Centre facility being provided on the Lower Milehouse Lane site. The remaining 60 dwellings on the site were demolished approximately 12 to 18 months ago due to ongoing problems and with a view to redeveloping the site. Originally there were therefore 82 dwellings on this site compared with the 117 now proposed.
Views of Consultees
The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed relating to the following matters:
• Road Specifications • Formal closure of the part of the public highway to be stopped up • Details of the private parking courts to clarified • The lengths of drives in front of proposed garages • The surfacing detail of all drives and access • Construction Method statement • Restriction on the use of the proposed garages • Surface water drainage details
The Highway Authority has also indicated that if the proposal is recommended for approval, they would seek a financial contribution towards NTADS for £44,401.
The County Council as the Education Authority advises the development would generate demand for 7 Primary school spaces for which there is not capacity and as such are requesting a financial contribution in the sum of £77,217
The Landscape Development Section advises additional tree avenue planting is required along the main route through the development. Tree planting is crucial to the visual appeal and to the operation of the car parking arrangements on this development and subject to this there are no objections to the proposal subject to assurances that significant additional tree avenue planting can be provided and an appropriate landscaping condition.
They also advise that a Section 106 obligation is required to secure public open space improvements and maintenance for this development to meet the additional requirements that this development will make on green space, as outlined in the adopted Green Space Strategy.
The total contribution per dwelling is £2,943; therefore the contribution required for the net gain of 57 dwellings is £167,751.
The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions regarding the treatment of surface water run-off being dealt with in sustainable manner.
The Environmental Health Division has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions regarding construction hours, a construction management plan, contaminated land, internal noise levels in dwellings, and recyclable materials and refuse storage and disposal arrangements.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to the statement made within the Design and Access statement.
Page 36 The Waste Management Service has no objections in principle subject to assurances that the carriage way construction is to a highway standard capable of withstanding HGV traffic.
No comments have been received from the Knutton and Cross Heath LAP, and Severn Trent Water by the due date and therefore it must be assumed that they have no observations.
Representations
None received.
Applicant/Agent’s Submission
The application is supported by the following documents;
• Design and Access Statement • Noise Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment • Ground Investigation report • Section 106 considerations Statement
The main points within the Design and Access Statement are as follows:
• A description of the site • An overall analysis including: • the wider and local area context of the site • a study of the form, architectural and street scene detail • layout key characteristics • Urban Design Strategy • Design Proposals including • site layout • street hierarchy • landscape strategy • parking and transportation strategy • refuse and recycling strategy • noise impact access • secure by design statement • open space assessment.
The Statement also contains illustrative street scene and computer generated images of specific sections of the proposed streetscenes
The main points of Section 106 consideration Statement are as follows:
• A background to the housing intervention both in the wider area of Knutton and Cross Heath and specifically the application site. • The application proposal • Affordable Housing • Off Site contributions including education, green space strategy and Newcastle Urban Transport and Development Strategy. • Conclusion
Where relevant, reference is made to points made within these documents within the key issues section below.
All of these documents are available for inspection at The Guildhall and on www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk
Page 37 Key Issues
This application is for full planning permission for residential development for 117 dwellings on this former residential site. Of the 117, 29 are being proposed as affordable dwellings, representing 24.78% of the total dwellings. The development would have vehicular access off King Street to the north of the site and Albemarle Road to the south west of the site. These are existing accesses which served the previous housing development on this site. King Street in turn connects with the northbound carriageway of the A34 Liverpool Road (part of the Strategic Highway Network)
The breakdown of the 117 proposed residential units is as follows:-
• 34 houses would have 2 bedrooms • 55 houses would have 3 bedrooms • 14 houses would have 4 bedrooms • 14 bungalows (8 two bedrooms and 6 three bedrooms)
As discussed in the Planning History section of this report, until relatively recently the application site had 60 dwellings on it. Given this, it is considered that it is appropriate to take these previous dwellings into account and consider that the potential additional demand the completed development will make on the existing services and infrastructure of the area is that associated with the additional 57 dwellings now proposed. It is considered that the 22 dwellings demolished some 10 years ago should not be taken into account in the same way, given the time that has lapsed since then.
The key issues for consideration in the determination of this application are:-
• Is the principle of the development of this site for residential purposes acceptable? • Is adequate provision made to provide Affordable housing on the site? • Would the development be acceptable in terms of the impact on the form and character of the area? • Would the proposed development have any adverse impact upon highway safety, does the development promote sustainable transport choices and, if so, how does this need to be secured? • Would the development impinge unduly upon levels of residential amenity within adjoining properties and does the proposal also provide appropriate standards of residential amenity for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings themselves? • What impact would the development have upon the local schools in terms of additional pupil numbers and how could this matter be addressed? • Will appropriate open space provision be made?
Is the principle of the development of this site for residential purposes acceptable?
Policy ASP5 of the Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) – adopted after 2004, and thus under the terms of the transition arrangements set out in the NPPF, that part of the approved development plan which is to be given at present “full weight” in decision making - sets a requirement for at least 4,800 net additional dwellings in the urban area of Newcastle-under-Lyme by 2026 and a target of at least 3,200 dwellings within Newcastle Urban Central (which includes Silverdale, Thistleberry, Knutton, Cross Heath, Chesterton and the Town Centre).
The site was within an Area of Major Intervention and CSS Policy SP1 identifies such areas as being the primary targets for regeneration including new housing.
RENEW itself no longer exists but nonetheless, given that it is referred to in Policy SP1, it is necessary to consider whether the development would assist or harm the former aims of RENEW. The site is within the boundary of the former RENEW Pathfinder Area and this is an identified site for redevelopment. It is considered that the overall effect will be positive in terms of the local housing market.
CSS Policy SP1 also states that new development will be prioritised in favour of previously developed land where it can support sustainable patterns of development and provides access to services and service centres by foot, public transport and cycling. Given the site until recently accommodated 60 dwellings together with further 22 dwellings which were demolished approximately 8 years ago, the site is viewed as brownfield. This proposal makes a more efficient use of land providing a further 35 dwellings over and above the number originally upon this site.
Page 38 The delivery of this site is taken account within the calculation for the Borough’s five year housing supply and given the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land a refusal of planning permission could, depending upon the reason for that decision, result in further shortfall in this supply.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that residential development applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. In this case given that the policies favour the proposal there is no conflict between such policies and that within the NPPF.
On the basis of all of the above, it is considered that the principle of residential development in this location should be supported.
Is adequate provision made to provide Affordable housing on the site?
Policy CSP6 of the CSS states that for new residential development within the urban area, on sites or parts of sites proposed to, or capable of, accommodating 15 or more dwellings will be required to contribute towards affordable housing at a rate equivalent to a target of 25% of the total dwellings to be provided.
The applicants are proposing to provide 29 of the units as affordable dwellings, this would fall in with the requirement of the above policy and as such should be supported.
The Affordable Housing SPD does advise that usually there should be a greater degree of social rented than shared ownership. During the discussions with Aspire Housing, prior to the submission of the application, this tenure breakdown was discussed and provisionally agreed at 18 rented units and 11 shared ownership units, but the applicants are seeking some flexibility on this. It is recognised that the redevelopment of the site aims to regenerate the area and as it is considered provided the split between the rented units and those in shared ownership is between 24:5 and 12:17 respectively then that would be acceptable.
Affordable Housing is normally secured via an obligation under section 106 of the 1990 Act, to ensure that first of all that it is secured by a legal agreement, and that the affordable housing built is occupied in perpetuity only by people that fall within the identified categories of need for affordable housing, that there are appropriate trigger and phasing clauses.
In this particular case the applicants have put forward a case and request, within their Section 106 contribution statement, that any such requirement is not made by a section 106 obligation route given such a requirement would prevent the applicant securing a substantial amount of funding from the Homes and Community Agency (HCA). A discussion has also taken place exploring the potential to secure the affordable housing with the imposition of a planning condition, but this approach fails on two fronts 1) such a condition would need to be extremely lengthy and complex and would fail to meet the tests set out in the Circular on planning conditions: and 2) even if it was possible to impose a condition, such a condition would have the same effect as a section 106 obligation in respect of the applicant’s ability to secure the funding from the HCA.
As part of the application submission within the Section 106 contribution statement the applicants have acknowledged that usually such an obligation is required to secure the affordable units on a residential development scheme but they have put forward the following case why it is considered in this instance such an obligation would not be required for this development:
Aspire are a Registered Provider, regulated by the Tenant Services Authority and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). Whilst this is a joint planning application with Barratts, as Aspire own all of the land involved, we have ultimate control in ensuring the delivery of the scheme as proposed. Therefore, we can guarantee that the affordable properties will be provided.
It is Aspire’s heritage and chosen role to provide affordable housing within the Borough of Newcastle-under- Lyme. This has been confirmed in our Board approved Corporate Business Plan and the 2011-15 Growth Strategy. Both of these documents stress our on-going commitment to:-
- the provision of additional affordable housing units within the Borough.
Page 39 - reinforcing the sustainability of our estates by satisfying different income levels via the mix of accommodation provided and diversity of tenure. - regeneration within the Knutton and Cross Heath Area of Major Intervention by continuing the considerable financial investment into environmental projects. - continued management of all our housing stock, whilst striving to increase resident involvement and satisfaction with the services offered.
The proposals included within this planning application aim to assist us in all of these objectives and therefore, it is in Aspire’s interest, as well as the Borough Council’s, to ensure that the affordable housing is delivered.
For the affordable housing units, Aspire has received HCA grant funding under the ‘Affordable Homes Programme 2011-15’ and there has been an informal indication that this project is seen as a priority for the HCA. However, the framework guidance for their Programme indicated that grant was not applicable for either rented or shared ownership affordable housing that was subject to delivery via a S106 agreement. This position has since been confirmed by the HCA.
Therefore, if the affordable housing is the subject of a Section 106 agreement, Aspire will not be able to draw down the HCA grant and a considerable amount of central government subsidy will be lost to the scheme and thus potentially to the Borough. (From the applicants submitted Section 106 contribution statement)
It is understood that that, as well as the above HCA funding, a separate funding agreement has been entered into which will see funds transferred from Stoke City Council to the Borough Council who would then pay this to Aspire Housing (it should be noted this funding agreement is outside the control of planning system).
The primary function of the agreement is to compensate Aspire for the loss of rental income for the homes demolished at Charter Road through the Renew programme but it also seeks to secure the development of the site as per the layout and design of the planning application and provides a clause that the Borough Council will receive of any land sale outside of the agreed scheme ( in effect introducing a penalty clause should Aspire’s proposals for this land change and not include affordable housings). That said there could still be a financial incentive upon Aspire for that to happen..
Officers of the Council and Aspire Housing have worked closely together having extensive discussions and negotiations relating to both this funding agreement as well as proposed tenure mix issue as discussed above.
Aspire Housing support the Council’s Local Investment Plan which identifies Charter Road as a key development priority in terms of regeneration. The Homes and Communities Agency also support this document and it is utilised to prioritise the allocation of funding. In terms of financial commitment the Homes and Communities Agency have allocated funding to Aspire Housing (through the Sanctuary Housing partnership) for the delivery of affordable housing in Newcastle and Staffordshire. Charter Road is identified as a priority for this funding however this is not conditional and the programme could be altered to ensure delivery within the programme timescales.
Given the involvement and support of public bodies, the amount of public funding potential available to be used on this site to deliver the proposed development together with the recognition that the redevelopment of the site is seen as a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area, it is considered that a reasonable way forward in these particular circumstances is not to specifically required by condition or obligation the provision of affordable housing by either section 106 or by planning condition but to rely upon mechanisms and commitments given outside of the planning system..
Would the development be acceptable in terms of the impact on the form and character of the area and provide an acceptable design?
The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 56 advises that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 57 goes on to state the importance to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private places.
Page 40 Paragraph 64 advises permissions should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunity available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
The adopted Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document. The purpose of the document is to provide a practical tool to help to:
• Promote good, sustainable, urban design. • Explain how spatial principles and design policies in the Core Spatial Strategy will be applied. • Provide guidance in relation to planning applications: to applicants when formulating proposals; to planning officers when assessing them; and to politicians when making decisions, on what constitutes good, sustainable urban design. • Provide guidance to public sector commissioning bodies on strategies and proposals.
Section 7 of the document specifically deals with residential development
The area surrounding the application site is predominantly residential with the exception of to the south east where the application site shares a boundary with an existing commercial use (Swift House). The adjoining dwellings are of a traditional design either semi-detached or within short lengths of terraces, the exception to this is on the site’s southern boundary where there are four blocks of three storey maisonettes flats end on to the site and a short terraced of three single storey dwellings.
The topography of the application site is relatively level on the north/south axis with the land gently rising from the lower western side to the higher eastern side of the site.
The layout of the proposed development is based on the existing road alignment of Charter Road with two looped roads either side of the elbow of this existing highway with six short cul-de-sacs (described here as Mews) off the existing highway or one of the proposed looped roads. The use of street trees is being proposed. The hierarchy of the proposed road layout is detailed further below.
The proposed dwellings would be either two storeys or single storey with a mix of detached, semi- detached and short terraces of a traditional design all with pitched roofs.
The breakdown of the size of dwellings is as above and 14 different designs are to be used. These designs are considered to be relatively simple with a narrow palette of materials including a combination of brick and render wall finishes. The designs have taken references from the surrounding residential properties, both in their form and detailing.
A repeated characteristic of the existing dwellings is that some blocks of dwellings have a front elevation gabled wall which features on the end dwellings of those blocks. This feature is repeated in the proposed scheme within the blocks of dwellings and these also serve as entrance features to the proposed Mews. One of the house designs (type F), used on 5 of the proposed corner plots, has a cranked design which assist turning the dwellings on these corner plots providing a softer urban form. This is used in the two loops adjacent to the elbow of the existing carriageway.
It is considered the proposal provides appropriate design solutions and the proposal layout and accords with the relevant planning policy and adopted guidance. Subject to planning conditions controlling the details of the development such as the facing, roofing and surfacing materials and boundary treatments, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its form and character.
Would the proposed development have any adverse impact upon highway safety, does the development promote sustainable transport choices and, if so, how does this need to be secured?
The recently introduced National Planning Policy Framework advises at paragraph 32 - All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether amongst other things safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.
Page 41 Paragraph 34 goes on to state Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.
The site is well located in relation to access to non-car modes of travel with frequent bus services on Liverpool Road, and the site within walking distance of the town centre.
As stated previously the proposed vehicular access to the application site would utilise the existing junctions onto Albemarle Road and King Street. The layout of the proposal uses the alignment of the existing Charter Road carriageway, described as the Primary Street within the submitted Design and Access Statement, off this two looped roads are provided either side of the elbow of this primary highway, described the secondary streets, with six short cul-de-sacs (Mews) off the primary or secondary street.
The “primary street” is made up of a 5.5 metre carriageway, a 2 metre visitor parking/verge/ street tree band and a 2 metre footway on both sides.
The secondary streets are made up of a shared surface carriageway 5 metres wide, within which there would be informal parking and pedestrian access.
The mews are made up again of a shared surface of varying widths between 3 and 5 metres with parking courts off the mews.
The proposed layout, to provide a road network hierarchy, uses shared surfaces and a variety of surfacing materials, reduction in road widths and the use of street trees which all adds to the creation of a sense of place. This approach is very much in line with the advice found in the guidance found in both Manual for Streets and the adopted Urban Design SPD.
Policy T16 of the Local Plan indicates that development should not provide more parking than the maximum levels specified in the Plan but it does go onto say that where the level to be provided is significantly less than the maximum specified, permission will not be granted if this will create or aggravate a local on street parking or traffic problem and such problems cannot be addressed by other means. The policy is based upon now superceded national guidance which at that time stipulated maximum levels of parking provision for residential development
The proposed layout would provide a total of 265 parking spaces, including garage and visitor spaces serving 117 dwelling giving an average of approximately 2.1 spaces per dwelling. These parking spaces are provided in up to 9 different parking solutions including on street parallel bays, to be used for visitor parking; on plot driveways and garages; front, mews and rear parking courts. This approach is supported by Policy R9 of the Urban Design Guidance SPD which identifies that a good residential layout generally incorporates a variety of parking solutions.
The Highway Authority, following the submission of additional information/details, has not raised an objection to the proposal subject to a number of conditions relating to highway specifications, formal closure of the highways to be stopped up, detailing of the private parking courts, private drives lengths in front of proposed garages, accesses to be surfaced in bound material, construction method statement, restriction on the use of the proposed garages and drainage.
The Highway Authority has requested a financial contribution to NTADS, their request being based on the net increase of dwellings on the site. They have provided a copy of a spreadsheet of the predicted additional movements at each of the identified cost node junctions across the Borough – the basis of the contribution calculation. They calculate that the required contribution is £44,401.
In terms of ensuring that the scheme would promote the use of more sustainable modes of travel, an NTADS contribution should be sought and this would be fully in line with development plan policy and the Strategy. The National Planning Policy Framework replaces the previous guidance in the circular 0/2005. There is a statutory test which planning obligations must now pass – the matter is no longer at the discretion of the Planning Authority. The test requires that a planning obligation should be:-
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • Directly related to the development
Page 42 • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
The calculation of the required NTADS sum has a clear and reasonable rationale and the criteria in the test would be met, and accordingly the NTADS contribution would be justified. This would have to be done by means of a planning obligation, secured either by agreement or undertaking.
Would the development impinge unduly upon levels of residential amenity within adjoining properties and does the proposal also provide appropriate standards of residential amenity for the occupiers of the houses themselves?
Amenity of existing occupiers adjacent to the development
Properties in King Street, Albemarle Road, Orton Road, Wilton Street and Derwent Place adjoin the site. The proposed bungalows within the application submission would be sited around the edge of the application site. It is considered that there are sufficient separation distances between these existing properties and those now being proposed as not to cause any adverse impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers.
Amenity of Future occupiers of the development
The application submission is accompanied by an Environmental Noise Impact Report, which identifies that road traffic is the dominant noise source affecting the application site and that the mitigation measures proposed to the glazing of the habitable rooms would achieve a “good” standard. The Environmental Health Division ask for a planning condition requiring glazing to be installed to achieve this “good” standard.
The proposed dwellings would generally provide garden/amenity areas which meet the sought lengths/ areas referred to in the advice found in SPG for these sizes of dwellings. Where there are some shortfalls is where the dwellings which are being proposed provide interesting design solutions for example the properties which form the designed splayed corners which in turn form irregular shaped gardens. In some of these instances the properties’ rear gardens back onto proposed parking forecourts rather than directly onto other residential properties.
It is considered whilst some of the units are below the standard indicated in the adopted guidance the development would provide an attractive development and that future occupiers of the development also have the option to utilise the large open space areas and play areas within easy walking distance of the site.
In summary it is considered the proposed layout provides an appropriate level of residential amenity to the future occupiers of the development however it is considered prudent given the above to remove permitted development rights to certain plots where the plots are below the requirement set out in the guidance.
What impact would the development have upon the local schools in terms of additional pupil numbers and how could this matter be addressed?
The County Council are the responsible body who manage pupil numbers and recognising new residential development leads to demands for additional pupil spaces, the County Council have produced a document “Education Planning Obligation Policy” in 2003, with regular updates. This provides the policy background together with formulae to estimate additional demand.
The development falls within the catchments of Hempstalls Primary School and NCHS – The Science College.
The County Council advises that the development could add 7 Primary School aged pupils and 12 High School aged pupils.
NCHS – The Science College is projected to have sufficient space to accommodate the likely demand from pupils generated by the development.
However, Hempstalls Primary School is projected to be full for the foreseeable future and as such the County Council are requesting a contribution towards Primary School provision only.
Page 43 An Education Contribution is sought for 7 Primary School places (7 x £11,031 = £77,217). This gives a total request of £77,217. This figure has been discounted to take into account of the net increase in the number of dwelling to be provided on the application.
This type of request is secured with the imposition of a section 106 obligation and it is considered that this request would meet the criteria for planning obligations as outlined in the section above.
Will appropriate open space provision be made?
LP Policy C4 states that appropriate amounts of publicly accessible open space must be provided in areas of new housing.
Policy CSP5 of the CSS states that the plan area’s open space, sports and leisure assets will be enhanced, maintained and protected by a number of measures.
The proposal does not provide any public open space within the site, in such circumstances Policy C4 of the Local Plan advises that a developer will be invited to make some other contribution in accordance with the scale to be determined by the Council, and the adopted Green Space Strategy sets out a method of calculation of that contribution.
The Landscape Development Section has requested that a financial contribution for this development for capital development/improvement of off-site green space is £1,791 per dwelling, and £1,152 per dwelling (for 60% of maintenance costs for 10 years).
The total contribution per dwelling being £2,943; the contribution required for the net gain of 57 dwellings is £167,751.
In the light of this request Aspire as one of the joint applicants say that they have carried out a number of environmental improvements, for example, to areas of open space and play areas over a number of years in close proximity of the application site within the Area of Major Intervention and they argue that such works/improvements should be discounted off the public open space contribution sought.
Your Officer’s view, on the basis of advice received from the Landscape Development Section, is that these previously completed projects did not directly contribute either to the delivery of the local standards and action plan programme that is set out in the Green Space Strategy, or to the provision of additional facilities that would be required to meet the demand created by the new development.
Two areas of public open space (within 800 metres of the site), which will serve this development, at Meadow Lane and The Wammy are identified in the Green Space Strategy as requiring improvement. In each of these sites it is proposed to create a new NEAP (Neighbourhood Area Equipped for Play) and it is proposed that the contributions secured through this development would be used to support one or both of these projects. Such expenditure would be directly related to the development which is the subject of this application.
Whilst the North Staffordshire Green Space Strategy identified the Knutton and Cross Heath area as having excessive quantity of open space there is a short fall in respect of the quality of these areas.
In this instance it is considered appropriate to secure such a contribution towards Public Open Space provision as outlined above. The securing of such a contribution would meet the statutory tests already referred to.
Background Papers Planning file Planning documents referred to
Date Report Prepared 30 March 2012
Page 44 Land At Charter Road, Newcastle
12/36/FUL
384200.000000 384300.000000 384400.000000 384500.000000 384600.000000
.000000 MI .000000 6 244 1 0 8
6a RE
47
6 1 E VE
10 57 S
AVEN
PO
P
L 12 U 5 A
347400 E 347400
R 13 14
3
17
1 1 3
0
0 7 C 3
LOS 230
E 16 195 1 NUE 20 AVE
LAR
PO P 25 191
22
1 142.4m
92
5 1 2 14
123 3
28
3 CROSS HEATH 7 PW 13a 13 15a
15 Church 2
19 185 214
.000000 .000000 7 4 19a
112 13
16 55 21
1 a
11 90 21
1 8 2 8 0
23 177 b Clu 347300 347300 ET
TRE 1 S 22 33
KING
4 DE 28 RW
198 7
ENT 1
8 0 PLA
The Gardens
34 99
C 9 11
45 E 1 4 1 0 0
169 141.0m ALB PC
E
MARL
Shelter 17
E 1 9 ROAD
y
Subwa
165
6 46 1
6 2 5 78 27
87 1 3
.000000 Presb .000000
D
O
U
G LAS R El Sub Sta
CHARTER O
A 8
6
347200 D 347200
6 68 2 LIVE
ROAD
RPO
2 5
OL
47
0
75
3 139.2m
45 RO
2 AD
3
1
14
74 5 6
3
7 63 .000000 .000000
137.9m
8 4 3 ground 4 Warehouse AD 347100 RO 347100 6 52 2 TER
CHAR
95 51
26 30 28 32
118
1 0 3 14 to 4 42 2 82 46 86 84 to 88 56 114 2 0 7 to to 12 5 80 0 102 Works 34 to
39 to 112 28 44
58 137 to 34 90 8
20 to 6 35 .000000 .000000 36 100 1
D WILTO
LAXLEY ROA 131 16 N
O 21 37 El Sub Sta R T
TON EE 20
1 TR 9 4 S
136.3m
R LTO N STREET 7 WI 5
OAD
347000 347000
t o
6
Hall 5 14 E NU
AVE
1 7 1 2 HUGHES
3
2
87 to TCB
LB 7
7
1 7
29
34 8 59
63
57
6
1
1 6
2 31 to 3 to 31
G range
n
22
41 As stletow 39 74 h field Cou 66 This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material 64 24 50 r 38 t 34
24
48 with the permission46 of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. .000000 .000000 AL R 12 A BERMARL MSE HASSAM 2 © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes AVENU E Y RO DRIVE 2 0 S ROAD
AD E HAS 1 7 SAM AVENUE Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings.R
GLA
O
A 59
5 OU D 4 346900 346900
1 Newcastle-under-LymeD Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012
3 3
1
3
1
5 17
1
3
1 1 10
2
25
23
1
9 1
384200.000000 384300.000000 384400.000000 384500.000000 384600.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council 1:2,500 Planning & Development Services Date 17.04.2012 ¯ Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46 Agenda Item 6
140 GLOUCESTER ROAD, KIDSGROVE IDEAL CARE HOMES LTD. 12/00069/FUL
The Application is for full planning permission for the erection of a new 64-bed residential care home for the elderly on the site of a vacant care home.
The application site, which measures 0.48 hectares, is within the Urban Area of Kidsgrove as indicated on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map. Gloucester Road is an unclassified road.
The 13 week period for the determination of this application expires on 16 May 2012.
Recomme ndation
(a) That subject to the applicant entering into a S106 obligation by 11 May 2012 to secure payment of a £2,100 Travel Plan monitoring contribution,
Permit subject to conditions relating to the following matters:
• Commencement of the development • Plans referred to in consent • External materials • Construction Method Statement • Revised access details • Provision and retention of access road, parking and turning areas • Surfacing materials for access road and car park • Gates to be located a minimum of 5m rear of the highway boundary and open away from the highway • Details of secure weatherproof cycle parking • Submission, approval and implementation of travel plan • Details of air cooling/air extraction • Details of recyclable materials and refuse storage and disposal arrangements • Details of artificial lighting • Contaminated land conditions • Details of boundary treatments • Details of levels • Tree protection measures • Landscaping plan including tree planting to mitigate loss of existing trees
(b) That should the obligation referred to above not be secured within the above period, the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated authority to refuse the application on the grounds that without such a contribution being secured the development would not achieve and maintain a sustainable form in compliance with policies on sustainable development, or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which the obligation can be secured.
Reason for Recommendations
The site is currently occupied by a vacant care home and therefore the principle of the development of a new residential care facility is acceptable. The development is considered to comprise a satisfactory design solution that would be appropriate in its context and it is not considered that a refusal could be sustained on the grounds of adverse impact on residential amenity. Although the proposed development would result in the loss of a number of trees, subject to a requirement for replacement tree planting along the frontage of the site, this is considered acceptable. It is considered that given the nature of the use, the accessibility of the site and the opportunities available for staff and visitors to use alternative modes of transport to the car, the level of parking proposed is acceptable and there would be no adverse impact on highway safety. Subject to the imposition of suitable conditions and the securing of an appropriate financial contribution towards travel plan monitoring, it is not considered that there are any material considerations which would justify a refusal of planning permission.
Page 47
Policies and Proposals in the Approved Development Plan Relevant to This Decision:-
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS)
Policy UR1: Implementing Urban Renaissance – the MUA Policy CF1: Housing within the Major Urban Areas Policy CF3: Levels and Distribution of Housing Development Policy CF4: The Reuse of Land and Buildings for Housing Policy QE1: Conserving and Enhancing the Environment Policy QE3: Creating a High Quality Built Environment for all Policy T2: Reducing the Need to Travel Policy T3: Walking and Cycling Policy T4: Promoting Travel Awareness Policy T5: Public Transport
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (SSSP) 1996 - 2011
Policy D1: Sustainable Forms of Development Policy D2: The Design and Environmental Quality of Development Policy D8: Providing Infrastructure Services, Facilities and/or Mitigating Measures Associated with Development Policy T1A: Sustainable Location Policy T13: Local Roads Policy T18A: Transport and Development
Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) 2006-2026 (adopted 2009)
Policy ASP5: Newcastle and Kidsgrove Urban Neighbourhoods Area Spatial Policy Policy SP1: Spatial Principles of Targeted Regeneration Policy SP3: Spatial Principles of Movement and Access Policy CSP1: Design Quality Policy CSP3: Sustainability and Climate change Policy CSP10: Planning Obligations
Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan (NLP) 2011
Policy H1: Residential development: Sustainable location and protection of the countryside Policy C4: Open Space in New Housing Areas Policy N12: Development and the Protection of Trees Policy T16: Development – General Parking Requirements
Other Material Considerations include:
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)
Circular 11/95 The use of conditions in planning permissions
Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Developer Contributions SPD (September 2007)
Space Around Dwellings SPG (July 2004)
Newcastle Urban Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS) – adopted December 2008
North Staffordshire Green Space Strategy – adopted December 2009
Page 48
Waste Management and Recycling Planning Practice Guidance Note (January 2011)
Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide
Relevant Planning History
None
Views of Consultees
The Highway Authority (HA) has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions regarding a Construction Method Statement, revised access details, provision and retention of parking and turning areas, submission of drainage details, gates to be 5m rear of highway, provision of cycle parking, and submission and approval of a travel plan.
A monitoring fee of £2,100 is sought for the Travel Plan.
The HA say that the application has been assessed in regard to NTADS, however no contribution is required given the existing use of the site and the limited parking and numbers of staff employed. They consider that the development will not generate sufficient quantifiable additional trips onto the highway network within the PM peak.
The Environmental Health Division has no objections subject to conditions regarding demolition and construction hours, air cooling/air extraction, recyclable materials and refuse storage and disposal arrangements, artificial lighting and contaminated land.
The Landscape Development Section states that of the two trees to the front of the site, T5, shown to be removed, is the best specimen and T4, shown to be retained, has significant decay in its base and is not worthy of retention. The trees are a significant feature to the road corridor and retention is desirable. It is therefore requested that the proposed parking area is altered to allow for T5 to be retained. Tree protection measures should be carried out and a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement should be provided. A landscape plan, to include tree planting to mitigate the loss of existing trees, should be required by a condition.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no adverse comments to make regarding this application. It is suggested that the side of the building that is currently not fenced towards the front of the building line is fenced. Some defensive planting is suggested in the form of a hedge inside the fence along the western boundary where it abuts the public open space to provide a secondary barrier to discourage possible intrusion into the grounds from that direction.
No comments have been received from Kidsgrove Town Council , Waste Management and Staffordshire County Council as the Rights of Way Authority by the due date. Therefore it must be assumed that they have no observations.
Representations
No representations have been received.
Agent’s Submission
A Planning Statement and Design & Access Statement have been submitted.
Further documents submitted to accompany the application include the following:
• Transport Statement • Travel Plan • Site Waste Management Statement • Phase 1 and 2 Geo-Environmental Investigation • Tree Survey and Arboricultural Report
Page 49 • Drainage and Water Statement • Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy • Bat Roost Potential Summary Report
All of these documents are available for inspection at the Kidsgrove Service Centre and on www.newcastle- staffs.gov.uk .
Key Issues
Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a new 64-bed residential care home for the elderly.
The application site is within the Urban Area of Kidsgrove as indicated on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.
The site is currently occupied by a vacant care home and therefore the principle of the development of a new residential care facility on the site is acceptable. The key issues for consideration in the determination of this application are:-
• Is the design of the development acceptable in terms of the impact on the form and character of the area? • Would the development impinge unduly upon levels of residential amenity for neighbouring properties and does the proposal provide appropriate standards of residential amenity for the occupiers of the development? • Would the development have any significant adverse impact on trees on the site? • Would the proposed development have any adverse impact upon highway safety, would the development promote sustainable transport choices and, if so, how does this need to be secured?
Is the design of the development acceptable in terms of the impact on the form and character of the area?
Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 64 states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
The site lies within a predominantly residential area with a school to the north-east. The site is currently occupied by a vacant care home consisting of two blocks of accommodation and a detached garage. The buildings are of 1970s construction and have little architectural merit. The site slopes from south to north and therefore the buildings are elevated above Gloucester Road, although well set back from that road.
The larger of the two existing care home buildings sits on a plateau in the middle of the site. The proposed care home, although a larger footprint would be sited in a similar location elevated above Gloucester Road but below the level of the rear south-east boundary. The building now proposed would be ‘H’ shaped with communal areas located centrally. The building would comprise a two-storey structure with a hipped roof and the materials would be red brick, render and grey concrete roof tiles.
The use of different materials, gable features and large areas of glazing would provide some visual interest and articulation not just in the front facing elevation but also the rear and side elevations. The building would be of traditional design but with some more contemporary features, particularly the two-storey glazing features. The development is considered to comprise an acceptable design solution that would be appropriate in its context. Having regard to the existing buildings on the site, it is considered that the scheme would improve the character and quality of the immediate area.
Would the development impinge unduly upon levels of residential amenity for neighbouring properties and does the proposal provide appropriate standards of residential amenity for the occupiers of the development?
At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Pursuing sustainable development involves improving people’s quality of life.
There would be more than 40m from the front elevation of the care home to the residential properties on the opposite side of Gloucester Road. The building would be approximately 27m from the garden of the nearest
Page 50 residential property to the west and no windows to habitable accommodation are proposed in the end elevations of the care home. Due to the layout of the development and its position in relation to adjacent properties, the proposal would comply with the guidelines and principles contained within Supplementary Planning Guidance Note ‘Space about Dwellings’.
Within the development site, outdoor amenity space for the residents would be provided in the form of two courtyard gardens overlooked from the day lounges. Although landscaped areas are provided to the rear and side of the building, given the changes in levels, the space would not be useable for residents. The courtyard gardens are of reasonable size however and it is considered that acceptable levels of private amenity space would be achieved for the residents.
Overall, it is not considered that a refusal could be sustained on the grounds of adverse impact on residential amenity.
Would the development have any significant adverse impact on trees on the site?
Policy N12 of the Local Plan states that the Council will resist development that would involve the removal of any visually significant tree, shrub or hedge, whether mature or not, unless the need for the development is sufficient to warrant the tree loss and the loss cannot be avoided by appropriate siting or design. Where, exceptionally, permission can be given and trees are to be lost through development, replacement planting will be required on an appropriate scale and in accordance with a landscaping scheme.
There are a number of trees to the front of the site, five of which are to be removed to facilitate the development. The Arboricultural Report that accompanies the application states that the majority of the trees to be removed are Category C (a tree which could be retained although of low quality and value) and a Norway Maple tree, labelled T5, is Category B (at tree of moderate quality with a significant life expectancy whose retention is desirable). One other Norway Maple tree, also concluded to be Category B, is shown to be retained.
The Landscape Development Section considers that of the two Norway Maple trees identified as Category B, T5 is the best specimen and T4 which is shown to be retained has significant decay in its base and is not considered worthy of retention. Given that the trees are a significant feature on the road corridor and retention is desirable, your Officer has discussed with the applicant whether the scheme could be amended to allow for the retention of T5. The applicant has considered the matter and states that due to the slope of the site, it has been difficult to set the levels for the car park and the care home whilst minimising the amount of cut and fill and retaining walls necessary. Amendments to the car park to allow for the retention of T5 would create the need for retaining walls whereas the current siting and design enables the land to be graded naturally from the south side of the aisle. There would also be implications for the access ramp which could not be moved back without the care home being pushed further back into the site.
Given the topography of the site the comments of the applicant appear reasonable and the Landscape Development Section is satisfied that the loss of the trees is acceptable subject to a requirement for replacement tree planting along the frontage of the site.
Would the proposed development have any adverse impact upon highway safety, would the development promote sustainable transport choices and, if so, how does this need to be secured?
Use is made of the existing access onto Gloucester Road. Sixteen parking spaces are proposed to the front of the site. Applying the maximum parking standards in the Local Plan for the proposed C2 use (1 car parking space per 3 beds), the development would require 22 spaces.
Paragraph 39 of the NPPF states that if setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, LPAs should take into account:
• The accessibility of the development; • The type, mix and use of development; • The availability of and opportunities for pubic transport; • Local car ownership levels; and • An overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles
Page 51 Policy T16 of the Local Plan indicates that development which provides significantly less parking than the maximum levels specified in the Plan, will not be permitted if this would create or aggravate a local on street parking or traffic problem, and that development may be permitted where local on-street parking problems can be overcome by measures to improve non-car modes to the site and/or measures to control parking and waiting in nearby streets and that in such cases the development will be required to make an appropriate contribution towards the initial and ongoing cost of required schemes.
A Transport Assessment that has been submitted to accompany the application states that overall the proposed use should result in a low level trip generation and peak flows to and from the site. Consequently the traffic impact on the surrounding highway network would not be expected to be significant. The proposed level of on-site parking is considered entirely sufficient to meet the operational requirements of the development and parking surveys from two operational 40-bed homes run by the same operator have been submitted to demonstrate that the level of car parking useage is low and comfortably below the maximum number of spaces available. It is concluded that the stated improvements, low level of car parking and availability of alternative transport modes to the site, supplemented by the submitted Travel Plan should ensure that the level of vehicular activity and impact on the local highway network will be acceptable.
The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the number of parking spaces. Care homes have unrestricted visiting times and therefore this reduces the probability of peaks of high demand for parking spaces. In terms of staff, the maximum number of staff on site at any one time would be approximately 16. The site is in a sustainable location with bus stops within reasonable walking distance of the site that are served by services that run between Kidsgrove, Hanley and Newcastle. Kidsgrove Railway Station is just under a mile from the site.
Last year, Members approved a scheme for a 62 bed care home on the site of the former Staffordshire Knot Public House in Chesterton (Ref. 11/00220/FUL) that also included 16 parking spaces.
It is considered that given the nature of the use, the accessibility of the site and the opportunities available for staff and visitors to use alternative modes of transport to the car, the level of parking proposed is acceptable and there would be no adverse impact on highway safety.
The Highway Authority seeks a financial contribution, as they have done in other cases, towards the costs which they will incur in travel plan “monitoring”. Such a contribution could only be obtained by an applicant entering into an obligation. Recent changes in legislation have introduced a statutory test which planning obligations must now pass – the matter is no longer at the discretion of the Planning Authority. The test requires that a planning obligation should be:-
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • Directly related to the development • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
There are a number of policies within the development plan that are strongly encouraging of the use of Travel Plans. Monitoring is an essential element of the success of such Plans and on this basis the Highway Authority’s request is supported.
Background Papers Planning file Planning documents referred to
Date Report Prepared 29 March 2012
Page 52 140 Gloucester Road Kidsgrove
12/69/FUL
384300.000000 384400.000000
5 17
3 16
.000000 1 .000000 15 14 C 4 ol 355200 355200
Residential
ROAD 1 ER 38 Care Centre
EST
1
GLOUC 40 126
El Sub Sta .000000 .000000
Playing Field 355100 355100
10
1 6
45
This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material 1 11 with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 6 © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. SALOP
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012 15 13 5 1
9 0 5
0 384300.000000 384400.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council 1:1,250 Planning & Development Services Date 17.04.2012 ¯ Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 54 Agenda Item 7
FORMER TWYFORD BATHROOMS SITE, LINLEY LANE, ALSAGER SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD AND LAGAN (ALSAGER) LTD. 348/188
The Borough Council has been consulted by Cheshire East Council on an application for full planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of a new retail foodstore, parking and circulation spaces, formation of new pedestrian and vehicle accesses, landscaping and associated works at the former Twyford Bathrooms site, Linley Lane, Alsager.
The 2.34 hectare site is located to the east of Alsager town centre. The store will provide 3,903 square metres of floorspace (2,345 square metres net sales area), with 298 car parking spaces and a petrol filling station.
The access to the store would be via a new priority controlled roundabout junction with Linley Lane (A5011).
For the Borough Council’s comments to be taken into account by the Cheshire East Council they must be received by them by 18 April.
RECOMMENDATION
That Cheshire East Council be advised that the Borough Council OBJECTS to the application on the grounds that further consideration should be given to the impact of the proposed foodstore on the trade of the Tesco store in Kidsgrove which could reduce linked trips into Kidsgrove Town Centre and could therefore harm the vitality and viability of the centre.
Reason for Recommendation
Although it is considered that with respect to Newcastle Borough, the proposal complies with national planning policy in terms of the sequential approach, there is concern that significant trade diversion away from the Tesco store at Kidsgrove is likely to have a negative impact on linked trips into Kidsgrove centre and therefore the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of Kidsgrove town centre.
Policies and Proposals in the Approved Development Plan Relevant to This Recommendation:-
North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (2008)
Policy DP1: Spatial Principles Policy DP2: Promote Sustainable Communities Policy DP3: Promote Sustainable Economic Development Policy DP5: Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel and Increase Accessibility Policy W5: Retail development Policy RT2: Managing Travel Demand
Congleton Borough Local Plan Review (2005)
Policy PS2: General Scale and Location of Development Policy PS3: Settlement Hierarchy Policy PS4: Towns Policy E10: Re-use or Redevelopment of Existing Employment Sites Policy S2: Shopping and Commercial Development Outside Town Centres
Other Material Considerations include:
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)
Page 55 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 (RSS)
Policy UR3: Enhancing the Role of City, Town and District Centres Policy PA13: Out of Centre Retail Development
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 – 2011 (SSSP)
Policy TC1: Ensuring the Future of Town Centres
Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 (CSS)
Policy ASP5: Newcastle and Kidsgrove Urban Neighbourhoods Area Spatial Policy
Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 (NLP)
Policy T16: Development – General Parking Requirements
The Newcastle-under-Lyme Retail and Leisure Study 2011
The Secretary of State’s announcement of his intention to abolish RSS
The Secretary of State has made it clear that it is the Government’s intention to revoke RSSs and the Localism Act 2011, which includes powers to give effect to that intention, received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. However, pending the making of a revocation order in accordance with the new Act, the RSS remains part of the statutory development plan. Nevertheless, the intention to revoke the RSS and the enactment are material considerations.
Applicant/Agent’s Submission
The application is supported by the following:-
• Design and Access Statement • Planning Statement • Retail Statement • Transport Assessment and Draft Travel Plan • Air Quality Assessment • Drainage Strategy • Ecological Impact Assessment • Energy Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment • Ground Conditions Assessment • Lighting Report • Noise and Vibration Assessment • Tree Survey • Statement of Community Consultation
These documents are available to view both at the Cheshire East Council Offices and on the Cheshire East Council web site at www.cheshireeast.gov.uk under reference 12/0800C.
Key Issues
As indicated above, the Borough Council has been consulted by Cheshire East Council on an application for full planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of a new retail foodstore, parking and circulation spaces, formation of new pedestrian and vehicle accesses, landscaping and associated works at the former Twyford Bathrooms site, Lawton Road, Alsager.
The principal issue that could adversely affect the interests of Newcastle Borough is the matter of retail impact.
Page 56 The National Planning Policy Framework published on 27 March 2012 states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and for decision-making this means:
• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
The guidance on retail development within the Framework could be considered to be an example of such specific policies.
Paragraph 24 of the NPPF states that LPAs should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
Paragraph 26 states that when assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPAs should require an impact assessment in certain cases such as development of this scale. This should include assessment of:
• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and • The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.
The proposed development involves the erection of a food store of 3,903 square metres (gross area) (2,345 square metres net sales area). In this out of centre location the proposal could have the potential to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing retail centres. As far as the Borough Council is concerned it is Kidsgrove Town Centre that could potentially be most affected.
The application is accompanied by a Retail Statement and whilst it assesses the application against the provisions of PPS4 which has now been superseded by the NPPF, the issues of a sequential assessment of the site and an impact assessment remain relevant.
Sequential Assessment
In addressing this consideration the Retail Statement indicates that the identified need is for a main food shopping destination capable of meeting the weekly shopping needs of the catchment population and to provide improved consumer choice and competition. Therefore, the assessment has focused on sites that are capable of providing a main food shopping destination.
Within Newcastle Borough the following sites have been considered:
• Existing vacant units within Kidsgrove Town Centre • Land off Heathcote Street, Kidsgrove • Land between Liverpool Road and the East Cheshire railway line, Kidsgrove
The Statement concludes that existing vacancies within Kidsgrove Town Centre are considered unsuitable and unviable for a main shopping destination on the grounds that they are small format units with no dedicated car parking and therefore do not provide a genuine viable alternative main food shopping
Page 57 destination for local residents. Regarding the sites on Heathcote Street, the report concludes that given the size and topography of the sites, they would be both unsuitable and unviable for this proposal and in respect of the land between Liverpool Road and the railway, it is argued that the site is too small to accommodate a main food shopping destination.
Regarding the vacant sites in Kidsgrove Town Centre and the land off Liverpool Road, your Officer agrees with the conclusions of the report. The sites on Heathcote Street were considered in detail in relation to a planning application and an appeal determined last year for a foodstore on Linley Trading Estate (Ref. 10/00080/OUT). That proposal was for a store of 1,356 square metres (gross area) compared to the store being considered here which would comprise 3,903 square metres of gross floorspace. In allowing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that the sites on Heathcote Street were not suitable for the type of development then proposed (which was for a much smaller store than that now proposed) for a number of reasons including the gradient of Heathcote Street and the difficulties of providing parking and servicing. The Liverpool Road site whilst flatter is smaller. Plans of these sites will be available for inspection at the Committee.
It is considered therefore that with respect to Newcastle Borough, the proposal complies with national planning policy in terms of the sequential approach.
Impact Assessment
As referred to above, the NPPF states that for retail development outside of town centres of more than 2,500 square metres, an impact assessment should include assessment of :-
• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and • The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
In relation to the first point, the Retail Statement only addresses the impact on Alsager and no reference is made to the impact on Kidsgrove in this regard. However, it is not considered that there is any existing, committed or planned public and private investment in Kidsgrove centre that would be affected.
In relation to the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, the Retail Statement states that the findings of a telephone household survey of 625 households within the Catchment Area have been used in order to establish the trading performance of existing centres within the Catchment Area. The Report goes on to identify levels of trade diversion to the proposed store that would result in an impact by 2014 of 16% on the existing Tesco store in Kidsgrove. However, it states that it is important to note that the findings of the household survey suggest that the Tesco store is trading well at above expected levels and that in this context, even after allowing for the trade diversion, the store will still trade at 59% above expected levels. It concludes that given this, the impact of the proposed development will not lead to the closure of the store as it will still maintain a healthy customer base.
An impact on the turnover of the existing Tesco store in Kidsgrove of 16% is considered significantly adverse. Although the applicant’s Retail Statement claims that the store is trading well, this is contrary to the findings of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Retail and Leisure Study 2011. That document states that whilst convenience retail floorspace in Kidsgrove is trading at above company average levels collectively, the Tesco store displays below company average performance. It states that the result is that there is only limited capacity for additional floorspace.
Similar to the applicant’s Retail Statement, to inform the capacity assessments referred to in the Study, the Retail and Leisure Study carried out a telephone survey of 500 households. The two surveys are of similar size and methodology and therefore, it is difficult to understand why they have produced such different results in relation to the trading performance of Tesco. Given the different conclusions reached however, sufficient doubt exists to lead your Officer to consider that the impact upon Tesco in Kidsgrove may be significant.
The Retail & Leisure Study states that the majority of people arrive in Kidsgrove by car (66%) and park at Tesco, Liverpool Road (39.4%). It is likely that having parked and shopped at Tesco, many people will then
Page 58 use the other shops and services of Kidsgrove. There is concern that significant trade diversion away from the Tesco store is likely to have a negative impact on linked trips into Kidsgrove centre and therefore the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of Kidsgrove town centre.
Background Papers Planning Policy documents referred to Planning files referred to
Date Report Prepared 29 March 2012
Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60 348/188 Consultation from Cheshire East Council re Sainsburys’ proposals for former Twyfords Site Alsager 348/188
Former Twyfords works
y ar nd ou h B ug This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material ro Bo with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. ke & Butt Lane © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Tal Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012
Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council 1:10,000 Planning & Development Services Date 17.04.2012 ¯ Page 61 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 62 Agenda Item 8
DRAFT MADELEY CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
Purpose of the Report
To seek approval of the draft Appraisal and Management Plan for Madeley Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for public consultation purposes.
Recommendations
(a) That the submitted document is approved for public consultation purposes.
(b) That a further report is received on the outcome of the public consultation, before adoption of the SPD is considered.
Reasons
The SPD seeks to provide additional information to ensure that the Borough’s Conservation Areas are safeguarded for the future to supplement the objectives and policies contained in the Joint Core Spatial Strategy. In accordance with the statutory regulations, an SPD has to undergo a consultation process before it can be adopted. It is Cabinet which will decide whether or not to adopt the final documen t.
1. Background
1.1 Members may recall that a report was considered in February 2011 for a programme of conservation area appraisals and a generic Conservation and Heritage SPD. Members resolved that such a generic policy document on the historic environment was no longer necessary.
1.2 The preparation of a SPD for Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan for a Conservation Area is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework which endorses protecting heritage assets which are considered to have heritage significance and therefore merit consideration in planning matters.
1.3 Once adopted the SPD will supplement the objectives and policies contained in the Joint Core Spatial Strategy. In terms of development management or decision making, an SPD is regarded as a "material consideration", and the fact that it has undergone some form of statutory preparation process increases its status. A draft SPD for consultation purposes has now been prepared and is presented to your meeting for consideration at Appendix 1 to this report.
2. Content of the SPD
2.1 A key purpose of the SPD through the Conservation Area Appraisal is to redefine the special interest of the Madeley Conservation Area and identify the issues which threaten these special qualities and also to provide recommendations and guidance to manage change and suggest potential enhancements through the Management Plan. The appraisal will also consider the boundary of the Conservation Area and make suggestions to change that boundary where based on reasonable evidence that the proposed new area has architectural or historic merit and is worthy of inclusion.
2.2 The Conservation Area Appraisal highlights the key characteristics and issues which are relevant in the Madeley Conservation Area, namely what makes it special by the combination of its history and development, its historic buildings, materials, landscape setting and important views. The Management Plan provides a framework for future actions (Appendix 2).
3. Consultation Arrangements
3.1 The exact dates of the formal consultation period have not yet been fixed, but the aim is to begin the consultation in May. This will be for the statutory six week consultation period. Local groups and the
Page 63 Parish Council will be sent the consultation draft of the SPD to enable them to make representations. The Conservation Advisory Working Party (CAWP) will be consulted on the SPD and its views reported formally to the Committee. A feedback form to make representations has also been prepared.
3.2 The draft SPD will be publicised on the web and made available in local libraries in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. A press release will be prepared as well as the required statutory notice in the Sentinel and the Council will use the ePanel (electronic version of the Peoples’ Panel), its website and its facebook page to raise awareness of the SPD. Representation forms have been prepared and will be sent to key target groups like the Civic Society and those who have already expressed an interest to be involved in the process. A surgery will be held Madeley Community Centre about the Appraisal and Management Plan.
4. Next Steps
4.1 All representations received will be considered and a detailed report submitted to your Committee with recommendations for changes, if appropriate, to the draft SPD. The hope is that it can be adopted by December 2012 but this final decision will be by Cabinet.
4.2 Once adopted, the SPD (Conservation Appraisal and Management Plan for Madeley) will carry more weight in giving advice and determining planning applications in the Madeley Conservation Area or in any planning appeals.
5. Legal and Statutory Implications
5.1 The Council has a statutory obligation to review its Conservation Areas from time to time and to consider new areas. It also must publish from time to time its proposals for the preservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas and consult the local community about the proposals.
5.2 The Council has legal and statutory duties in relation to the production of the SPD to undertake public consultation as set out in its adopted Statement of Community Involvement under the Local Development Framework. This statement demonstrates the Council’s commitment to using its best endeavours to consult and involve the community in the most effective way possible at every appropriate stage in the process.
6. Earlier Committee Resolutions
Planning Committee – February 2011
7. Background Papers
English Heritage: Guidance on conservation area appraisals and the management of conservation areas. Feb 2006 English Heritage: Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management
Page 64 APPENDIX 1
Draft Madeley Conservation Area Appraisal
March 2012
1 Madeley Conservation Area Page 65 APPENDIX 1
Contents
1. Introduction Summary of Characteristics and issues Planning Policy context Local Policy framework
2. Location and activities Topography and Geology Relationship of the conservation to its surroundings Biodiversity
3. Historic development and Archaeology Historic Development Archaeology
4. Spatial and Character analysis Layout and Street pattern Open spaces, trees and landscape Focal points, buildings, views and vistas Boundaries Public realm
5. Buildings of in the conservation area Building types Buildings of local interest Positive buildings Buildings styles
6. Summary of issues
Appendices
Plan M1 - Townscape Appraisal Map
Page2 66 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1
Consultation Statement
This document has been written in close consultation and liaison with the Madeley Conservation Group, representing the Parish Council.
Once agreed by the Planning Committee, the Draft Appraisal and Management Plan will be discussed with the community at either a public meeting or an exhibition at the Madeley Centre with the wider consultation lasting for up to 6 weeks.
The nature of the community consultation will be integrated into this section and once any amendments have been made to the documents, they will be formally adopted by the Council as a Supplementary Planning Document to the Local Development Framework.
If you have any queries about the documents or would like further information please visit Council website at www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/conservation Telephone 01782 742408 or email the Conservation Officer at planningapplcations@newcastle- staffs.gov.uk:
3 Madeley Conservation Area Page 67 APPENDIX 1
1. Introduction There is pressure for development in Madeley particularly from backland The concept of Conservation Areas was first development. introduced in the Civic Amenities Act 1967, and is now an established and valued Summary of key characteristics and element of the planning process. A issues Conservation Area is an “area of special architectural or historic interest, the This Character Appraisal concludes that the character or appearance of which it is key positive characteristics of the Madeley desirable to preserve or enhance”. It is a Conservation Area are: combination of features, including buildings, street patterns, spaces, vistas, landmarks • Attractive setting around the Pool and other features that give a Conservation with views across it to historic buildings that Area its special and distinctive character. edge the main road. • Dense areas of trees within the The Madeley Conservation Area village, around the Pool and around the Churchyard, framing and adding interest to Madeley village is located in northwest the landscape in the area. Staffordshire. It was originally a small • Church of All Saints, (Grade I) raised agricultural community but has now up on land at the southern end of the village expanded into a substantial residential area. dating from the 12 th Century and built from The village was considerably affected by local red sandstone. industrial processes. The Pool was formed • Old Hall, (Grade II*) a late timber by damming the River Lea to provide water framed 16 th Century house with later power for the corn mill built at the northern additions from 19 th and 20 th Century, set in end. The historic centre of the village is a the centre of the village. single street bordering the mill pool, and the • Former Madeley Mill, now converted cluster of lanes and cottages around the into houses, an attractive backdrop at the church, retains its original character and has northern end of the Pool and the old village. a high quality environment. • Varied materials, including local sandstone, purplish-brown brick, red and The early settlement at Madeley in Saxon blue brick and timber framing. Many times passed into the Stafford family buildings painted in cream/white. following the Conquest and remained with • Soft and informal edges to the area them for four and a half centuries. In 1521 and lack of pavements in many locations the ownership changed a number of times • Large number and groups of trees when the Earl of Buckingham fell out of and hedgerows. favour with the King. The estate was finally
purchased by Thomas Offley, a wool The Character Appraisal concludes that the merchant whose name became united with key issues in Madeley are: the Crewes and references to the Crewe-
Offleys can be seen on Estate cottages in • Protection of the rural landscape the area. around the village especially to the east and
south The village is predominantly residential with • some services, shops and pub and three Protection of the landscape features schools. At the south end of the village the of the Conservation Area including the area is marked by the railway line which trees. • was completed in 1837. The Estate The loss of gardens for development continued to grow in the 19 th Century until it and backland development • was finally broken up in 1921. The later Use of modern materials on historic years of the last century saw a resurgence buildings, such as uPVC windows and of building on Crewe land including a school doors. and former school house. • Redundant traffic signs and signage clutter
Page4 68 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1
• Need for more suggestions for the specific local enhancements (in the form of Register of Locally Important Buildings and the Management Proposals ) Structures. These documents will therefore provide a Conservation Area boundary firm basis on which applications for development within the Madeley • Some amendments to the Conservation Area can be assessed. The Conservation Area boundary are required omission of any particular feature in either but this is set out in the Management Plan. the Character Appraisal or the Management Proposals does not imply that it is of no interest, and because both will be subject to Planning Policy Context review, it will be possible to amend any future documents accordingly. Conservation Areas are designated under the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning Local Policy Framework (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 71 of the same Act This Character Appraisal, with its requires local planning authorities to associated Management Proposals, should formulate and publish proposals for the be read in conjunction with the wider policy preservation and enhancement of these framework as set out in the following Conservation Areas. Section 72 also documents: specifies that, in making a decision on an application for development within a Local Development Framework. Conservation Area, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent enhancing the character or appearance of Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 that area. Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 (Saved Policies). In response to these statutory requirements, this document defines and records the More information about the planning system special architectural and historic interest of and imminent changes can be found on the the Madeley Conservation Area and Borough Council’s website: www.newcastle- identifies opportunities for enhancement. It staffs.gov.uk is in conformity with English Heritage guidance as set out in Guidance on the In the Local Plan Madeley is shown as a management of conservation areas (2005 sustainable location where the countryside and 2011). Additional government guidance will be protected. It confirms that the regarding the management of historic Conservation Area covers the village centre buildings and conservation areas is set out and the area around the Pool and the within the National Planning Policy Church. The Newcastle Green Belt extends Framework (2012). around the village envelope as far west as the West Coast rail line. The purpose of this document therefore seeks to: Landscape designations
• Define the special interest of the The area to the south east of the Madeley Conservation Area and identify the Conservation Area boundary is classified as issues which threaten the special qualities an Area of landscape restoration (Policy of the Conservation Area. (in the form of N21) in the Local Plan. This policy will help the Character Appraisal ) to restore the character and improve the quality of the landscape. • Provide recommendations and guidance to manage change in the Conservation Area, as well as setting out suggestions for
5 Madeley Conservation Area Page 69 APPENDIX 1
Supplementary Planning Documents
Madeley Parish Plan was published in July 2009 following extensive consultation. It looked at the following issues, the environment, planning, traffic and transport, community safety, social and community and information and events. It is considered as material in the making of any development control decisions.
A Village Design Statement was prepared in October 1998 by Madeley Conservation Group, Madeley Parish Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council. It was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in October 1998.
Issues within the Conservation Area will be superseded by the adoption of the Character Appraisal and Management Plan.
The Council produced a Register of Locally Important Building and Structures SPD which describes the process by which buildings are added to the list and the criteria which is applied. Information about the Register and the current list is available to view online at www.newcastle- staffs.gov.uk/localregister
Page6 70 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1
2. Location and activities The River Lea flows through the flat village from Lea Head Manor near Onnerley and Madeley consists of four somewhat has carved a deep narrow valley, which has separated settlements - Madeley, Madeley become a distinctive element of the Heath, Middle Madeley, and Little Madeley. character of the village. The soil is glacial clay, sand and gravel. To the east of the In this Character Appraisal, `Madeley` or village is the Etruria marl and grey `the village` refers to all the settlements, sandstone and elsewhere is the red and `the main village` means the largest Cheshire sandstone from Keele. These settlement, which is centred more or less on features have, as is often the case, helped the Pool and around the Church and the to form the village’s historic and industrial current Conservation Area boundary. development, utilising the flat land close to the river. The Church sits on higher ground The Conservation Area is in the centre of and this elevated position gives it presence the main village of Madeley, which lies in the village and views from all sides of the approximately five miles west of Newcastle- Conservation Area. under-Lyme on the A525 road. The M6 passes close by Little Madeley to the north Relationship of the Conservation Area to of the main village. its surroundings
All the settlements are spread along or fairly Madeley village lies within a rural near the A525, with outward extensions to landscape. The northern and western the west and north of the main village and to boundaries of the area have been more built the north of Madeley Heath. Although the up with large 20 th century local authority village is in Staffordshire, the boundaries of housing estate on the western edge of the Shropshire and Cheshire are quite close. Pool and later estates and development to the north. Madeley is a thriving ‘sustainable‘ community, that is, with sufficient resources Biodiversity such as shops and public amenities to maintain its viability. It is primarily a There are no special designations for the residential village. There is one church ( All natural environment in the Conservation Saints’), a Methodist Chapel, two primary Area. The continued protection of the schools, three public houses (the Offley ancient landscape, particularly the trees and Arms, the Old Swan and the Crewe Arms), hedges was a major issue in the Village a village shop and post office, a number of Design Statement due to the important takeaways and a restaurant, a Bed and contribution they make to the character of Breakfast (at The Old Hall) and several the village. playgrounds. A fishing club uses the Pool. The Pool also attracts many kinds of water Topography and Geology birds, and is well stocked with fish. The River has been diverted past the pool to The landscape of Madeley is dominated by avoid it silting up. The Pool and the river as the Madeley Pool and surrounding the well as the green corridors associated with settlement is farmland and open rolling them, provide an important habitat for countryside, with low hills, woods and wildlife and form a crucial part of the streams with hedged fields of modest size, character and appearance of the area. reflecting historic and topographical influences. The main village lies in a fairly The quality of the surrounding landscape in flat valley in the centre of the hills. The Madeley is recognised in policy terms and man made pool served the Mill and has the countryside to the south of the created an attractive feature in the centre of Conservation Area is an area of Landscape the main village. Restoration (see Local Policy section).
7 Madeley Conservation Area Page 71 APPENDIX 1
In the 19 th Century Methodism was a busy 3. Historic development and archeology time for chapel building in Madeley with the rise of non-conformism. The Wesleyans Madeley is first mentioned in an Anglo- built a chapel n 1831 (now converted to a Saxon document of 975 AD, with the name house as Chapel Cottage) near Bar Hill and deriving from a clearing belonging to the the railway line. Another larger church was followers of ‘Mada`. There are prehistoric built beside this but was demolished in 1935 and Roman finds in the vicinity, and the as the train vibrations made it unstable. In village is mentioned in the Domesday Book. the early 20 th Century Primitive Methodism The Saxon tribal area became a manor had begun to attract support and a chapel given to the Staffords after 1066, which was erected at Poolside in 1856. contained four deer parks and a mill. In medieval times, the village was supported A major railway was cut through along the by three classic arable Townfields, of which western edge of the main village in 1837, traces remain. Although some lanes have with limited effects on the form of the almost disappeared and new road landscape. The presence of good clay alignments have been made over the deposits, some limestone, and accessible centuries, the older part of the village, coal seams led to the rapid development of containing the 12th century church and the Madeley Heath in the 19th century, with the present mill site, still lies around the junction addition of mineral railways crossing the where an old northeast-southwest route landscape. Many of the older properties in meets other equally old, but only locally the Conservation Area have bricks and tiles important, routes. A market charter was in dark colours, texture variations and granted in 1341. The main Conservation pebble inclusions resulting from local small Area encloses this older core. hand-fired kilns.
The River Lea, a small river flows through During the latter half of the 19 th Century the full length of the main village and there was considerable building in the Conservation Area. In the middle of the Crewe estate and many buildings in main village is a large mill pool, with the Madeley benefitted from this, including the former mill at one end, and the Church near church, school, vicarage and almshouse the other. Between these, and extending (some of which were improved). A number into the Holborn, are cottages and other of houses were constructed bearing the dwellings of various ages, apparently crest. The Crewe estate was finally broken loosely placed but sited on what appear to up and sold in 1921. be plots planned out in medieval times. In 1547, in R Nicholls’ book on Madeley, he The largest development, in the 20 th records that Thomas Offley is associated Century, a former local authority estate with a water mill 20 tofts and other land. fronts the western edge of the pool and Nicholls also makes reference to a House of extends to the west. Built in the 1930’s, the Correction on The Holborn which later properties that front the Pool are included in became a workhouse in the 17 th Century. the Conservation Area. More widely scattered around Madeley are cottages built by the Offley-Crewe families, Another more recent development is which for some time owned most of Waterside Close which is infill and backland Madeley manor and parish. development to a fairly high density. It does not contribute to the character of the Farmhouses, of various ages from the 15th Conservation Area. However, due to it to the 18th centuries, lie around and within being set back, it does not harm the the village: around most of Madeley there is appearance, but it does break up the a clear boundary between farmland and historic plot boundaries which are settlement. The modest cottages which meaningful to the development of the front the main routes are characteristic of village. the village buildings.
Page8 72 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1
New development at River Lea Mews, is a more thoughtful development does provide an attractive living environment.
Other modern infill developments tend to be detached bungalows or individual houses and whilst they are not architecturally significant, they do not dominate or compete with the historic modest cottages.
Haywood Court is a recent development built on former council depot land by the railway bridge. These properties front away from the road and are bounded by a close boarded timber fence. This is an unsympathetic boundary along the edge of the road which does not reflect the character of the area.
Archaeology
The Stafford Historic Environment Record (HER) confirms the listed buildings in the Conservation Area, and the Historic Landscape Characterisation sets out the historical land uses in the area.
No archaeological survey of the village has been undertaken so there is a lot which probably remains hidden and yet to be discovered and recorded. However, there is an historical record of the surrounding landscape, which includes some archaeology.
9 Madeley Conservation Area Page 73 APPENDIX 1
4. Spatial and Character analysis building in the Conservation Area. It forms a group together with the former school and An analysis in plan form is given on the school house opposite, which are also Townscape Appraisal Map. made with local sandstone, and together with their stone boundary walls lining the Layout and street pattern roadside they make a strong visual feature.
The Conservation Area is linear in form and There is post WW2 former local authority lies on both sides of Station Road in the housing on the west bank of the Pool, but south, curving into Poolside, along the large due to the fact that these dwellings are set Pool, leading into New Road, north of the back, some behind trees, and have Conservation Area boundary. The main staggered frontages, they tend to blend into road extends from Bar Hill over the railway the streetscene and not dominate any views line by the Church, with side lanes skirting especially in the spring and summer. around the Church, which sits within an island bounded by Vicarage Lane on the The remaining glimpses from Poolside east and The Holborn to the rear, both towards the eastern open landscape linking up to Poolside. reinforce the rural qualities of Madeley village. The `main village` has two main core areas, in the north by the former mill and by the The view of the open countryside from church in the south. Castle Lane gives a defining and important view of the open countryside. It is an The centre of the `main village` is the older integral part of the character and historic heart of Madeley and has a strong appearance of Conservation area. visual identity. The south of the village to the east of Station Road is fairly rural in Clustered below the Church, in narrow character with views of open fields up to Vicarage Lane, are terraced 19 century Birches Farm and up to Ridge Hill and cottages. The atmosphere here is more Camp Hill in the distance. The village enclosed. The Conservation Area extends centre is fairly built up on either side of the out eastward from here to encompass a main road and the Pool with the north of the short terrace of distinctive three storey village being more densely developed. dwellings with applied timber framing in However, the presence of the River Lea, the Post Office Square, and beyond a stretch of Pool and the Churchyard, running through hedge, a listed farmhouse with its farm the centre give the village a feeling of buildings now converted into residential openness and space. The River Lea also properties. influences the character of the village by the presence of both road and pedestrian The Area extends southwards along Station bridges over it. Road to take in three historic listed buildings, and includes an essential In general the buildings are set back from riverside part of the historic landscape here, the main road and the character of the which nowadays frames the view of the village is defined by dark toned brick walls Church and the old part of the village on this topped with mixed hedges, providing a ancient approach from the south. strong sense of local distinctiveness. Open spaces, trees and landscape Most of the buildings on the east side of the Pool are of a similar character; they are Madeley has a semi rural Conservation historic, probably late 18 th Century cottages. Area with large areas of informal open Some have been altered and added to but spaces, predominantly around the Pool and in an appropriate manner. the Churchyard. There are fields to the south of Vicarage Lane and the River Lea The Church and its churchyard which flows through the middle. The Churchyard surrounds it on all sides, is the largest provides green space but is not exactly
Page10 74 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1 public, however it is used as a cut through house and Church House. Due to their by many residents. There are a number of size, orientation and form these are also public footpaths. One runs south from Post very important in the village and are closely Office Square, past the Old Vicarage and associated with the Church. Also of some out to the fields. focal significance is the Offley Arms Public House, opposite the Pool. On Post Office Just outside the Conservation Area Square the 3 storey terrace of houses have boundary another old pathway runs from a highly visible and distinctive presence on Castle Lane up past the former field plot this corner. boundaries east of the built up settlement, taking in what is described in the County Other buildings are still important but tend to Historic Landscape Characterisation as post form part of the cohesive whole and small re planned enclosure, implying that backdrop which makes up what is special earlier field systems may have been in about the Conservation Area rather than place and reorganised or may have been standing out individually. The focal the subdivision of larger fields for the buildings are all marked on the Townscape keeping of horses. It may be appropriate to Appraisal map. consider including this area in the Conservation Area to preserve this historic Views and vistas landscape character and the key past elements of Madeley. This will be The nature of the road network means that discussed in the Management Plan. views are glimpsed and blocked by the bends in the road. So travelling north, past Trees play an important part in defining the Church views of the Pool are not visible boundaries and shaping views. Bands of until the past the junction with The Holborn. trees can be seen around the Pool most And similarly from the north, the Church has particularly along the western edge. These been screened from view, partly by the are managed by the Local Authority. No vegetation and densely planted trees. historic formal planting of trees is apparent in the area. Although trees are afforded Madeley is surrounded particularly to the some protection by virtue of being in the south and east by attractive countryside. Conservation Area, there is one tree by the This includes a number of footpaths which Pool which is covered specifically by a Tree allow views into and out of the village and Preservation Order. across the Conservation Area.
The management of trees in and around the Essential as the background to the Area is Conservation Area and the Churchyard are the surrounding open farmland and included in the Management Proposals. woodland, some of it on hills, which has over the centuries dictated the shape of the Focal points, focal buildings, views and boundaries of the settlements. This open vistas countryside is visible from a number of locations within the Conservation Area and The linear form of the Conservation Area so is an integral feature of it. The most and its centuries of incremental growth have important views are marked on the meant that there are no planned views. Townscape Appraisal Map. However, it is clear that the key focal points in the Conservation Area are the former mill Boundaries at the northern end of the Pool and the Church to the south, and these have the There are a variety of boundaries in the highest status. The other main building, Conservation Area, both natural and man- one of the oldest, is The Old Hall which is made. The boundaries in the centre of the visible from the main road. village are various, including natural hedges, trees, metal and timber fences and There are also a few other buildings in the probably, most predominantly, brick walls. village like the former school and school These are highlighted on the Appraisal map.
11 Madeley Conservation Area Page 75 APPENDIX 1
There are red sandstone walls surrounding the Churchyard, the school, School House and Church House.
Along the eastern edge of Poolside from the Offley Arms down to The Holborn, there are historic brick walls with rounded coping stones with hedges above of mixed hawthorn and holly and some privet. There is some metal estate fencing around the rear of the Old Vicarage and adjacent to the bridge on the corner of Moss Lane.
There is a buttressed high brick wall forming the eastern boundary of the Old Vicarage along the public footpath.
Significantly on the western edge of Poolside, there are no boundary features along the edge of the open space and the Pool.
Many properties have their front door onto the road side, especially around Vicarage Lane and Post Office Square.
Along The Holborn, the properties are set back from the road with long front gardens, bounded by clipped hedges. Opposite these properties is private land with informal hedging, behind which flows the River Lea. The area is undeveloped, heavily treed and in need of some management.
Public Realm
There are not many examples of historic features in Madeley although this is probably due to the fact that the area was not planned but has evolved over time. The principal feature in the public realm of Madeley is the Pool. Other forms of street furniture such as benches around the pool etc are all modern. There is a playground on the western bank of the Pool by the housing estate
Street lighting is by modern tall steel standard lampposts. Overhead cables and timber telegraph poles are present although they generally do not intrude in the views.
Perhaps most distinctively there are still many stone kerb edges to the road side remaining in Madeley.
Page12 76 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1
5. Buildings of the Conservation Area century, is built of the local purplish-brown brick, with dark tiles, with considerable 19 th There are a variety of historic buildings in century additions. The farmhouse and Madeley Conservation Area, mainly in curtilage barns were converted into 14 residential use apart from the Church, residential properties in 1994. primary school, a pub, shop and takeaways. Even the barns and the mill are converted Sir John Offley Primary School is a Grade II into residential uses. There was a listed building and was built in 2 phases, the Wesleyan Methodist Church (1831) which is first in 1875 in the 17th century vernacular now converted to residential use and style with an endowment from Sir John another still in use as a Church in the centre Offley of Madeley Manor. On a slightly of the village. The residential properties elevated site directly opposite the Church, vary in terms of size and status from the its prominent chimneys and facade of local most prestigious houses, like Old Hall, the sandstone form a striking feature. The School House and the Old Vicarage, to School House Grade II, next to the School smaller modest cottages and terraces. is built in a similar style, form a group with Many other houses have earlier origins like the Church. Ye Olde House, and probably many more have earlier cores and timber framing which Ye Old House and Bridge Cottage (part) are unknown. There are a large number of Grade II. This dates from the 17th century, 18 th century and 19 th century terraces which with Bridge Cottage forming an 18th front the main routes through the village. Century rear wing. These are set back from the road and the southern end of Moss Listed Buildings Lane, and do not feature prominently to the passer-by. The Conservation Area contains 10 statutory listed buildings, and one building The Almshouses and Rose Cottage (Grade that has been included on a Register of II) were built in the mid 17th century Locally Important Buildings and Structures. alongside what was still then a major route The Church is listed Grade I and Old Hall is to the south. They were remodeled and listed Grade II*. The others are listed Grade extended in 1889 and restored in 1968. II. Town House, Station Road is a Grade II Church of All Saints, (Grade I) has a 12th listed building and was a 16th century century core with remodeling in the 14th farmhouse: the building has an internal and 15 centuries. It is of local pink timber frame. Still of significant sandstone, with a strong 14th century tower prominence along Station Road, it appears rising above the treed mound. The as an 18 th century house with some 19 th churchyard contains eleven separately century additions with outbuildings (now in listed (Grade II) listed memorials. separate ownership). In the 19 th century the building was known as the Crewe Arms The Old Hall, Grade II*, late 16th century, is Hotel probably due to its proximity to the half-timbered on a sandstone plinth, but it is railway line, the railway station was just visually striking in the centre of the village. south further down Station Road. The It has later additions and alterations. building has plastic windows which diminish its external appearance on closer The White House, Grade II, was built inspection. around 1700 and has early 19th century alterations. As the name implies, the Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic brickwork is rendered and painted white, but Interest the dark tiles, the form and appearance typify the older cottages looking out over the The Council has produced a Supplementary Pool. Planning Document on its Register of Locally Important Buildings and Structures Birches Farmhouse, Grade II, is 17 th and this sets out the process by which
13 Madeley Conservation Area Page 77 APPENDIX 1
buildings are added to the Register. The Spring Cottage, The Cottage, a number of current Register and information about this the barns and outbuildings. process can be seen at www.newcastle- staffs.gov.uk/conservation . The Council has Timber framing identified some buildings for its Local Register and the only building presently These date from the 15 th to the 17 th Century. included on the Register in Madeley is the The most prestigious is The Old Hall but former mill. The appraisal identifies other there are also a number of modest cottages positive buildings which should be such as Ye Olde House and the White considered for inclusion on the Register House. The timber framing in Old Hall is during the next review. close studding, which is a mark of a high status building. Positive Buildings But most other timber buildings are built using a box framing. Steeply pitched roofs In addition to listed buildings and locally were often thatched although there are no important buildings, there are number of examples of this in the village. buildings which have been identified on the Townscape Appraisal map as being positive Brick houses buildings of townscape merit. Buildings here will vary in quality but will be good These include The White House (painted), examples of relatively unaltered historic Birches Cottage, Birches Farm (although buildings where their style materials and this may be formerly timber framed) and its detailing provides the Conservation Area former outbuildings. The road elevation of with interest and variety. Importantly they the barn has been repaired and its large are considered to make a positive blank elevation retains the character of the contribution to the special interest of the barns from this viewpoint. Many of these Area. brick cottages may have earlier cores and have been altered in subsequent centuries. 19th Century estate cottages Church House Estate Houses Offley Arms public house Early 20 th century terrace on Post Office There are a number of houses from the mid Square 19 th Century bearing the crest. Namely, The Old Vicarage Pool Farmhouse (1855), a pair of houses on Prospect House the Holborn 1882, (Hill View Cottage and Smithy Cottages Holborn Cottage) 1 and 2 Newcastle Road, Mill House Cottages the most northern building in the Primitive Methodist Church Conservation Area, (1868). A common characteristic of estate cottages built around Building Styles, details, materials and 1860 is half hipped gables and decorative colours tile hanging.
Building styles There are others in the wider settlement of Middle and Little Madeley but these are There is a variety of building styles within outside the Conservation Area boundary. the Conservation Area but most of the buildings have a domestic scale as they Details were built for residential uses. The exceptions are the Churches, the school, Many of the domestic properties in Madeley the former mill and the former barns. Many have cottage style details such as casement of the earliest buildings were built facing the windows, large brick chimney stacks and street with the gable end facing onto the low eaves and steeply pitched roofs, which street. There are many examples of this, may have once been thatched. such as Ye Olde House and Bridge House,
Page14 78 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1
Clay-tiled roofs and tall gable end ridge • Some 20 th Century developments stacks with brick detailing are common. which have fitted in unobtrusively. • Church of All Saints, (Grade I) and Few early windows remain; most have been its churchyard acts as a focal point replaced, in some circumstances by timber • Madeley Old Hall, key significant casements but on a few occasions with historic (Grade II*) building in the centre of uPVC to the detriment of the character of the village. the area. • Village almshouses, key part of Madeley’s past history (Grade II) Materials and colours • A variety of unlisted “positive” buildings such as the former mill. The brickwork of the old cottages is • Views out to the surrounding characteristically dark purplish/brown or countryside, especially to the south. purplish, derived from the local Etruria marl. Other prominent buildings use local reddish Key negatives sandstone. The Staffordshire clay tiles used for the roofs of the buildings tend to be Two flat roofed modern shops at the north dark blue colour. There are few clay east corner of Conservation Area detract chimney pots left in the Conservation Area: from the character and appearance of the some found on the former mill have been Area. replaced as a result of the conversion. At the northeast corner of the Pool, there is The earliest buildings in Madeley were built a pair of semi-detached modern houses using timber-framing (oak) with wattle and different in character from the terraces daub infill panels, using local clay. Old Hall, fronting the Pool. Fortunately these are set Poolside is the best surviving example of well back. this. The distinctive Staffordshire blue bricks used often for copings, windows and The retail premises in this row, while door dressings, were made from local needing to advertise their presence, have Etrurua Marls and were excavated widely an abundance of signs, and are in need of throughout the whole of North Staffordshire. some improvement, including the removal of a scruffy concrete planter. Some walls have been painted or rendered white or cream, giving a lifting contrast to Trees on the former meadow alongside the the darker materials. Holborn and the churchyard. This has the effect of screening the church and removing Character of Madeley Conservation Area the open aspect from this part of the - Positives Conservation Area.
• Historic main street, lined with There some roadside signs, both official and historic buildings. commercial, which could be improved or • A number of estate houses built by th redundant ones removed. Any further Crewe/Offley in the late 19 Century inappropriate standardised engineering • The Offley Arms public House should be avoided. • Village school, a useful local amenity which helps to preserve the community. Some unlisted buildings with inappropriate • The Pool interlaced with trees an modern windows and doors, in the centre of excellent amenity for the village, gives the village. coherence to the Conservation Area. • Rural qualities of the Area reinforced Suburbanisation of some newer estates, by hedgerows and trees lining the edges. such as Waterside Close and Haywood • Linkages to the countryside along Court due to its higher density. public footpaths.
15 Madeley Conservation Area Page 79 APPENDIX 1
Inappropriate boundary treatment such as fencing along the road frontage of Haywood Court.
Many key historic buildings not listed, such as Church House, The Old Vicarage and Mill House.
Page16 80 Madeley Conservation Area APPENDIX 1
6. Summary of Issues
Since the last Conservation Area Appraisal in 1972 there have been changes, but for the most part these have retained the distinctive character and appearance of the Area. Some, such as the dredging and landscaping of the Pool, have made a huge improvement.
This desirable state must be continued, and improved when practicable, and this can only be achieved by continual vigilance by the local community, informed decisions by planning officers and positive action by enforcement officers, all acting together.
Spatial • Protection of the landscape setting around Madeley village centre, especially to the east and south. • Protection of the trees • Loss of gardens and greenspace due to further backland development
Buildings • use of modern materials on historic buildings such as uPVC windows
Conservation Area boundary • A small amendment to the Conservation Area boundary is required.
17 Madeley Conservation Area Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 82 Madeley Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map Key Positive buildings
Sycamore House Listed Buildings Mill House Cottages Conservation Area boundary Greyhound Cottage Historic walls Madeley Mill
Newcastle Road Significant open space
Moss Lane Water area Poolside Cottages Madeley Pool Important views
Poolside Focal buildings
Offley Arms
Pool Farm
The White House
The Old Hall Stables
The Old Hall
Hill View & Holborn Cottage
The Holborn
The Old 1 & 2 Castle Lane School House Birches Cottage Post Office Square
All Saints Church Castle Lane
School House rage Lane Vica Birches Farm Mews
Smithy Cottages Ye Olde House The Old Vicarage
Woore Road Rose Cottage & Almshouses
Town House
Scale 1;200 n
Scale in metres 0 50 100Page 83200 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 84 APPENDIX 2
Management Plan and Proposals
Contents
1. Introduction The purpose of the Management Proposals The Madeley Conservation Area Appraisal
2. Legislative Background The implications of conservation area designation The control of development and change National policy guidance
3. The Development Control Process Enforcement Strategy Role of Historic Environment Champions Promotion and awareness Guidance and leaflets
4. The control of the Historic Environment The control of historic buildings Register of locally important buildings and structures Positive Buildings
5. The Conservation Boundary review Proposed changes
6. The setting of the Conservation Area The control of new development Demolition Specific recommendations
7. Implementation Priorities for action
Appendices
Plan M2 - Proposals Map
1 Madeley Management Proposals Page 85 APPENDIX 2
The Purpose of the Management Area and provided an outline of the main Proposals issues (see Appraisal document).
The purpose is to provide a framework for further actions which although primarily the responsibility of the Borough Council, will also depend on the cooperation and enthusiasm of local people and local organisations.
The Conservation Area in Madeley has been existence for over 30 years and the effectiveness of the designation depends on the way it has been managed in the past by the Borough Council, the Parish Council, local businesses residents and community groups.
Government policy has made it clear that Conservation Areas are not areas of preservation and that change is an inevitable fact of modern life. The challenge is therefore to manage that change in a manner which respects the special historic and architectural qualities of a place.
Local authorities are required by law to review their Conservation Areas and the preparation of management plans and conservation area appraisals form part of this obligation. The involvement of the local community in the formulation and delivery of these documents helps to strengthen their status and impact. The Appraisal has been completed in conjunction with the Madeley Conservation Group on behalf of the Parish Council and a full period of consultation will take place with the documents to provide opportunities from the local community to input further into the documents.
Both documents will be of use to the Borough Council when determining planning applications for change within or on the edges of the Conservation Area, and for property owners and their agents when considering schemes for alteration or new development.
The Madeley Conservation Area Appraisal
The Character Appraisal which has been prepared has identified the principal positive and negative features of the Conservation
Page2 86 Madeley Management Proposals APPENDIX 2
2. Legislative Background The control of development and change The implications of Conservation Area designation. Certain works to houses within a Conservation Area are considered Designation as a Conservation Area brings “permitted development”. In summary: a number of specific statutory provisions aimed at assisting the “preservation and/or • Planning permission is needed for enhancement” of the area. extensions to family houses in Conservation Areas if it extends the side • The local authority is under a general wall of the house or if it has more than duty to review designations `from time to one storey to the rear. time` and to ensure the preservation and • Planning permission is needed for enhancement of the Conservation Area. external cladding to houses using stone, There is a particular duty to prepare artificial stone, pebble dash, render, proposals (such as Conservation Area timber, plastic or tiles. appraisals or grants schemes) to that end. • Planning permission is needed for any • In the exercise of any powers under the alteration to the roof of a house in a Planning Acts, in respect of land or Conservation Area. buildings in a Conservation Area, special • Planning permission is needed for the attention must be paid to the desirability of erection of any structure within the preserving or enhancing the character or curtilage of a house in a Conservation appearance of that area. Area if the structure proposed would be • Extra publicity must be given to planning on land to the side or front of the house. applications affecting Conservation Areas. This is especially important for sheds, This is usually achieved through the use of garages and other outbuildings in advertising the local newspaper. gardens. • Conservation Area Consent is required • With commercial properties, such as for the demolition of any unlisted building in shops and pubs, planning permission is a Conservation Area and the local authority generally required for alterations to may take enforcement action or consider these buildings. criminal prosecution if consent is not obtained. Where a building is listed separate • Written notice must be given to the legislation applies to all internal and external Borough Council before works are carried alterations which affect the special out to any tree in the area. architectural or historic interest of the • The display of adverts may be more building and will require Listed Building restricted than other areas. Consent. Planning permission is also • The Borough Council may take steps to needed for all proposed buildings in the ensure that a building in a Conservation garden of a domestic listed building Area is kept in good repair through the use including gas/oil containers. of Urgent Works Notices and Amenity Notices. Satellite dishes • The energy conservation expectations of the Building Regulations (Part L) do not Satellite dishes and antennas in necessarily apply to buildings within a conservation areas are not permitted Conservation Area. without planning permission if they are • Powers exist for local authorities, mounted on a chimney, wall or roof slope English Heritage or the Heritage Lottery which faces onto and is visible from a Fund to provide financial grant schemes to highway or a building which exceeds 15 help with the upkeep of buildings in metres in height. In these cases, planning Conservation Areas, if the area is permission would not normally be approved. economically deprived.
3 Madeley Management Proposals Page 87 APPENDIX 2
Generally for listed buildings, Listed Building evidenced based conservation. It considers Consent is practically always required for that parts of the environment which have the installation of `antennas` and if the significance due to their historic, Borough Council considers that the archaeological, architectural or artistic installation will have an adverse effect of the interest are called heritage assets. These special interest of the building, consent will assets promote a sense of place and usually be refused. contribute towards the aims of sustainability. The context for these policies are provided Conventional TV aerials and their by the Local Development Framework mountings and poles are not considered to (LDF) and the Core Spatial Strategy. be `development` and therefore planning permission is not required.
Micro-generation and green energy
The government has relaxed the rules for the installation of solar PV or thermal equipment on houses, but in Conservation Areas, equipment needs planning permission if it is to be located on a wall or roof slope of the main or side elevation of the main house or outbuilding or on a Listed Building or a building in its garden.
Trees and Landscape
Within Conservation Areas, lopping or felling a tree greater than 75 mm. diameter at 1.5 metres above the ground requires six weeks’ notice to be given to the Borough Council before starting the work. This provides the Borough Council with an opportunity of assessing the tree to see if it makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area, in which case a Tree Preservation Order may be served. This protects the tree from felling or inappropriate lopping.
The tress and the area around the Pool including the footpaths, bins grass and poolside planting are managed by the Borough Council. Whilst there is no formal management plan in place now one is expected to be adopted later in Summer 2012. For information on this matter contact the operational services section of the Council.
National Policy and Guidance
Government policy guidance on Conservation Areas is contained in National Planning Policy Framework, where the government is still promoting informed and
Page4 88 Madeley Management Proposals APPENDIX 2
3. The Development Control Process • All extensions whatever the size Local authorities have many controls including porches on the front of the available through their planning powers but building much can depend on interpretations and • Changing roof materials and insertion of implementation. Material changes to the rooflights on front-facing roofslope external appearance of a property can affect • Replacing windows or doors on the front what requires planning permission and what elevation is `material` is for the Borough Council to • Painting a house, and the removal or decide. A new shop front is generally partial demolition of a chimney. considered to be material but the change of • The erection, alteration or removal of a upper floor windows or change in roof wall, gate or fence at the front of the materials is less certain. house can also be controlled as well as demolition. (front means facing a public Single dwelling houses have considerable highway, private road or waterway) permitted development rights that enable some alterations to be carried out without the need for planning permission. These Action 1 The Borough Council will consider can include changes to windows and doors, serving an Article (2) Direction within roofs materials or construction of minor Madeley Conservation Area. extension. Although they may be minimal in each case, such alterations can have a cumulative effect that is damaging to historic areas. Where this kind of development is considered to be harming the character of an area, an Article 4 Direction can be considered.
Article 4 Directions
Permitted development rights are withdrawn if the Borough Council imposes an Article 4 Direction. This does not mean that development will not be possible. It does however mean that planning permission has to be sought and this allows for the merits of the proposal to be considered against the conservation interests of the area.
It has to be considered whether the exercise of permitted development rights would undermine the general aims and objectives for the historic environment in Madeley and its local distinctiveness.
An Article 4(2) Direction is accompanied by a Schedule that specifies the various changes to single houses which will require planning permission. Flats do not benefit from such permitted development neither do buildings not in residential use.
For example under an Article 4(2) Direction planning permission might then be required for
5 Madeley Management Proposals Page 89 APPENDIX 2
4. Actions by the Borough Council coherent approach to the built and historic environment A common complaint is that Planning • Identify opportunities for the authority to decisions are inconsistent. While each has use the historic environment in the to be determined on its own merits, much pursuit of its wider corporate objectives. can be achieved by having a clear interpretation of statutes, detailed policy and The Borough has had a Design and guidance and training to help elected Heritage Champion since April 2005 and Councillors and officers to work within these one of the roles is to raise awareness of constraints. Development proposals can conservation issues and to encourage other have an effect on a Conservation Area even elected councilors to make full use of the when they are some distance outside it. In training opportunities offered by English such cases, the duty to pay special attention Heritage through its HELM initiative. to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area still applies. Promotion and awareness
Action 2 The Borough Council will adopt a It is important that local people should consistent interpretation of what it considers understand the significance of their to be a `material` change. surroundings if they are to play their part. There is a clear need to publish information An Enforcement Strategy . on the history of each Conservation Area and its special qualities. This could be an As well as following the Cabinet Office effective outcome of the character appraisal Enforcement Concordat, which sets out best process. These is also a significant role for practice principles for enforcement like amenity societies and other stakeholders to openness, consistency and proportionality, explain what matters, what is possible, what the Borough Council has its own local is expected and what has been achieved Planning Enforcement Policy and within this elsewhere. historic building and conservation matters are given a greater priority. Community involvement is an integral part of the Local Development Framework The role of Historic Environment process. Involvement already happens in Champions Madeley through the parish council and the Conservation Working Party, but there is English Heritage is keen to see Historic sometimes scepticism as to how well the Environment champions to promote local voice is heard at the Borough Council conservation issues in each local authority. level. To help address this problem, the These are preferably elected councilors, but Borough Council has already established a can be senior officers whose role as defined Conservation Advisory Working Party, by English Heritage, is to: which considers all relevant applications and acts as an important interface between • Help unlock the untapped potential of local understanding and council decision the local historic environment, making. • Provide leadership for heritage issues within the authority Some degree of change is inevitable in • Join up policy between departments Conservation Areas and the issue is often across the local authority and ensure not so much whether change should the historic environment is taken into happen, but how it is undertaken. Owners account in the development of all the and residents can minimise the negative authority’s policies and forward effects of change by employing skilled strategies; advice when preparing development • Develop a close working relationship proposals and by avoiding unrealistic with the Design Champion, ensuring aspirations. that the authority has a seamless and
Page6 90 Madeley Management Proposals APPENDIX 2
Action 3 The Borough Council has placed information on its website on Listed Buildings and on the Conservation Areas in the Borough and this information should be updated and expanded as necessary.
Action 4 The Borough Council will ensure that information is available to enable communities to understand the significance of their Conservation Areas and the consequences of living and working within them. In addition to the information on the website, this could be achieved by the production of written guidance and public meetings.
Action 5 The Borough Council will take steps to explain its planning decisions in greater detail where they are contrary to the advice of the Conservation Advisory Working Party or the parish councils.
Action 6 The Council will continue supporting the Conservation Advisory Working Party and will ensure that the Committee is given the opportunity of commenting on applications affecting the historic environment in the Borough.
Guidance notes and leaflets
Action 7 The Borough Council will consider increasing is offer of guidance and update its range of published guidance to include specific topics such as historic buildings and living in a conservation area.
7 Madeley Management Proposals Page 91 APPENDIX 2
4. The Control of the Historic Environment Positive buildings
There is an increasing emphasis in planning The Appraisal has identified buildings that policy on issues relating to the historic made a positive contribution to this environment and this is particularly character of the Conservation Area. In important in Newcastle-under-Lyme with its general, all listed buildings and those on the 20 conservation areas and 365 listed Council’s local Register in a Conservation building entries. It is important that this Area will be regarded as `positive`. historic environment continues to be However, there are often many more that, recognised and that local policies are together, underpin the special interest of a included in future policy documents for their place. future protection. Action 9 The Council will publicise the Control of historic buildings consequences of being in a Conservation Area and the presumption in favour of Listed Buildings retaining positive buildings. Listed Building Consent is required for the demolition alteration or extension of Action 10 The Council will continue to use statutorily listed buildings. There is current its local planning policies, providing guidance for owners of listed building on the Character Appraisals and Management Borough Councils website but this needs to Proposals as well as considering new areas be updated and expanded as necessary. for consideration.
Action 8 The Borough Council will continue to assess applications for Listed Building Consent in line with policy and guidance.
Register of Locally Important Buildings and Structures
There are buildings of local significance which, although not statutorily listed, are nonetheless important to the history and character and cultural value of the Borough.
The Council produced a Register of Locally Important Buildings and Structures in 2010 and this was reviewed in 2011. The process of adding a building to the Register has been adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document to the Core Spatial Strategy which will give the Register additional weight in the making of planning decisions. The Register is evolving and it is hoped that this review will encourage suggestions for a number of other buildings within the Madeley Conservation Area which can be considered for the Register during the next review.
Action 9 The Borough Council will ensure that the Register of Locally Important Buildings and Structures is continually updated.
Page8 92 Madeley Management Proposals APPENDIX 2
5. The Conservation Area Boundary This area to the south is protected by local Review planning policies for landscape enhancement and restoration. The Madeley Conservation Area contains buildings and features which are of different Conservation Area status does not prevent architectural styles and periods. It is fairly development. They help to manage compact and well defined, and presents a change. Beyond the railway line to the coherent and harmonious appearance, north of Bar Hill Road is a former reservoir, aided greatly by the presence of the Pool, now reclaimed for a wildlife haven, with 4 many trees, and occasional views through detached houses at the front of the site. to the surrounding open fields and hills. These houses are visible from the roadside The railway line in the south forms the and have little architectural merit and no southern boundary. The boundary is for the historic value. The character of the terraced most part appropriate, as just outside its properties has already been very much western and northern boundaries, buildings compromised with permitted development, have a different character. Since the namely altered windows, doors extensions designation the main development has been and boundary treatments. To the south either individual plots or backland over the railway line is Manor Cottage. This development. As part of the Appraisal is much altered and has little architectural process the whole Conservation Area was value. The farmhouse is 20 th Century and inspected and the robustness of the present does not have special architectural or boundary assessed. historic interest.
Local authorities are required by law to The railway line is the best boundary in review their boundaries of existing this location, marking the start of the Conservation Areas from time to time. This village. It is not proposed to extend the is to ensure that they still retain special Conservation Area to include Bar Hill architectural or historic interest. Road for the reasons above.
Guidance on designating Conservation Area 2. Add an area of landscape to the east of is that boundaries should be robust and the Conservation Area behind the properties defensible. As part of the Appraisal process on the Holborn up to the rear of Old Hall. the whole Conservation Area was inspected The edge of these fields are marked by a and the robustness of the present boundary back lane, which further adds to the assessed. likelihood that these were former “crofts and tofts” (small cottages with small field During the start of the Appraisal process, attached). the community through the Madeley Conservation Group suggested that the Evidence from the Staffordshire County boundary is extended in 2 locations and that Council Historic Landscape a new Conservation Area is designated in Characterisation identifies this area as Post Little Madeley. 1880s Small Replanned Enclosure that may represent the reorganisation of earlier Additions field systems.
1. Add terraced properties on north side of Research shows that this area is an area of Bar Hill Road and the former farmhouse and former medieval or post medieval strip fields adjacent land to the south. Because the defined by curved edges to the plots terraces form a group and alterations may implying historic ploughing. Some changes harm the character of the approach into the have occurred, such as the fields which village and that the land adjacent to the have been increased in size, but the farmhouse is open in character and should landscape can still be read and it is worth not be built on. retaining these remaining plot divisions, which are significant to the history of Madeley.
9 Madeley Management Proposals Page 93 APPENDIX 2
In order to preserve the reminders of the past landscape still evident, this area should be included in the Conservation Area boundary.
3. Separate Conservation Area at Little Madeley
There are old cottages of considerable architectural and historic character at Little Madeley which are not designated as heritage assets. Some are visible from the main road while others are hidden behind fronting properties. These properties are close to the motorway and are potentially vulnerable. They are too far from the main Conservation Area to be included within it and the intervening dwellings do not have a character suitable for inclusion. It is proposed that a separate Conservation Area be considered the extent of which would be determined after examination on the ground.
More ground work is needed and evidence to show that this area has a distinctive architectural and historic character for designation as a separate Conservation Area.
Do not designate at this present time.
Action 11 The Borough Council will amend the Conservation Area boundary as shown on the Proposals Map and will encourage the retention of the historic landscape on land to the rear of the Holborn to ensure the historic plots are retained.
Page10 94 Madeley Management Proposals APPENDIX 2
6. The setting of Madeley Conservation Area Action 14 The Borough Council will refuse application for new development in or on the Madeley has a large number of trees, both edges of Madeley Conservation Area which within and on the edges of the Conservation would result in the loss of existing garden Area. The combined effect of the trees, space or would conflict with the prevailing shrubs, gardens, the river and the Pool, all form of historic development. come together to create a strong rural character, even within the village centre. Action 15 Positive buildings, buildings on These features are cherished by the local the Council’s local Register and listed community and are generally well cared for buildings must be retained and their settings including in private gardens, making a protected from unsympathetic development. valuable contribution to the special character of the Conservation Area. All relevant applications should be accompanied with a design and access Action 12 The Borough Council will statement and heritage statement of continue to protect and enhance the rural significance and guidance can be obtained qualities of the Conservation Area including from the planning department. The refusing applications for new development Borough ‘s Conservation and Urban Design which would result in the removal or Officer is happy to advise on the repair and reduction of trees or established planting reinstatement of historical and architectural which enhances the conservation area. features and help to source appropriate contractors, builders, materials, and so on. The control of new development It would be advisable to contact this officer in addition to a development control officer if New development must respect the historic the proposal for development lies in or near and architectural context and should ‘not the Conservation Area. necessarily copy existing styles but create sensitive, sympathetic and good quality New development and guidelines modern architecture so that the special character and appearance of the There will be a presumption against any Conservation Area is not downgraded or new building or development which would diluted, but reinforced, and enhanced adversely affect the setting and the special whenever possible. character and appearance of the Conservation Area. New buildings should The pressure for development in Madeley is follow established historic form of essentially for infill and backland development, plot sizes, positioning, development (usually in the gardens of density, mass and access. It is important to existing buildings) but much of the spare have a good architect or advisor who land has already been developed or has understands the issues and context of permission, as for example at Waterside Conservation Areas. New development Close and Haywood Close off Station Road. should not increase the volume of Fortunately development is restricted by the development on the site and should be Green Belt which surrounds the wider sympathetic to surrounding historic village of Madeley, and the Conservation buildings in terms of scale materials and Area boundary to the east and south. It is details. It should also respect views both important to maintain the historic form and within and into and out of the Conservation pattern of development so any development Area. which is found to be acceptable must follow plot boundaries. Windows and Doors Repair rather than replacement is the Action 13 New development must conform preferred option, and uPVC or aluminium for to policies within the LDF, saved Local Plan windows or doors are not generally suitable policies and national guidance, mainly materials for use in an historic context. PPS5.
11 Madeley Management Proposals Page 95 APPENDIX 2
The alteration of doors and windows are The Supplementary Planning Document to permitted development but may be the Core Spatial Strategy sets out the withdrawn under an Article 4(2) Direction. criteria and also the process for adding new This additional control will seek to retain buildings to the Register. original and historic and architectural features which combine to create the Areas Action 16 The Borough and Parish character. Councils will encourage the local community to suggest buildings that might be eligible Roofs and Chimneys for inclusion on the Register. There is a presumption against the removal of chimneys even if not in use, since this is likely to adversely affect the special character and appearance of the Area. Slate or clay should be used in replacement of concrete or artificial slate.
Demolition Conservation Area Consent is needed for demolition all buildings in the Conservation Area (over 115 cubic metres) Demolition of historically significant buildings within the Area will not be permitted unless the building to be demolished can be proven to have a harmful or negative effect. Partial demolition does not require Conservation Area Consent, but some control is exercised through the Article 4(2) Direction, particularly in relation to boundary walls.
Building Specific Recommendations
Statutory list
In Madeley there are 10 buildings and 10 tombstones on the statutory list of buildings of special or architectural interest. This list for Madeley was drawn up in 1985 and the criteria since this time has changed slightly, in that buildings which post-date 1840 are now being added to the statutory list. Additionally earlier buildings which may have been rejected before are also (even if altered) being added. It may be, therefore, that many other buildings in Madeley may be eligible for statutory listing. More detailed survey work, particularly of interiors, would be helpful.
Register of Locally Important Buildings and Structures
There is now a local Register within the Borough which includes Madeley Mill and some suggestions for further buildings in Madeley are shown on the Proposals Map.
Page12 96 Madeley Management Proposals APPENDIX 2
7. Implementation Locally Important Buildings and Structures. It is important that the Madeley • Investigate potential breaches of Conservation Area should be a self development control with a view to sustaining as possible if it is to remain in its seeking changes or enforcement. present state. Achieving this requires management to control any necessary Continuous tasks- changes so that its special character and appearance is not adversely affected. • Monitoring change – updating Success will require commitment by all photographic records. Borough Council departments and their • Review character appraisal partners such as planning, building control, • Review the management plan. fire regulations and highways authority to ensure the sensitive exercise of controls, , Medium-term tasks in the best interests of the Madeley Conservation Area, and the sensitive • Consideration of the implementation of deployment of any resources which may an Article 4(2) Direction. become available. Success depends on the part played by other stakeholders: property owners, residents, businesses, and amenity groups.
Those who live and work in the Conservation Area are expected to recognise the collective benefits they enjoy. For this they must understand the need to take a contextual view of proposals rather than acting in isolation. Change is inevitable in Conservation Areas but it is how rather than if it is undertaken. Employing skilled advice minimises the effects of these changes.
Communities
It is important that communities are well informed about the qualities of their Conservation Areas and of the opportunities for enhancing them. There is also a role for the Borough Council and other recognised community groups such as Madeley Conservation Group who have aided and assisted in the production of these documents.
Priorities for action
Immediate tasks – generally those not requiring additional resources.
• Formal adoption of the new Conservation Area boundary • Encourage community involvmement to select buildings for the Register of
13 Madeley Management Proposals Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 98 Madeley Conservation Area - Possible extension to Conservation Area Key
Proposed “Local Listed” buildings Proposed extension to Conservation Area boundary Conservation Area boundary
n
Scale in metres
0 50 100 200 Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 100 Agenda Item 9
PLANNING COMMITTEE SITE VISIT DATES
As previously established Members are invited to agree a programme of dates upon which Planning Committee site visits will be held, should such visits be agreed to be necessary.
It is recommended that members should agree, as they did in April last year, to a programme of dates upon which the Planning Committee visits will be held during 2012-2013.
A timetable of proposed dates is attached for Members’ approval.
Planning Committee at which a Day and date of site visit Time site visit is agreed
30 May 2012 (Wednesday) Thursday 07 June 2012 6.15pm 26 June 2012 Thursday 05 July 2012 6.15pm 10 July 2012 Thursday 19 July 2012 6.15pm 31 July 2012 Thursday 09 August 2012 6.15pm 21 August 2012 Thursday 30 August 2012 6.15pm
11 September 2012 Thursday 20 September 2012 6.15 pm 02 October 2012 Saturday 13 October 2012 9.00am 23 October 2012 Saturday 03 November 2012 9.00am 13 November 2012 Saturday 24 November 2012 9.00am 04 December 2012 Saturday 15 December 2012 9.00am 02 January 2013 Saturday 12 January 2013 9.00am 22 January 2013 Saturday 02 February 2013 9.00am 12 February 2013 Saturday 23 February 2013 9.00am 05 March 2013 Thursday 14 March 2013 6.15pm 26 March 2013 Thursday 04 April 2013 6.15pm 16 April 2013 Thursday 25 April 2013 6.15pm 07 May 2013 Thursday 16 May 2013 6.15pm 29 May 2013 Thursday 06 June 2013 6.15pm
Recommendation
That the above list of dates and times for possible Planning Committee site visits for 2012/2013 be agreed.
Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 102 Agenda Item 10
OPEN ENFORCEMENT CASES
Purpose of the Report
To inform members of the current situation regarding the enforcement caseload.
Recommendations
(a) That the report be received.
(b) That a further update be provided alongside the next quarterly monitoring report on cases where enforcement action has been authorised .
1. Background
1.1 In accordance with previous Committee decisions, the format of this report will continue to show existing and previous enforcement cases. The table included in this report shows the total number of outstanding cases in one format (shown below).
1.2 Since the preparation of the last report on 9 December 2011 a further 68 new cases have been reported, and overall 65 cases have been closed this quarter. The net figure as of 30 March 2012 therefore stands at 165 open cases (3 more than last quarter). Whilst significant progress has been made, this past quarter has been a busy period for the receipt of new enforcement cases, but with the constant review of older cases, the number of total open cases has been kept relatively constant.
1.3 Planning Committee Members continue to be sent a Monthly Enforcement List, which identifies what new enforcement related cases have been logged each calendar month.
2. Conclusions
2.1 It remains inevitable that some cases in the ‘backlog’ will remain open for some time because of their complexity, but the number of open cases continues has remained relatively constant.
2.2 Progress continues to be made in tackling older cases and there is still a significant body of work being undertaken behind the scenes, which has lead to progress in several complex cases. Officers’ enforcement workload is regularly reviewed to ensure continuity and case progression.
2.3 The Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer continues to assist Planning Officers where possible by providing updates to their enforcement caseload and to seek to progress either the taking of enforcement action or their closure. This has also resulted in the submission of several additional planning applications. It should be noted that the total number of cases open has been maintained well below 200 cases (165 at the time of report preparation). It is considered that it may be that it will not prove possible to reduce the number of open cases below 150, because both of resource constraints, and the inevitability that some cases will remain open “on the books” for a considerable time because of the length of time that it can take to use the law to bring matters to a conclusion. The suggestion is that a “target” of between 150 and 175 open cases should in effect be adopted.
3. Current Outstanding Enforcement Cases
3.1 The table below shows the current statistics in comparison to the previous Quarter based on the position up to and including 30 March 2012.
Page 103
Current Enforcement Status
Year Total Open C1 C2 C3 BOC L M H
2012 66 30 1 19 10 2011 202 34 2 22 10 2010 206 19 3 13 3 - - - 2009 233 26 - 15 3 4 - 3 1 2008 276 20 - - - - 5 15 - 2007 353 7 - - - - 1 5 1 2006 280 14 - - - - 2 8 4 2005 227 2 - - - - - 1 1 2004 252 4 - - - - 1 2 1 2003 244 1 - - - - - 1 - 2002 247 5 - - - - - 2 3 2001 204 3 - - - - - 3 - 2000 219 ------1999 177 ------1998 217 ------1997 263 ------
Open Cases 165 (inc Backlog) Previous Quarter 162
Note for Table – C categories represent the categories agreed by the Planning Committee in February 2009; BOC indicates that the case concerns a Breach of Condition, whilst L, M and H represent Low, Medium and High priorities respectively allocated to the pre-February 2009 cases
Officers will continue to make progress in tackling the previous backlog, whilst maintaining a manageable reservoir of new/existing cases at a sustainable level. A number of the above cases have associated pending submitted planning applications awaiting determination (8 as of 30 March 2012).
Date Report Prepared 30 March 2012
Page 104 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1, 2, 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A Agenda Item 14 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 116 By virtue of paragraph(s) 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A Agenda Item 15 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 120