cheadle area committee agenda 12th july 2016

7/25/2019 Cheadle Area Committee agenda 12th July 2016

1/68

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE

Meeting: Tuesday, 12 July 2016Tea: 5.00 pm

The Kingsway School,Foxland Campus,Foxland Road,Gatley

Business: 6.00 pm

Introductions

1. MINUTES (Pages 6 - 12)

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2016.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they have in any of the items on theagenda for the meeting.

3. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS (Pages 13 - 20)

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.

The report provides an update on progress since the last meeting on decisions taken bythe Area Committee and details the current position on ward flexibility funding. The report

also includes the current position on the ward delegated budgets.

The Area Committee is recommended to note the report.

Officer contact: David Clee on 0161 474 3137 or email: [email protected]

4. URGENT DECISIONS

To report any urgent action taken under the Constitution since the last meeting of theCommittee.

Democratic Service

Town Hall, Stockport SK1 3X

Contact: Democratic Services on 0161 474 321

Email: [email protected]

Area Governance

AGENDA

Public Document Pack
http://www.stockport.gov.uk/democracymailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/68

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

(i) Chair's Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chair about local community events orissues.

(ii) Public Question Time

Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair of the AreaCommittee on any matters within the powers and duties of the Area Committee,subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice (Questions must besubmitted prior to the commencement of the meeting on the cards provided. Theseare available the meeting. You can also submit via the Councils website atwww.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions.

(iii) Public Realm

The local Public Realm Inspector will attend the meeting to provide an update onmatters raised at the last committee meetings. Councillors and Members of thepublic are invited to raise issues affecting local environmental quality.

(iv) Petitions

To receive petitions from members of the public and community groups.

(v) Open Forum

In accordance with the Code of Practice no organisation has indicated that theywished to address the Area Committee as part of the Open Forum arrangements.

(vi) Ward Flexibility Funding - Gatley Village Partnership (Pages 21 - 28)

To consider an application from Gatley Village Partnership towards the cost of aGatley Sports Day on 22 April 2017.

Non-Executive Business

6. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (Page 29)

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration

(a) To consider consultations (if any) received by the Corporate Director for PlaceManagement and Regeneration on any planning applications relevant to the Cheadle area.

The following development application will be considered by the Area Committee:-

(i) DC061537 - Land at Barcheston Road, Cheadle (Pages 30 - 60)


3/68


4/68

Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive

Town HallStockportMonday, 4 July 2016


5/68

Any person wishing to photograph, film or audio-record a public meeting are requested toinform Democratic Services in order that necessary arrangements can be made for themeeting.

If you require a copy of the agenda or a particular report(s) by e mail or in large print,

Braille or audio, please contact the above person for further details. A minicom facility isavailable on 0161 474 3128.

A loop system is available in the meeting rooms in the Town Hall. Please contact the TownHall Reception on 0161 474 3251 for further details.

* Smartphone users can download a QR reader application onto their phone for free. When they see a QR code they

can use the phones camera to scan it and are directed automatically to the related web information. The cost of using

a QR code is dependent on your mobile phone contract or pre-paid bundle. For further information on costs please

contact your mobile provider.


6/68

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE

Meeting: 7 June 2016At: 6.00 pm

PRESENT

Councillors Anna Charles-Jones, Graham Greenhalgh, Keith Holloway,Sylvia Humphreys, Adrian Nottingham, John Pantall, Paul Porgess, Iain Roberts andJune Somekh.

1. ELECTION OF CHAIR

RESOLVED That Councillor Graham Greenhalgh be elected Chair of the AreaCommittee for the period until the next Annual Council Meeting.

Councillor Graham Greenhalgh in the Chair

2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR

RESOLVED That Councillor Paul Porgess be appointed Vice-Chair of the AreaCommittee for the period until the next Annual Council Meeting.

3. MINUTES

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 19 April 2016were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were made.

5. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of whichhad been circulated) updating the Area Committee on progress since the last meeting ondecisions taken by the Area Committee and the current position on Ward Flexibility

Funding. The report also included the current position on the ward delegated budgets.

Members expressed concern about the delay in the implementation of the TrafficRegulation Orders in the vicinity of Oak Tree Primary School, Cheadle Hulme.

RESOLVED That the report be noted.

6. URGENT DECISIONS

No urgent decisions were reported.

Agenda Item 1.


7/68

Cheadle Area Committee - 7 June 2016

7. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

(i) Chair's Announcements

The Chair highlighted the number of summer festivals which were taking place during the

next few weeks including the Heald Green Festival at Heald Green Village Hall on 25 June2016 and the Gatley Festival between 25 June 2016 and 3 July 2016, culminating atGatley Hill House on 3 July 2016.

(ii) Public Question Time

No public questions were submitted.

(iii) Public Realm

A report was submitted (copies of which had been circulated) on public realm issues within

the area represented by the Cheadle Area Committee.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

fly tipping at York Close, Cheadle and The Cloisters, Cheadle needed to beinvestigated.

the trees alongside Wilmslow Road, from Cheadle Road to The Griffin public houseon Etchells Road, Heald Green needed cutting back.


(iv) Petitions

(a) Brook Road, Cheadle Residential Parking Scheme

Councillor Keith Holloway submitted a petition containing nine signatures from theresidents of 15-25 Brook Road, Cheadle requesting that the Council investigates the needfor a residential parking scheme on Brook Road, Cheadle.

RESOLVED That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director for PlaceManagement and Regeneration for investigation.

(b) Charlotte Street, Cheadle Residential Parking Scheme

Councillor Iain Roberts submitted a petition containing eleven signatures from theresidents of Charlotte Street, Cheadle requesting that the Council investigates the need fora residential parking scheme on Charlotte Street, Cheadle.

RESOLVED That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director for PlaceManagement and Regeneration for investigation.


8/68


8. OPEN FORUM - NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANS 2016/17

A representative of the Chief Executive, Stockport Homes Ltd, submitted a report (copiesof which had been circulated) providing an update on progress in the delivery of theNeighbourhood Action Plan and seeking comments on progress to date and for any future

actions in the 2016-2017 plan.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

the staircases in a number of blocks of flats in the Cheadle Hulme North Ward werein a poor condition.

how Stockport Homes worked in partnership with other social landlords such asMossbank Homes and the Johnnie Johnson Housing Trust and the extent to whichthe Neighbourhood Plans were discussed with them. The Area Committeefavoured a joint action plan with the other social housing providers and theadoption of a holistic approach from all the providers of social housing in the area.

Stockport Homes carried out work with the providers of accessible transportservices to try and assist customers in being able to attend events.

Stockport Homes should investigate whether it was possible to have communalaccess to Sky television for those residents in blocks of flats.


9. WARD FLEXIBILITY FUNDING - ST ANN'S ROAD NORTH ALLOTMENT

ASSOCIATION

Mr Robert Broughton from the St. Anns Road North Allotment Association attended theArea Committee to answer questions from Members in relation to an application for WardFlexibility Funding for the purchase of a wood chipper to help dispose of wood cuttingsecologically.

RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Manager be recommended to make a grantof 699 for the purchase of a wood chipper, to be funded from the Ward Flexibility Fundingallocations as follows:-

Cheadle and Gatley Ward - 188Cheadle Hulme North Ward - 183

Heald Green Ward - 328.

(i) Ward Flexibility Funding - St Ann's Lourdes Group

Mrs Martina Riley from the St. Anns Lourdes Group attended the Area Committee toanswer questions from Members in relation to an application for Ward Flexibility Fundingtowards the cost of a pilgrimage to Lourdes where they care for sick and elderly people.

RESOLVED (1) That the Democratic Services Manager be recommended to make agrant of 500 towards the cost of a pilgrimage to Lourdes, to be funded from the WardFlexibility Funding allocations as follows:-

Cheadle and Gatley Ward - 250


9/68


Cheadle Hulme North Ward - 250

(2) That the group be requested to report back to the Area Committee on the use of themonies for the pilgrimage.

10. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Development applications were submitted.

(NOTE: Full details of the decisions including conditions and reasons for granting orrefusing planning permission and imposing conditions are given in the schedule of plans.The Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration is authorised todetermine conditions and reasons and they are not therefore referred to in committeeminutes unless the committee makes a specific decision on a condition or reason. In orderto reduce printing costs and preserve natural resources, the schedule of plans is notreproduced within these minutes. A copy of the schedule of plans is available on the

councils website at www.stockport.gov.uk/planningdecisions. Copies of the schedule ofplans, or any part thereof, may be obtained from the Services to Place Directorate uponpayment of the Councils reasonable charges).

(i) DC/061294 - 116 Styal Road, Gatley

In respect of plan no. 61294 for a proposed new raised roof and roof dormers; singlestorey rear extension to existing dormer bungalow and new garage at 116 Styal Road,Gatley, it was

RESOLVED That the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee be recommendedto grant planning permission, subject to the conditions contained in the report.

11. CHECKLIST FOR THE VALIDATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the CorporateDirector for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated)seeking the Area Committee comments on the proposed re-adoption of the CouncilsApplication Validation Checklist (AVC) for the validation of planning applications and thesupporting document Explanatory Notes for the National and Local InformationRequirements for the Validation of Planning Applications.

The Area Committee debated the requirement for applicants on occasions to provide acontaminated land survey and a foul drainage assessment, and how to ensure that thesewere provided to the requisite standard. A representative of the Corporate Director forPlace Management and Regeneration advised that within the validation checklist therewould be a Phase 1 contaminated land assessment with which the Planning Departmentwould consult the Environmental Health Department and may lead to a planning conditionbeing recommended. There was also a dedicated drainage team within the Council withthe expertise to comment on such proposals. The Environment Agency and United Utilitieswould also be consulted.



10/68


12. APPEAL DECISIONS. CURRENT PLANNING APPEALS AND ENFORCEMENTS

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the DeputyChief Executive (copies of which had been circulated) listing any outstanding or recentlydetermined planning appeals and enforcements within the area represented by the

Cheadle Area Committee.


13. BROOKFIELD PARK SHIERS FAMILY TRUST ANNUAL REPORT 2015/16

A representative of the Borough Treasurer submitted a report (copies of which had beencirculated) advising the Area Committee of the financial standing of the Brookfield ParkShiers Family Trust, indicating the amount of money available for distribution toorganisations and providing commentary on the relevant performance of investment funds.The Area Committee, acting in its capacity as Trustee for the Brookfield Park Shiers

Family Trust, considered a report which advised Members of the financial standing of theTrust and sought their approval to formally adopt the Financial Accounts of the Trust forthe year ending 31 March 2016.

RESOLVED (1) That the contents of the report be noted.

(2)That the Financial Accounts of the Brookfield Park Shiers Family Trust for the yearending 31 March 2016, included as Appendix One to the report, be adopted.

(3) That the Area Committees previous decision to reserve 25,000 from the Trusttowards addressing the effect of loneliness amongst elderly residents and theconsequential effect on their health be reaffirmed.

(4) That a distribution of the Trust be made in accordance with this decision and that theapplication process be now commenced.

(5)That the current investment policy of the Trust be retained.

14. CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE COMMUTED SUMS FOR PLAY

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate

Director for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated)detailing commuted sums received by the Council from housing developers towards thecost of play provision and setting out the criteria that must be used in allocating sums forplay provision.

RESOLVED That the following allocation of commuted sums for the Cheadle area beapproved:-

The use of 669.24 from development no. 1140 (land to the rear of 209 FinneyLane) for future improvements to Rose Vale Play Area.

The use of 669.24 from development no. 1193 (land adjacent to 96 Brookfield

Road) for future improvements at Bruntwood Park.


11/68


The use of 669.24 from development no. 1201 (168 Kingsway) for future play areaimprovements at Gatley Recreation Ground.

The use of 167.31 from development no. 1206 (DC059365, Cheadle ElectricalServices, 64 High Street) for future play improvements at Diamond Jubilee PlayArea.

The use of 669.24 from development no. 1211 (DC056355, 4 Grange Park Road)for future play improvements at Bruntwood Park.

The use of 3,011.18 from development no. 1222 (DC059584, 75-109 SilverdaleRoad) for future play improvements at Bruntwood Park.

The use of 669.24 from development no. 1225 (DC047387, 3 Stones Hill Cottage,Gatley) for Gatley Recreation Ground.

The use of 1,003.86 from development no. 1227 (DC46824, 3 Ashfield Road.Cheadle) for future play improvements at Diamond Jubilee Play Area.

The use of 669.24 from development no. 1235 (DC061055, 1 Lomond) for futureplay improvements at Rose Vale Play Area.

The use of 501.93 from development no. 1241 (DC061248, 22 Cranston Grove)for future play improvements at Gatley Recreation Ground.

15. HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC WARD SPOKESPERSONS

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of whichhad been circulated) inviting the Area Committee to nominate Ward Spokespersons withwhom the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration could consult onhighway maintenance and traffic management matters, and the expenditure of the WardDelegated Budget up to 300.

RESOLVED That the following councillors be appointed as Ward Spokespersons forhighway and traffic management issues for 2016/17:-

Cheadle and Gatley Ward

Councillor Keith Holloway

Cheadle Hulme North Ward

Councillor Paul Porgess

Heald Green Ward

Councillor Sylvia Humphreys16. PATH ADJACENT TO 16 PARSONAGE WAY, CHEADLE

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager reported that this item had beenplaced on the agenda at the request of Councillor Paul Porgess.

Councillor Porgess reported that the footpath adjacent to 16 Parsonage Way, Cheadlelead to shops and was being used by young people skateboarding. There had beenreports of a collision with a pedestrian user causing injury. The issue had been


12/68


investigated and the installation of bollards had been proposed as a possible solution tothe problem.

RESOLVED That the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration berequested to expedite this issue.

17. INSTALLATION OF BOLLARDS ADJACENT TO 228 STOCKPORT ROAD,

CHEADLE

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager reported that this item had beenplaced on the agenda at the request of Councillor Paul Porgess.

Councillor Porgess reported that 228 Stockport Road was a takeaway and people wereparking on the double yellow lines, sometimes on the pavement, causing an obstructionand difficulties with the collection of waste bins and emergency vehicles accessingproperties. It had been proposed that bollards be installed on the pavement as a possible

solution to the problem.

RESOLVED That the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration berequested to expedite this issue.

18. TRAVELLERS ON COUNCIL LAND BETWEEN COUNCILLOR LANE AND PARK

ROAD, CHEADLE

(NOTE: The Chair was of the opinion that this item, although not included on the agendafor the meeting, should be considered as a matter of urgency in accordance with Section100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 to prevent undue delay in the considerationof the matter).

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager reported that this item had beenplaced on the agenda at the request of Councillor John Pantall.

Councillor Pantall reported that there had been an unauthorised encampment on landadjacent to the playing field near to Park Road Stadium, Cheadle. The procedure torecover the land had begun. The site had been the subject of a previous incursionfollowing which site security had been improved. An investigation was ongoing followingreports that the gate had been unlocked prior to the incursion.


The meeting closed at 7.31 pm


13/68

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE Date: 12 July 2016PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

GATLEY RECREATION GROUND PAVILION - FORMER GATLEY PAVILION(Minute 14 of the meeting of the Area Committee held on 29 September 2015)

During the marketing period fourteen parties expressed an interest and viewed the property. Three bids were received, all of whichwere from food outlet operators. Following an evaluation of the bids, negotiations are being progressed with a Mr Rashidi to leasethe premises to operate a food outlet to be known as Piccolino in the Park.

P

13


14/68

WARD FLEXIBILITY FUNDING

The amounts available to be spent in 2016/17, incorporating the monies carried forward and a budget of 3,000 per ward for2016/17, are as follows:-

Cheadle and Gatley Cheadle Hulme North Heald Green

Funding awarded in2015/16

Cheadle Golf Club

Gatley Village Partnership

Cheadle VillagePartnership

Cheadle Village Hall

Walter Stansby Memorial

Park

2ndCheadle Scout Group

The Its OK Club

Budget Carried Forward

250

400

500

600

1000

650

500

4,504.25

Funding awarded in 2015/16

All Hallows Church YouthGroup

Cheadle Golf Club

All Hallows Church YouthGroup

Cheadle Village Partnership

Cheadle Village Hall

5thCheadle Hulme ScoutingGroup and First StepsOrrishmere Charity Pre-School

452.92

250

500

500

400

1000

Funding awarded in 2015/16

Cheadle Golf Club


Budget carried forward

Plus budget of 3,000 for2016/17

St. Anns Road North AllotmentAssociation

200

100

16,24

19,24

328

P

14


15/68


St. Anns Road NorthAllotment Association

St. Anns Lourdes Group

7,504.25

188

250


The Its OK Club

Budget Carried Forward


All Hallows Church

St. Anns Road NorthAllotment Association

St Anns Lourdes Group

250

500

10,242.38

13,242.38

1,000

183

250

7,066.25 11, 809.38 19,2

P

15


16/68

Appendix A - Resume Of Issues Progress Report

SCHEME

C

ALLEDIN?

Y/N

W

ITHTRAFFIC

SERVICES

W

ITHLEGAL

O

NADVERT

OBJECTIONS?

Y/N

AWAITING

OPS.DATE

O

PERATIVE

DATE

COMMENTS

Manchester Road,Cheadle

MJ

11/03/2014

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted areport seeking the comments of the Area Committee regarding theproposed Manchester Road cycle route following the successful bid forfunding from the Department for Transport, via the Cycle City AmbitionGrant. The cost of the scheme was approximately 450,000 which wouldbe included in the 2014/15 Highways Capital Programme. Scheme onsite est 12 week construction programme. Civil works substantiallycomplete by end of October, works over M60 bridge delayed due toHighways Agency request for additional info. Works over the M60 bridgeto commence in February. On-going

Oak Tree PrimarySchool, QueensRoad, Cheadle

HulmeEPS

29/09/2015

Objection report to be submitted to Dec AC. Additional TROs to besubmitted to the Feb AC. Additional TROs report to be submitted. Onadvert

Carrs Road,Cheadle

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration outliningthe results of an investigation into parking concerns in the vicinity of

P

16


17/68

EPS

10/11/2015

Carrs Road, Cheadle. Operative from 2ndMay 2016This scheme is now operative but issues with residents of CarrsAvenue

Woodthorpe Drive,Cheadle Hulme

EPS/CP

15/12/2015

Petition for the investigation into the need for a residents parkingscheme to be introduced. Criteria not met, Ward Spokesperson hasbeen informed.Awaiting feedback from Ward Members as to wayforwards as Woodthorpe Drive does not meet the criteria for theintroduction of a Residents Parking Scheme.

Styal Road, Gatley

AV

16/02/2016

Vehicle Activated Speed (VAS) sign. Works order has been placedThe scheme is now complete.

Greenbank Road,Gatley

CP

19/4/2016

A petition was submitted containing twenty signatures requesting thatthe Council investigate the need for a Residents Parking Scheme onGreenbank Road, Gatley.

RESOLVED That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director forPlace Management and Regeneration for investigationInvestigation works / surveys to begin. Awaiting information fromCllr Greenhalgh for exact details of issues as the road does notmeet the criteria for a Residents Parking Scheme

Orchard Gardens /

Longley Lane,Gatley

CP

9/02/2016

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a

report to seek approval for introducing a TRO for No Waiting At AnyTime restriction around the junction, as it had been cited that vehicles atthis location were causing a narrowing of the carriageway which onoccasions prevents access for larger vehicles such as refuge vehicles.Currently with Ward Spokes regarding Manchester CC feeNo objections to the legal advertising and the works order has beenplaced for the road markings Once complete a date can be agreedP

17


18/68

for Order to be operative.

Queens Road,Cheadle Hulme

CP

9/2/2016

A representative of the Democratic Services submitted a report of theCorporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration (copies ofwhich had been circulated) setting out objections received to a proposedrestriction of waiting Traffic Regulation Order at Queens Road, CheadleHulme.

RESOLVED That, notwithstanding the objections received to theproposed Restriction of Waiting Traffic Rergulation Order at Queens

Road, Cheadle Hulme, the Order be made as advertised.Lining as been installed, but awaiting signs to be installed prior tothe order being sealed.

Brook Road,Gatley

CP

24/5/2016

Councillor Keith Holloway submitted a petition containing nine signaturesfrom the residents of 15-25 Brook Road, Cheadle requesting that theCouncil investigates the need for a residential parking scheme on BrookRoad, Cheadle.

RESOLVED That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director forPlace Management and Regeneration for investigation.Investigation works / surveys to begin.

CharlotteStreet,Cheadle

CP

7/6/2016

Councillor Iain Roberts submitted a petition containing eleven signaturesfrom the residents of Charlotte Street, Cheadle requesting that the

Council investigates the need for a residential parking scheme onCharlotte Street, Cheadle.

RESOLVED That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director forPlace Management and Regeneration for investigation.Investigation works / surveys to begin.

P

18


19/68

APPENDIX B Schemes Currently Under Investigation

Request to Investigate

Brook Road, Cheadle- On Brook Road, Cheadle opposite the junction with Hall Street there is a gate to a back alley that runsbehind the Lime Grove houses. Cars park right in front of the gate which can prevent residents from getting their wheelie bins outfor collection. If the yellow line on Brook Road could be extended by 2m or so it would ensure there was proper access to the gateand to the rear of the Lime Grove properties.

Hawthorn Rd / Burnside / Cedar, Gatley Look at junction protection (Double Yellow Lines ) around the junction

Wood Street, Cheadle- Dangerous parking along wood street blocking entrances. Investigate the introduction of parkingrestrictions. ( Consultation letters being sent out week commencing Monday 27thJune 2016 on proposals)

Brook Road, Cheadle- On Brook Road, Cheadle opposite the junction with Hall Street there is a gate to a back alley that runsbehind the Lime Grove houses. Cars park right in front of the gate which can prevent residents from getting their wheelie bins outfor collection. If the yellow line on Brook Road could be extended by 2m or so it would ensure there was proper access to the gateand to the rear of the Lime Grove properties.

Grange Park Road / Wilmslow Road, Cheadle Look at introducing junction protection (Double Yellow Lines) around junction Kingsway Junction Look at amending the road markings to allow three proper lanes on approach to junction from Torkington

Road.(Gatley side)

P

19


20/68

Cheadle Area Committee Delegated Budget

Ward Balance broughtforward from

2015/16)

Budget 2016/17

Total Available

Approved andEstimatedSchemes

Available Balance

Cheadle andGatley

26,060 10,750 36,810 660 36,150

Cheadle HulmeNorth

12,970 10,750 23,720 0 23,720

Heald Green 37,010 10,750 47,760 22,500 25,260

Total 76,040 32,250 108,290 23,160 85,130

P

20


21/68

Page 21

Agenda Item 5.(vi)


22/68

Page 22


23/68

Page 23


24/68

Page 24


25/68

Page 25


26/68

Page 26


27/68

Page 27


28/68

Page 28


29/68

Cheadle Committee12 July 2016

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Report of the Chief Execut ive

em 1:DC/061537SITE ADDRESS: LAND AT BARCHESTON ROAD, CHEADLE, STOCKPORT, SK8 1LJPROPOSAL: Provision of new tennis facilities to include two all-weather courts, pavilion

uilding and associated car parking and external lighting. Erection of 4 no. dwellings

NFORMATION

hese applications need to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act998. Under Article 6, the applicants [and those third parties, including local residents, who

ave made representations] have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee mustive full consideration to their comments.

Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 confer(s) a right of respect for a persons home, other land andusiness assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as setut in the Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Development and Control has concluded thatome rights conferred by these Articles on the applicant(s)/objectors/residents and otherccupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that

nterference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on theasis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on

hese rights posed by approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits ofpproval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Councilnder the Town and Country Planning Acts.

his Copyright has been made by or with the authority of SMBC pursuant to section 47 of theCopyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the Act). Unless the Act provides the prior

ermission of the copyright owner. (Copyright (Material Open to Public Inspection) (Marking ofCopies of Maps) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1099)

Agenda Item 6.


30/68

Appl ication Reference: DC/061537Location: LAND AT BARCHESTON ROAD, CHEADLE,

STOCKPORT, SK8 1LJProposal: Provision of new tennis facilities to include two

all-weather courts, pavilion building and associated carparking and external lighting. Erection of 4 no. dwellings

Type of Appl ication: Full Planning Permission

Registration Date: 04/04/2016

Expiry Date: 30/05/2016Case Officer: Daniel Hewitt

Appl icant: Henderson Homes (UK) LtdAgent : Emery Planning Partnership Ltd

COMMITTEE STATUS

Cheadle Area Committee decision (called up by Councillor Keith Holloway and more than 4etters of objection were received within 21 days of notification)

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

he proposed development comprises:

the erection of four, three storey, four bedroom dwellings set in two pairs of semi-detachedhouses in the southernmost area of the site;

the creation of two floodlit all weather tennis courts set enclosed by ball-stop fencing;

the erection of a single storey pavilion building with a hipped roof providing users withchanging facilities, a small club room incorporating covered and open viewing terraces; and

10 off-street parking spaces running parallel to a new access road from Barcheston Road(including two disabled parking spaces) to serve the tennis club.

he proposed buildings would be brick built with red facing bricks, dark grey UPVC windows,ardwood (veneer) front doors and slate roofs.

he development would require a number of existing trees to be felled that conflict withevelopment whilst the submitted tree assessment recommends the removal of others for goodrboricultural practice reasons. No trees on the application site are protected.

he applicant has submitted the following documents in support of their proposals:

Agenda Item 6.(i)


31/68

Drawings and plansPlanning and Open Space StatementArboricultural Implications AssessmentEnergy Statement

Extended Phase 1 Habitat SurveyDesign and Access Statement

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

he application site lies at the end of Barcheston Road in the Cheadle area of the Borough.he application site has an area of 0.43 hectares and formerly accommodated the Broadwayennis Club prior to its demise over ten years ago due to problems with vandalism and fireamage. Formerly the site accommodated 3 shale courts and a pavilion building but is nowes vacant, derelict, unkempt, overgrown and is secured by temporary fencing preventing its

se.

Barcheston Road is a suburban street linking to Broadway in a predominantly residential area.functions as a cul-de-sac as there is no vehicular through access to Turnfield Road or anyther street to the south although a public footpath (a definitive public right of way) runslongside the sites southern and western boundary. Houses to the east and southeast areeparated from the application site by Bruntwood Hall Brook (a 'main river') that runs alongsidehe eastern boundary of the site.

Existing trees cover the site particularly along the site's boundaries none of which arerotected. The application site is designated as an area of Local Open Space in the Unitary

Development Plan and immediately adjoins a 'Green Chain' designation on its south easternoundary.

inally, it should be noted that the application site is identified in the Council's Strategic Housingand Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as having the potential to accommodate up to nineouses in the long term although this should not influence the outcome of this application.

POLICY BACKGROUND

he site is allocated as Local Open Space (Policy UOS1.3 Protection of Local Open Space) on

he Proposals Map of the Review UDP and lies immediately adjacent to land designated as aGreen Chain (Policy NE3.1 Protection and Enhancement of Green Chains)

he following policies are relevant:

Saved Policies of the adopted Stockport Unitary Development Plan ReviewUOS1.3 Protection of Local Open Space

1.1 Land for Active RecreationNE3.1 Protection and Enhancement of Green ChainEP1.7 Development and Flood RiskEP1.10 Aircraft Noise

MW1.5 Control of Waste from Development


32/68

Stockport Core Strategy DPDCS8 Safeguarding and improving the environmentSD6 Adapting to the Impacts of Climate ChangeCS2 Housing ProvisionCS3 Mix of Housing

CS4 Distribution of HousingH1 Design of Residential DevelopmentH2 Housing PhasingSIE1 Quality PlacesSIE2 Provision of Recreation and Amenity Open Space in New DevelopmentSIE3 Protecting Safeguarding and Enhancing the EnvironmentCS9 Transport and DevelopmentCS10 An effective and sustainable transport network

1 Transport and Development-2 Parking in Developments-3 Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)Design of Residential Development SPDRecreational Open Space Provision and Commuted Payments SPGSustainable Design and Construction SPDSustainable Transport SPD

ransport and Highways in Residential Areas SPD

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Planning Practice Guidance

PLANNING HISTORY

None relevant.

NEIGHBOURS VIEWS

he application was publicised as a 'departure from the development plan':

a site notice was posted at the entrance to the site on Barcheston Road on 04 May 2016;

a notice was published in the Stockport Express dated 11 May 2016.

n addition, 30 notification letters were sent to neighbouring residents on 04 May 2016.

o date 12 representations have been received comprising 7 objections and 5 comments.

he 7 objectionsreceived are summarised below:

A resident of 41 Barcheston Road objects to the development on the following grounds:

there is a covenant on the land requiring it to remain as tennis courts and no houses should

be built on it.flood lighting would directly affect their property and would be intrusive in their back garden


33/68

the condition of the highway in Barcheston Road is in a very poor condition and constructiontraffic would have a detrimental effect on it - if planning permission is granted would itsrepair be guaranteed?

the traffic impacts of the development

he residents of 43 Barcheston Road object to the development and the building of dwellingsn the land. They go on a ask a number of questions and make comments summarised as

ollows:

They understand that the land is left to the local community for use as a tennis club so whyare houses now proposed?

They understand that a minimum of three courts are required to establish an official tennisclub.

Who will profit from the development and where will residual revenue go?

What are the ongoing maintenance arrangements for the court and the club?

What security measures are being incorporated to prevent unauthorised access at night?The proposed use of floodlights until 10pm is an unacceptable disturbance due to theproximity of their home.

The highway on Barcheston Road is in a poor condition and this would be made worse bythe development - are there plans to improve the road?

Is sufficient car parking being provided as on-street parking is already an issue outside theirhome.

Numerous applications by residents to join the previous club were rejected. Due toconstruction related disruption, will free or reduced rate membership be offered to localresidents?

Since the closure of the previous club, the land has been left untouched and vegetation has

damaged boundary fencing - will it be replaced?

A resident of 40 Barcheston Road objects to the development on the following grounds:

the road is already congested with parked cars and the development will make it worse -there was an application for a dwelling on land to the rear of No. 44 that was refused ontraffic grounds

the old tennis court is a haven for wildlife which we should be encouraging not destroying

the old club belonged to its members - do the applicants have the right to build on it?

he residents of 42 Barcheston Road strongly object to the proposed development on groundsummarised as follows:

traffic impacts and parking concerns due in part to the site's location at the end of thecul-de-sac

noise from courts that are scheduled to open until 10pm

Overshadowing and light pollution from the proposed floodlights

High density development on Barcheston Road that will harm the area's character andculture

Construction traffic impacts on the public highway which is already in need of repair

A resident of 47 Barcheston Road states that a number of concerns arise from the applicationummarised as follows:


34/68

The site has become an eyesore since it was abandoned in 2000 and although residentsapproached the club to see what could be done they received no response

The land was left to the local community not private interests

What assurances are there that the future tennis courts will be maintained and not left to

become derelict againThe existing road surface is in a very poor condition which also makes it noisy and theproposed development will make this worse

A resident of 26 Broadway objects to the development on the grounds that he does not believehat the applicants/landowners have the right to change the use of any part of this land fromecreational use as a covenant states that the land was given to the community by a benefactoror recreational use and the development would result in a breach of covenant.

A resident of 4 Barcheston Road, near its junction with Broadway, has objected to theevelopment solely on traffic generation and highway safety grounds. He argues that speedumps or traffic measures are required on Barcheston Road to address existing speedingroblems along its length and to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic generated by theevelopment itself. He states that he does not object to the principle of the developmentroposed itself but does object given the absence of traffic calming measures.

he five commentsreceived are summarised below:

he residents of 20 Barcheston Road are generally supportive of the proposals but questionwhether there is too much on-site parking provided and its potential to attract problems with

nti-social behaviour. They also indicate that the site is question "was gifted to the residents

or recreational activities" and question how it was sold to a private developer without theirnowledge.

A resident of 11 Barcheston Road asks who would the tennis courts be for and whether a newlub is proposed. They go on to state that ex-members of the club have not all been notifiednd 3 courts would be a requirement to enter any tennis league or competition.

he residents of 12 The Downs that backs onto the application site, raise a number of concernshat they would like to see resolved before planning permission is granted, summarised asollows:

they seeks reassurance that they will not be overlooked or their privacy adversely affectedfencing should be erected to enclose the rear gardens for security and privacy reasons andbe of a design sympathetic to the woodland environment in which it would be located

they are concerned about the loss of Tree 4 as identified in the submitted ArboriculturalMethod Statement on loss of privacy grounds and ownership grounds

the proposed three storey houses will be out of keeping with properties in the area due totheir height and lead to a loss of privacy

they believe the tennis club could become create noise and light pollution problems and itsimpacts should be minimised

the courts and club should be an affordable and accessible amenity for residents affected bythe facility

the development will lead to the enclosure of the public footpath on its south western


35/68

boundary and it should be ensured that public safety is not compromised as a result givenits use by school children amongst others.

A resident of 3 Barcheston Road states that the development must be considered inonjunction with traffic calming measures.

A resident of 13 Barcheston Road states that they do not object to the application, the raiseoncerns about the impact of the stream that runs adjacent to the development stating that it is

n fact a 'main river' and frequently floods after heavy rain. They go on state that since theEnvironment Agency improved the culvert under Daylesford Road, the incidences of flooding

ave reduced but flooding still occurs into their garden. When in flood the stream isangerous, smelly and leaves mud, debris and rubbish to be cleared up. They are keen tonsure that the development does not make this problem worse due to the increased run off

hat will result.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Sport England- Commenting as a non-statutory consultee, they state that they have contactedhe Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) for their views on the proposal who have confirmed theollowing:

The site is currently derelict. The club have consulted with the County Tennis Associationand discussed the issues relating to the development of the club. Brining this site back intotennis use is welcomed and we support the proposals.

We have been consulted on the design of the site and would like confirmation from thecontractors that the specification of courts and lights is as per the LTA specification.

Sport England notes that in the planning statement that the courts will be in accordance withTA standards, Sport England also notes that the tennis elements would be completed prior to

he first occupation of the new houses which will fund the delivery of the tennis courts andupport the reformation of the Broadway Tennis Club.

Sport England, therefore, considers this proposal addresses and identified need for this type ofacility and has the potential to be of benefit to the development of tennis. We would wish toee this accorded an appropriate weight in the decision that is reached on this application.

n conclusion, they state that they do not wish to raise any objection to the application on the

rounds that it will help achieve their stated planning strategic objective 3:

Provide new facilities to meet demand: We seek to ensure that communities have access toufficient high quality sports facilities that are fit for purpose. Using evidence and advocacy, weelp to guide investment into new facilities and the expansion of existing ones to meet newemands that cannot be met by existing provision.

SMBC Planning Policy -The proposal is for the provision of new tennis facilities to include twoll-weather courts, a pavilion building and associated car parking and external lighting, 4 no.wellings would be erected on the southern part of the application site. The site is on therounds of the former Broadway Tennis Club, off Barcheston road, Cheadle.

he proposal in an area of designated Local Open Space according to the UDP proposals map.


36/68

Broadway Tennis club formerly had three tennis courts and a pavilion. The proposal involveshe loss of approximately 1050sq m of allocated Local Open Space including one tennis court.

he proposal is therefore subject to revised UDP Policy UOS 1.3 (Protection of Local OpenSpace), Core Policy CS8 (Safeguarding and Improving the Environment), UDP Review Policy

1.1 Land for Active Recreation and Paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

Paragraph 74 of the NPPF indicates:

Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, shouldot be built on unless:an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or

and to be surplus to requirements; orthe loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better

rovision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; orthe development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which

learly outweigh the loss.'

he courts and pavilion building were the subject of vandalism and fire-damage around tenears ago and the site has long since been cleared, the land has remained derelict ever since.he primary purpose of this planning application is to facilitate the reformation of the Broadwayennis Club and to secure its long-term future. The surfacing for the new tennis courts woulde all-weather and laid out to Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) standards in terms of size anduality. Sport England sought the views of the (LTA) and the LTA have confirmed that they

welcome the site being brought back into tennis use.

he Sport, Recreation and Open Space 2005 study provides context/background for thestandard' adopted in the Development Plan. The Development plan adopts the Fields in Trust/NPFA 6 acre minimum standard; (formal 1.7 ha per 1000 pop). Against that standard theCheadle Committee area has 2.12ha per 1000 population, a surplus of 0.42ha per 1000 pop.

he minor loss of open space at the site would have negligible impact on the amount of formalpace in

Cheadle.

he quantity of Tennis courts in Cheadle was recorded as being at the average level for theorough, the quality ranging from 58 -65% in the study. Broadway tennis club was however noteferenced as being assessed as part of the Open space study. The development would

herefore be contributing two tennis courts to LTA standard. It is also acknowledged that therection of the dwellings will help fund the reformation of Broadway tennis club. It isonsidered therefore that the proposal would be compliant with the third bullet from paragraph4 of the NPPF because it is providing two good quality courts with essential facilities.

Core Strategy Policy CS8 states that development which does not safeguard the permanencend integrity of an area of Local Open Space will be allowed in situations where improvementsre made to promote the participation in the use of recreation facilities. It is considered that theroposal adheres to this policy because the proposal is providing two tennis courts, therebyddressing an identified need.

UDP Review Policy UOS 1.3 Protection of Local Open Space goes on to state thatevelopment within Local Open Space will be permitted where it would be enhancing the


37/68

verall quality of Local Open Space provision in the area.

UDP Review Policy L1.1 Land for Active Recreation relates to sports grounds and land lastsed for active recreation , the policy does not allow for its loss except where development

would provide sufficient benefit to sport and recreation to outweigh the loss, which is clearly

emonstrated in this case.n summary, the applicant has clearly demonstrated that the proposal will be bringing theBroadway tennis club into use thereby enhancing the recreational provision in the area. The

roposal is therefore incompliance with the policy position in relation open space therebyatisfying paragraph 74 of the NPPF, Core Strategy Policy CS8 and Stockport UDP Review

Policies L1.1 and UOS1.3 Strategy.

Suggested Conditionsis recommended that a condition is attached to the decision notice, (in the event planningermission is granted) in order to ensure that the proposed new tennis facilities would beompleted prior to the first occupation of the proposed new houses. Confirmation is also

equired to illustrate that the specification of the courts and lights is per LTA standard.

Commuted Sums to serve the Open Space needs of the schemes residentshe policy requirements of Dev Man Policy SIE-2 from the Core Strategy and the Recreational

Open Space Provision SPG indicate that small new residential development schemes will beequired to contribute towards the provision of open space for formal and casual recreation andhildren's play in locations which are accessible to the future occupants. Owing to the recenthanges in the Planning Practice Guidance, contributions are not to be sought fromevelopments of 10-units or less. Consequently offsite open space contributions would not beequired in this instance.

Environment Agency- No objection in principle but note that Brunt wood Hall Brook (a 'mainver') runs alongside the eastern boundary of the site and that a permit may be required fromhem for works or structures within 8 metres of the top of the bank.

SMBC Arboricultural Officer-

Conservation Area Designationshe proposed development is not within or affected by a Conservation Area.

egally Protected Trees

here is legally protected tree within this site or affected by this development (Cheadle &Gatley DUD No.47 Barcheston Road, Cheadle 1970).

nvasive Specieshere were no signs of any invasive species during the site inspection therefore no control

measures are required.

Stockports Core Strategy DPDCS 8 Biodiversity and Nature ConservationSIE-1 Development ManagementSIE-3 Protecting, Safeguarding and enhancing the Environment

Stockports Unitary Development Plan (Retained Policy)


38/68

NE1.1 SITES OF SPECIAL NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCENE1.2 SITES OF NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCENE3.1 PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF GREEN CHAINS

Recommendations:

he proposed development will potentially have a negative impact on trees located on site withhe proposed new tennis courts, pavilion and new dwellings construction andncroachment/potential damage from machinery working in close proximity of the trees within

he site. The sites front and rear boundary has a fair level of vegetation and trees and as suchhere cannot be any loss of trees on site as this will have a negative impact on amenity andiodiversity without the submission of an enhanced landscaping scheme to off-set and increase

he tree loss of the site.

he proposed development would potentially have a negative impact on the existing trees withproposal for construction works in close proximity of existing trees on site. The construction

materials or vehicles may impact on the trees and as such an advisory should be required to beiven to make contractors aware of the protective trees and the installation of protective fencing

o limit access to these areas to prevent compaction in accordance with the submitted rootrotection plan, accidental damage or spillage of chemicals on the root zones of all trees in the

whole of the property, if this is conditioned and complied with then the tennis courts, pavilionnd residential dwellings would still have a negative impact on the site and surroundingnvironment, but would limit the tree loss and as long as a detailed landscaping scheme isubmitted to show replacement and enhancement of the tree cover for the area.

he main concern for this site is the proposed level of impact on the existing trees especially toG6 as from the layout plan and the street scene plan it looks like it could clearly move awayrom G6 to give a better distance from the proposed retained trees and reduce the impact onhe root systems of these trees. In addition accidental damage from contractors parking,torage and deliveries to the existing trees therefore the need for an advisory notices to be

ssued to contractors to prevent any compaction, damage to trees and grass verges in the areand proximity to the protected/retained trees within and neighbouring the site which potentially

will have a negative impact on the trees root systems, as the trees are an integral part of theree scape for the residential estate and therefore cannot be lost.urther consideration also needs to be given to potential planting with native species such as

Holly and Yew for evergreen screening and Oaks, Limes and Hawthorns to be consideredlong with enhancement opportunities through new trees and more appropriate species needs

o be considered to fit the local environment and enhance the site as well as the biodiversity ofhe area.

he trees offer a high level of biodiversity/habitat benefit and as such they need retaining as theoss would be unacceptable as this would be further increasing urban sprawl of Cheadle area.

n principle the scheme will have a negative impact on the trees in the area and so willequire the submission of a landscaping scheme to show the replacement andnhancement of the tree scape, the conditioning of the root protection area and require thedvisory notice to be issued to contractors making them aware of the protected trees andestricted areas. These documents can be conditioned as they will just confirm the limited

evel of impact on the protected trees on site, then this will resolve any tree related issues.


39/68

he following conditions are required if the scheme is approved:

No existing tree within the site shall be cut down, topped, lopped, uprooted, willfullyamaged or willfully destroyed without the prior written approval of the local planninguthority, with the exception of those indicated otherwise on the approved plan. Any

edgerows, woody plants or shrubbery removed without such consent or dying or beingeverely damaged or being seriously diseased, within 5 years of the developmentommencing, shall be replaced within the next planting season with trees of such size andpecies as may be approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place until all existing trees on the site except those shown to beemoved on the approved plans, have been fenced off in accordance with BS 5837:2012Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations". The fencing shall be retained duringhe period of construction and no work, excavation, tipping or stacking of materials shallake place within any such fence during the construction period.

No development shall take place until details of all proposed tree planting, including thentended dates of planting, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the locallanning authority. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved detailsrior to the development being brought into use.

SMBC Environmental Health (Contamination) - Recommends the following condition(s) to bepplied on a phased basis:

No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment into contaminationt the site, in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing by the local planninguthority, has been carried out. The investigation and risk assessment shall includeecommendations for remedial action and the development shall not be occupied until theseecommendations have been implemented.

he report submitted with the application has identified potentially unacceptable risks fromontamination and further investigation is required to ensure that these risks to the future usersf the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,roperty and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely

without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off site receptors in accordancewith Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport UnitaryDevelopment Plan Review.

No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to aondition suitable for the specified use by removing unacceptable risks to human health,uildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted tond approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme to be submitted shallpecify but not be limited to :-

) the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria

i) all remedial works to be undertaken including the quantities of materials to be removed fromnd imported to the development site.

ii) the proposals for sourcing and testing all materials imported to the site including testing


40/68

chedules, sampling frequencies and actual and allowable contaminant concentrations (asetermined by appropriate risk assessment in accordance with the document "Model

Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination" (CLR11)).

Reason

o ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination to the future users of the land andeighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property andcological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely withoutnacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off site receptors in accordance with

Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport UnitaryDevelopment Plan Review.

he development shall not be occupied until the approved remediation scheme required to beubmitted by Condition [XXXX] has been carried out. Within [XXXX] months of completion ofemediation measures, a validation report assessing the effectiveness of the remediation

arried shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The reporthall specify any further remediation measures necessary and indicate how and when these

measures will be undertaken.

Reasono ensure that any unacceptable risks from contamination to the future users of the land andeighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property andcological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely withoutnacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off site receptors in accordance with

Policy EP1.5, "Development on or near Contaminated Sites", of the Stockport UnitaryDevelopment Plan Review.

NFORMATIVEAny investigation or risk assessment which seeks to establish the presence or otherwise ofontamination on or close to the site of a proposed development should be carried out inccordance with current legislation and guidance.

SMBC Environmental Health (Pollution Prevention)- The proposed development is for amixed use residential/leisure activity. The applicant wants develop the site for 4 residential

roperties along with 2 tennis courts, pavilion and flood lighting, with the hours of use on theavilion and courts from 08.00-22.00. I do not object to this development in principle however

here are a number of details that will need to be assessed.

rom assessment of the documentation supplied, there has been no noise or lighting reportndertaken to assess the impact of the noise and lighting from the proposed tennis courts upon

he proposed residential properties and residential properties that are already in situ. Noiserom the introduction of the car park will also need to be assessed.

nternal noise levels for residential should meet BS8223-2014;

living rooms Resting 07.00-23.00 35dB

Dining 07.00-23.00 40dB

Sleeping 07.00-23.00 35dB 23.00-07.00 30 dB


41/68

he noise report should also identify if there will be further mitigation with regards to the tennisourt i.e. acoustic fence surrounding the perimeter etc.

he applicant does not show the impact of the flood lighting upon the proposed residentialevelopment and residential that is already in situ. A lighting assessment should be

ndertaken to make sure that lighting levels do cause a light nuisance to the proposedesidential. The area that the site is situated in is classes as;

Environmental zone 3Sky Glow 15%

ighting into windows 10 luxSource intensity 5Building Luminance 10

know that the lighting for the tennis courts will go off at 10pm however during the wintermonths when it starts to get dark at 4pm if the levels are not set correctly then we could be

ealing a nuisance investigation.

Recommended conditions:

No development shall commence until a report is undertaken by a suitably qualified person toddress the impact of noise on the dwelling. This shall be carried out in accordance with

BS8233-2014 that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority and any mitigation measures recommended in the approved report shall be carried

ut before the development is first occupied.

No external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type of light appliance, theeight and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage have been submitted to andpproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting approved shall be installed andhall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

SMBC Highway Engineer- The site is situated in an accessible location having regard to theCouncils assessment criteria and is considered appropriate for residential development. Withespect to the tennis courts proposal this will bring back an historic but redundant use which Ionsider acceptable in principle. Further to my consultation dated 1 June, a revised drawingas been received and I can advise this has overcome my initial expressions of concern with

he layout. The means of access and roadway to serve the development are now acceptable in

erms of design and fit for purpose. A shared surface driveway will be constructed and thishould afford a safe environment for all users, adequate parking is proposed for the TennisCourts and the residential element and there is sufficient manoeuvring space within the site forefuse and delivery sized vehicles. In conclusion I raise no objections.

Relevant conditions and informatives:

No development shall take place until detail drawings of the means of site access, closure ofhe existing site access including full footway reinstatement, visibility splay provision andccess road construction details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the locallanning authority. No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the

means of access and access road have been completed in accordance with the approvedrawings and are available for use. The visibility splays formed shall thereafter be kept clear of


42/68

ny structure, object, plant or tree exceeding 600mm in height at all times thereafter.Reason: To ensure that the development will have an appropriately designed access and

ccess road so that it can be safely accessed by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles inccordance with Policies SIE-1 Quality Places, CS9 Transport and Development, T-1ransport and Development and T-3 Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network of the

Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

No development shall take place until details of the construction, surfacing, drainage, marking,ignage and any illumination of all areas of car parking within the approved development haveeen submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No part of theevelopment shall be occupied or brought into use until the car parking facilities have beenrovided in accordance with the approved drawings and are available for use. The car parking

acilities shall thereafter be retained and shall remain available for use.Reason: To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided and that they are appropriatelyocated and are of a safe and practical design, in accordance with Policies SD-6 Adapting tohe impacts of climate change, SIE-1 Quality Places, T-1 Transport and Development, T-2

Parking in Developments and T-3 Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network of theStockport Core Strategy DPD.

No development shall take place until details of a covered and secure cycle store for aminimum of 2 cycles to serve the tennis court use have been submitted to and approved inwriting by the local planning authority. The use shall not commence until the facilities have been

rovided in accordance with the approved details. The facilities shall then be retained and shallemain available for use at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that safe and practical cycle parking facilities are provided so as to ensurehat the site is fully accessible by all modes of transport in accordance with Policies CS9Transport and Development, T-1 Transport and Development and T-3 Safety and Capacityn the Highway Network of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

No development shall take place until details of a long-stay covered and secure cycle parkingacility to be provided for each of the approved dwellings have been submitted to and approvedn writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until its facility has beenrovided in accordance with the approved details and the facilities shall then be retained andhall remain available for use at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that safe and practical cycle parking facilities are provided so as to ensurehat the site is fully accessible by all modes of transport in accordance with Policies CS9Transport and Development, T-1 Transport and Development and T-3 Safety and Capacity

n the Highway Network of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

nformative:he applicants attention is drawn to the need to seek approval under the Highways Act 1980

rom the Highways Maintenance Section (telephone 0161 217 6111) regarding the constructionf the site access and reinstatement of the footway prior to works commencing on site.

SMBC Nature Development Officer- The site is located between Barcheston Road andCringle Drive, Cheadle. Full access to the site was not possible as the site was fenced off,

owever the majority of it could be viewed from the public footpath. The proposals for theite include the erection of 4 new dwellings, along with two all-weather sports/tennis courts,

ar parking and flood lighting design.


43/68

Nature Conservation Designationshe site has no nature conservation designations, legal or otherwise. It is however directlydjacent to the steam and woodland that is designated as Green Chain. While there isnlikely to be a direct impact of the proposals on the designated land, there is potential for

ndirect impacts, such as the flood lighting of the sports pitches, on the function of the Green

Chain.

egally Protected SpeciesAn ecological survey was undertaken in November 2015 by a suitable experienced ecologist.

he site is dominated by dense scrub, with some areas of neutral grassland and individualrees. The individual trees on the site were inspected for bat roost potential, but no cavitiesould be observed from the ground. The mature sycamore on the site is covered in ivy whichffers bat roost potential. The trees and scrub also provide suitable nesting habitat for birds.he nests of all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (asmended).

No other protected species or signs of protected species were observed.

nvasive SpeciesNo invasive species were recorded within the ecology report, and I did not note any during myite visit.

DF Core StrategyCore Policy CS8 Safeguarding and Improving the Environment - Refer to paragraph 3.286,

.296DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY SIE-3 - Refer to paragraph 3.345, 3.346, 3.347,

.361, 3.362, 3.363, 3.364, 3.365, 3.366, 3.367, 3.369Stockports Unitary Development Plan (Retained Policy) - Refer to policy NE3.1

Recommendations:

he scheme involves the loss of a number of trees and scrub habitat, with no indication thathis will be compensated for within the landscaping scheme. The ecology report makeseference to there being scope to include planting within gardens and the wider site. In line

with this and paragraphs 3.347, 3.366 and 3.367 of the Core Strategy, a compensatoryandscape/tree planting plan should be submitted to the LPA and should contain appropriateocally native species.

elling of any of the mature trees should be undertaken following a Reasonable AvoidanceMethod Statement, as outlined in the ecology report, and work should cease immediately ifats, evidence of bats, or potential bat roost features are identified within the trees. The

ree report indicates that ivy should be removed from one of the sycamore trees on the site.Unless there is a strong justification, the ivy should be retained. It has been identified as

aving bat roost potential and provides a valuable wildlife resource. If it is required foremoval, further ecological survey work may be required, prior to determination of thepplication.

A method statement to avoid any negative impact on the Green Chain should be submittedo the LPA for approval. This should contain information on measures to avoid light

ollution into the Green Chain (in line withttp://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_lighting.html), and to protect the woodland


44/68

dge/retained trees and the watercourse.

No tree removal or vegetation clearance should be undertaken in the bird nesting seasonMarch August inclusive) unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. As the scrubost on the site with result in the loss of bird nesting habitat, compensatory nest boxes

hould be provided. Details of these can be included in the landscape plan.

United Utilities- No objection providing conditions are attached to any planning permissionequiring:

foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems;

the submission and written approval of a surface water drainage scheme based on thehierarchy of drainage options in the NPPF (i.e. a SUDS first approach) with evidence of anassessment of site conditions; and

the submission and written approval of a sustainable drainage management andmaintenance scheme for the lifetime of the development

SMBC Lead Local Flood Authority -

. The applicant has not provided a drainage strategy or drainage proposal for the site andhave not considered a SUDS approach to Surface Water drainage. The LLFA are thereforeunable to fully assess the application for compliance to the planning requirement. ADrainage Strategy (to include SUDS hierarchy considerations and infiltration testing) anddrainage design proposal for the development will be required. The preferred LLFA SUDSdrainage strategy for the site would be infiltration to ground.

. From the online aerial mapping of Cheadle the existing site would appear to be

predominantly derelict and greenfield. We would not anticipate any existing SW run-off fromthe current site to public sewer. The LLFA will therefore require post development surfacewater run-off to be restricted to greenfield run-off of a maximum 5 l/s should a infiltrationSUDS strategy prove non-viable. Substantial flow attenuation storage will be required forany drainage strategy and the options for installing this may be limited on a site so close tothe watercourse. The relative topographical levels of the site and watercourse are notknown and the mitigation of uplift of any storage volumes by groundwater buoyancy shouldbe considered in any storage proposals.

. Foul Water discharge from the redeveloped site must be separate from the SW anddischarge to a suitable public foul sewer possibly the one in Barcheston Road and subject toUU approval. The developer will need to consult with UU and make an application for

discharge of the foul drainage.. The eastern boundary of the site is a EA classified main river tributary of Micker Brook. If

site infiltration tests are shown not to support infiltration to ground, all surface water run-offfrom the redeveloped site is to drain direct to the watercourse via a new single outfall. Thedeveloper will need to consult and correspond with the EA for an application and licence todischarge to the watercourse and obtain approval of the SUDS discharge proposal. The EAshould be able to provide river flood levels. This to be used by the designers to determinethe site will not be at risk of flooding and design a sustainable drainage solution for the site.

. The applicant has not provided a copy of a topographical survey of the site. A topographicalsurvey plan will be required and should include banking details (and levels to both sides ofthe watercourse) and water levels of the watercourse.

. The EA flood maps for planning show the site is within a low risk Flood Zone 1. The sitetherefore appears to be at low risk of flooding from the adjacent watercourse. However, the


45/68

site is at medium risk of flooding from surface water. It should be noted the site is underlainby a Major Aquifer High Groundwater Vulnerability Zone. Careful consideration of thepreferred LLFA SUDS strategy of infiltration to soakaway will be needed by the designers.

. An intrusive ground investigation with supporting borehole logs to include the determinationof any potential ground contamination is required, together with infiltration testing to

determine the use of infiltration to ground drainage strategy is viable or not as part of thedrainage strategy SUDS hierarchy considerations.

he LLFA do not see there will be an issue to successfully drain this site but before planningermission should be granted the LLFA will require a drainage strategy, infiltration testingesults and feasibility report, and the issues set out above satisfactorily resolved. Until we haveworking drainage strategy for the site the LLFA recommendation is to defer planningermission.

ANALYSIS

Departure from the development plan?

should be noted from the outset that although the application was advertised a 'departurerom the development plan' at the start of the application process, further investigation andssessment indicated that the proposed development did in fact accord with the provisions of

he development plan - see below for further details.

Proposed change of use and partial loss of allocated Local Open Space

he proposed development will result in the partial loss of land allocated as Local Open Spacey UDP policy UOS1.3. That policy states that:

Within areas of Local Open Space development will not be permitted unless:

) It is clearly needed in connection with the outdoor recreational use of the land or is otherwiseppropriate to the maintenance of the open nature of the land, and it would clearly enhance theverall quality of Local Open Space provision in the area; ori) It can be demonstrated that there is an adequate provision of open space in the localrea and that the loss of the si te would not be detrimental to the well being of the localommunity or the amenities of the area [my emphasis ];or

ii) the open space that would be lost as a result of the proposed development would beeplaced by open space of equivalent or better quantity, quality, usefulness, and attractiveness,n a location at least as accessible to current and potential users."

UDP Policy L1.1 is also relevant and states:

The Council will seek to achieve an overall minimum standard for the Borough of 2.4 hectareser thousand population for active recreation.

Proposals which involve the loss of public or private sports grounds or other land currently orast used for active recreation will not be permitted except where the proposed development

would provide facilities of sufficient benefit to sport and recreation to outweigh the lossmy emphasis]"


46/68

Stockport's Core Strategy also includes policies governing the loss of local open space and asmore recent expression of the Council's policy in this area should be afforded more weight inecision making. Policy CS8 states:

n general terms development that does not safeguard the permanence and integrity of areasf Strategic and Local Open Space will not be allowed. There may, however, be situations in

which other factors determine that the need to continue to protect existing assets areutweighed by the interests of achieving sustainable communities, in particular with regards toelivering mixed communities, meeting wider leisure needs, improving participation in the usef recreation facilities and improving parks. In such situations the objective of achievingustainable communities may be best served by the development of limited areas of openpace. Such development must be designed to meet a high standard of sustainability and payigh regard to the local environment.

n addition there may be circumstances where satisfying overriding community needs such as

ffordable/social housing may justify loss of open space. The Council's Sport, Recreation andOpen Space Studyaudits the current level of supply against relevant assessments of demand.Also relevant is the nationally recognised Fields in Trust "6 Acre" standard which consultationonfirms is an appropriate minimum standard to be applied to the borough. Such circumstances

will only be considered acceptable where the study identifies a relative higher provision ofecreational open space within an Area Committee area compared to other Area Committeereas in the borough.Any development result ing in a loss of open space within an area ofelative high-levels of provision wil l be expected to off-set that loss by makingmprovements to existing open space or [my emphasis ]providing (at least) equivalent newpen space in a Committee area of relative low provision so as to help not exacerbate thender-supply situation that exists across the borough as a whole."

Although the proposed development would result in the partial loss of designated local openpace it is clear from the comments of the Council's Open Space Planning Policy Officers thathe Cheadle area is the only area of the Borough that enjoys a surplus of open space provisionwhen the Council's adopted Fields in Trust "6 Acre" standard is applied (see above). Givenhis 'surplus' position, the clear support of Sport England and the Lawn Tennis Association (seebove) for the qualitative improvements being offered and the clear benefits the scheme willring to improving the use and amount of open space available to local residents by returning aurrently derelict and inaccessible area of local open space to active use, the proposedevelopment is considered to satisfy criterion (ii) of policy UOS1.3 and the requirements of

evelopment plan policies L1.1 and CS8. At the same time, the proposed development willmake a small but nonetheless valuable contribution to meeting the Borough's currently unmetousing needs by providing additional family housing in a sustainable location in accordance

with Core Strategy policy H-2 - a brownfield site with an accessibility score just short of 50.

Despite the development being in compliance with these development plan policies, asStockport does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply (last assessed as equating to a

.2 year supply in April 2015), Paragraph 49 of the NPPF applies and states that:

Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour ofustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered

p-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverableousing sites."


47/68

ollowing the recent decision of the Court of Appeal - Suffolk District Council v Hopkins Homestd & SSCLG and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council &

SSCLG 2016- local open space allocations and policies are considered "relevant policies forhe supply of housing" and therefore are out of date. In this scenario, the application should be

etermined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development requiredy the NPPF in paragraph 14:

For decision-taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay;and

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,granting permission unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted."

Paragraph 74 of the NPPF sets out a restrictive policy that seeks to protect open space, sportsnd recreational buildings and land such as the application site from built development unlessne of three exceptions apply:

Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields,hould not be built on unless:

an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildingsor land to be surplus to requirements; or

the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent orbetter provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs forwhich clearly outweigh the loss [my emphasis ]."

n this instance the third exception is considered to apply for the reasons cited above i.e. the

ualitative gains being offered and the return of the site to active recreational use outweigh theuantitative loss of designated local open space that would arise given the current 'surplus' ofpen space in the Cheadle area.

mportantly, despite it being a private members club the applicant has stated in their supportingPlanning Statement that the new facilities would be made available for use by local primary andecondary schools, community groups and for tuition purposes. This is considered aignificant public benefit that weighs in favour of the proposals.

he principle of the development is therefore supported subject to detailed matters being foundo be in accordance with the development plan and the NPPF and conditions being attached to

ny approval to ensure that the qualitative improvements proposed are delivered. It isonsidered necessary to apply conditions requiring the proposed courts and pavilion to be


48/68

ompleted in full and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the dwellinghousesnd that the courts and floodlights are built to Lawn Tennis Association standards.

Ecology, trees, green infrastructure and landscaping

he application was accompanied by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (ecology report)which found no evidence of invasive species or protected species on the site although it did

ote its potential to support nesting birds. The survey has been assessed by the Council'sNature Conservation Officer w