-
Web: www.stockport.gov.uk/democracy or scan the QR Code*
CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE
Meeting: Tuesday, 14 July, 2015Tea: 5.00 pm
Ladybridge Park Residents Club, Edenbridge Road,Cheadle
Hulme
Business: 6.00 pm
Introductions
1. MINUTES (Pages 7 - 16)
To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the
meeting held on 9 June 2015.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they
have in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.
3. URGENT DECISIONS
To report any urgent action taken under the Constitution since
the last meeting of the Committee.
4. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS (Pages 17 - 22)
To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.
The report provides an update on progress since the last meeting
on decisions taken by the 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]
Democratic ServicesTown Hall, Stockport SK1 3XE
Contact: Democratic Services on 0161 474 3216Email:
[email protected]
Area Governance
AGENDA
-
5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
(i) Chair's Announcements
To receive any announcements from the Chair about local
community events or issues.
(ii) Public Question Time
Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair
of the Area Committee 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 be submitted prior to the
commencement of the meeting on the cards provided. These are
available the meeting. You can also submit via the Councils website
at www.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions.
(iii) Public Realm
The local Public Realm Officer will attend the meeting to
provide an update on matters raised at the last committee meetings.
Councillors and Members of the public 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 they wished to address the Area Committee as part of
the Open Forum arrangements.
(vi) Ward Flexibility Funding
To consider any applications for Ward Flexibility Funding or to
receive feedback from organisations who have received funding.
Non-Executive Business
6. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (Page 23)
To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place
Management and Regeneration
(a) To consider the development applications where members of
the public have attended the meeting in order to speak or hear the
Area Committees deliberations.
(b) To consider the remaining development applications.
(c) To consider consultations (if any) received by the Corporate
Director for Place Management and Regeneration on any planning
issues relevant to the Cheadle area.
The following development applications will be considered by the
Area Committee:-
-
(i) DC056819 - 9 Rodmill Drive, Gatley (Pages 24 - 40)
Erection of one detached dwelling (resubmission of application
DC053379)
The Area Committee is recommended to refuse planning
permission.
(ii) DC057948 - 22 Cranston Grove, Gatley (Pages 41 - 51)
Change of use to separate dwelling
The Area Committee is recommended to grant temporary planning
permission for a period of one year.
(iii) DC58710 - Bruntwood Hall, Bruntwood Park, Cheadle (Pages
52 - 87)
Refurbishment of Bruntwood Hall to create a 22 room luxury
hotel, with associated bars and restaurant areas, external terrace
and spa at ground floor and courtyard extension to create
additional circulation space.
The Area Committee is recommended to authorise the Corporate
Director for Place Management and Regeneration to determine the
application, subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement
and the relevant commuted sum arrangements.
(iv) DC058745 - 12 Mill Lane, Cheadle Hulme (Pages 88 - 98)
Proposed adaptations and extensions to existing detached
dwelling.
The Area Committee is requested to recommend the Planning and
Highways Regulation Committee to grant planning permission.
Officer Contact: Jim Seymour on 0161 474 3656 or email:
[email protected]
7. PLANNING APPEALS, ENFORCEMENT APPEALS AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
(Pages 99 - 102)
To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive
The report summarises recent appeal decisions, current planning
appeals and enforcement activity within the area represented by the
Cheadle Area Committee.
The Area Committee is recommended to note the report.
Officer contact: Joy Morton on 0161 474 3217 or email:
[email protected]
-
Executive Business
8. BARCHESTON ROAD AND BROADWAY, CHEADLE - NO WAITING AT ANY
TIME TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER (Pages 103 - 107)
To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place
Management and Regeneration
The report considers the findings of an investigation into
parking concerns at the junction of Barcheston Road and Broadway,
Cheadle.
The Area Committee is requested to approve the statutory legal
advertising of a No Waiting At Any Time Traffic Regulation Order
and, subject to no objections being received within the statutory
period, the Order can be made.
Officer Contact: Ed Parry on 0161 474 4801 or email:
[email protected]
9. COMMUTED SUMS FOR PLAY (Pages 108 - 112)
To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place
Management and Regeneration
The report sets out commuted sums received by the Council from
housing developers towards the cost of play provision in the
Cheadle area.
That approval be given to the allocation of the commuted sums as
detailed in the report.
Officer Contact: Richard Booker on 0161 474 4829 or email:
[email protected]
10. ABNEY HALL PARK CAFE (Pages 113 - 116)
To consider ca report of the Corporate Director for Corporate
and support Services
The report considers the proposed grant of a lease of the
pavilion to allow Abney Project Community Interest Company to
continue to operate a tea room with ancillary retail sales.
The Area Committee is requested to note the contents of the
report and provide any comments on the proposal to grant a further
lease for a term of one year.
Officer Contact: Murray Carr on 0161 474 3019 or email:
[email protected]
11. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - MAKERS' MARKETS IN CHEADLE GREEN ON
5 SEPTEMBER, 3 OCTOBER, 7 NOVEMBER 2015 (Pages 117 - 120)
To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place
Management and Regeneration
The report considers an event application from Cheadle Civic
Society to hold a Makers' Market on Cheadle Green on 5 September, 3
October and 7 November 2015.
The Area Committee is recommended to approve the application,
subject to the production of appropriate papers and obtaining a
Temporary Event Notice and Street Collection Permit.
Officer Contact: Iain Bate on 0161 474 4421 or email:
[email protected]
-
12. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - 'BARK IN THE PARK' IN ABNEY PARK ON
20 SEPTEMBER 2015 (Pages 121 - 125)
To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place
Management and Regeneration
The report considers an event application from Lisa Graham of
Muttley Crew Dog Walking and Pet Services to hold a Community Fun
Day and Dog Show on 20 September 2015.
The Area Committee is recommended to approve the application,
subject to the production of appropriate papers and event plans, to
include:-
- An agreed traffic/parking management plan- That the organisers
ensure all litter is removed from the event site- That no roadside
flyposting is undertaken to advertise the event.
Officer Contact: Iain Bate on 061 474 4421 or email:
[email protected]
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive
Town HallStockportMonday, 6 July 2015
-
Any person wishing to photograph, film or audio-record a public
meeting are requested to inform Democratic Services in order that
necessary arrangements can be made for the meeting.
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 is available
on 0161 474 3128.
A loop system is available in the meeting rooms in the Town
Hall. Please contact the Town Hall 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.
-
CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE
Meeting: 9 June 2015At: 6.00 pm
PRESENT
Councillors Peter Burns, Graham Greenhalgh, Keith Holloway,
Sylvia Humphreys, Adrian Nottingham, John Pantall, Paul Porgess,
Iain Roberts and June Somekh.
1. ELECTION OF CHAIR
RESOLVED That Councillor Peter Burns be elected Chair of the
Area Committee for the period until the next Annual Council
Meeting.
Councillor Peter Burns in the Chair
2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR
That Councillor Adrian Nottingham be appointed Vice-Chair of the
Area Committee for the period until the next Annual Council
Meeting.
3. MINUTES
The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting
held on 14 April 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed
by the Chair.
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors and Officers were invited to declare any interests
which they had in any of the items on the agenda for the
meeting.
The following interests were declared:-
Personal Interest
Councillor Interest
Paul Porgess Agenda item 10 Stockport Neighbourhood Action Plans
2015/16 (Minute 10) as a member of the Board of Stockport
Homes.
Personal and Prejudicial Interests
Councillor Interest
Peter Burns Development application DC058201 for a two storey
side and front extensions, single storey rear extension and
increase in ridge height at 276 Styal Road, Heald Green as he knew
the applicant and
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
Peter Burns
Peter Burns
had a business connection with him.
Councillor Burns left the meeting during consideration of the
item and took no part in the discussion or vote.
Agenda item 17 Park Event Application Sponsored Walk by St.
James Catholic High School through Bruntwood Park on 19 June 2015
as one of the beneficiaries of the charity walk is The Wellspring
(Stockport) Limited of which he is a Director and Trustee.
Councillor Burns left the meeting during consideration of the
item and took no part in the discussion or vote.
Agenda item 18 Park Event Application Heald Green Festival at
Outwood Road Playing Fields on 27 June 2015 as his wife is a member
of the Heald Green Festival Committee.
Councillor Burns left the meeting during consideration of the
item and took no part in the discussion or vote.
5. URGENT DECISIONS
The Chair reported that on 26 May 2015 the Corporate Director
for Place Management and Regeneration, in consultation with the
then Chair of the Area Committee and Ward Councillors, had
determined Prior Approval reference DC058221 upgrade of existing
telecommunications equipment, including a 12.0 metre steelworks
tower, equipment cabinet and associated works at a bridge over the
A34, Turves Road/Etchells Road within the Heald Green Ward.
6. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS
A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a
report (copies of which had been circulated) updating the Area
Committee on progress since the last meeting on decisions taken by
the Area Committee and the current position on Ward Flexibility
Funding.
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
7. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
(i) Chair's Announcements
The Chair advised members of the public of the details of the
summer festivals being held in the Cheadle area during June and
July, and encouraged members of the public to support them.
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
(ii) Public Question Time
Members of the public were invited to put questions to the Chair
of the Area Committee on any matters within the powers and duties
of the Area Committee, subject to the exclusions set out in the
Code of Practice.
Two public questions were submitted.
The first question related to the recent application for
Bruntwood Hall which had included an external terrace. This terrace
was on land not owned by the current owners of Bruntwood Hall and
the questioner enquired whether the Council has come to an
arrangement with the applicant about the use of the land.
A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management
and Regeneration confirmed that a revised planning application for
Bruntwood Hall had been re-submitted. The proposed terrace was on
land owned by the Council and would therefore be subject to the
Councils procedure for determining land and property transactions
as opposed to development applications.
The second public question had been submitted by a member of the
public who was not present at the meeting. The representative of
the Democratic Services Manager advised that, in accordance with
the Code of Practice, a written response would be provided to the
questioner.
(iii) Public Realm
David Wilson (Public Realm Inspector) attended the meeting to
report on current issues and to answer questions from Councillors
and members of the public in relation to public realm issues within
the area represented by the Cheadle Area Committee.
The following comments were made/issues raised:-
The problems in coordinating work being carried out by United
Utilities and the Council, as had recently been experienced at the
junction of Ladybridge Road and Twining Brook Road, Cheadle Hulme.
The resurfaced road now meant that traffic was travelling more
quickly along it.
Motorists were now speeding on Norbrack Avenue following its
resurfacing and the introduction of speed restrictions were being
examined.
Motorists speeding in the 20mph zone on St. Anns Road, Heald
Green. An infestation of weeds on Wilmslow Road, Heald Green, near
to The Griffin public
house, on the Cheadle Royal side of the traffic lights as
motorists turn right to go down Finney Lane required attention.
A badly rusted sign at the junction of Outwood Road and Finney
Lane, Heald Green which was obscured by overgrown vegetation also
required attention.
The problem of parked cars meaning potholes could not be
repaired in the Hamilton Road area. Heald Green.
There had been a number of outbreaks of graffiti in the area, in
particular on Brown Lane, Heald Green.
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
RESOLVED That David Wilson be thanked for his attendance.
(iv) Petitions
No petitions were submitted.
(v) Open Forum
In accordance with the Code of Practice no organisation had
indicated that they wished to address the Area Committee as part of
the Open Forum arrangements.
(vi) Ward Flexibility Funding: All Hallows Church - Youth
Group
Helen Turner of All Hallows Church Youth Group attended the
meeting to answer questions from the Area Committee in relation to
an application for Ward Flexibility Funding seeking funding towards
the provision of equipment for the church youth group.
RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Manager be recommended to
make a grant of 500 to All Hallows Church Youth Group towards the
cost of the equipment for the church youth group, to be funded from
the Cheadle Hulme North Ward budget.
(vii) Ward Flexibility Funding - Targeted Youth Engagement
Services C.I.C (TYES)
Mr Simon Leroux attended the meeting and submitted an
application on behalf of the Targeted Youth Engagement Services CIC
for Ward Flexibility Funding towards the cost of providing a series
of intensive sessions covering issues around self-esteem, sexual
exploitation, appropriate relationships and sexual health
culminating in a film being presented in schools across the borough
by the young women who made it.
RESOLVED That ward flexibility funding be not provided to
Targeted Youth Engagement Services CIC, but that the organisation
be offered assistance, if requested, in approaching other funding
sources.
8. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Development applications were submitted.
(NOTE: Full details of the decisions including conditions and
reasons for granting or refusing planning permission and imposing
conditions are given in the schedule of plans. The Corporate
Director for Place Management and Regeneration is authorised to
determine conditions and reasons and they are not therefore
referred to in committee minutes unless the committee makes a
specific decision on a condition or reason. In order to reduce
printing costs and preserve natural resources, the schedule of
plans is not reproduced 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 of
plans, or any part thereof, may be obtained from the Services to
Place Directorate upon payment of the Councils reasonable
charges).
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
The Chair outlined the procedure approved by the Council for
public speaking on planning applications.
Councillor Adrian Nottingham in the Chair
(i) DC058201 - 276 Styal Road, Heald Green
In respect of two storey side and front extensions, single
storey rear extension and increase in ridge height at 276 Styal
Road, Heald Green
the applicant spoke in support of the application
It was then
RESOLVED That the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee be
recommended to approve the application, subject to the conditions
contained in the report and the removal of permitted development
rights.
Councillor Peter Burns in the Chair
(ii) DC058234 - Pendlebury Road, Gatley
In respect of plan no. 58234 for the demolition of existing
garages and erection of two dwellings at Pendlebury Road,
Gatley
a member of the public spoke against the application.
It was then
RESOLVED (Eight for, One against) That planning permission be
granted, subject to the removal of permitted development
rights.
9. APPEAL DECISIONS, CURRENT PLANNING APPEALS, ENFORCEMENT
APPEALS & ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management
and Regeneration submitted a report of the Deputy Chief Executive
(copies of which had been circulated) listing any outstanding or
recently determined planning appeals and enforcements within the
area represented by the Cheadle Area Committee. RESOLVED That the
report be noted.
10. STOCKPORT NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTION PLANS 2015/16
A representative of the West Area Housing Manager (Stockport
Homes Limited) submitted a report (copies of which have been
circulated) providing the Area Committee with an update on progress
on the delivery of Stockport Homes Neighbourhood Action Plans and
sought comments on progress to date and any future actions for
inclusion in the current 2015-16 and future action plans.
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
The following comments were made/issues raised:-
Members expressed appreciation for the work carried out at the
flats at York Close, Cheadle.. Residents had requested whether some
of the land could be used for gardening or allotments.
Whether there was any targeted provision towards combating
unemployment and benefit dependency in the Cheadle area.
The poor condition of the stairwells in the flats on Councillor
Lane, Cheadle. The need for collaborative working between Stockport
Homes and other housing
providers, such as Mossbank Homes.
RESOLVED That the achievements during 2014/15 and the proposed
Neighbourhood Action Plans for 2015/16 be noted.
Councillor Adrian Nottingham in the Chair
11. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - SPONSORED WALK BY ST JAMES'
CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL THROUGH BRUNTWOOD PARK ON 19 JUNE 2015
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) regarding an
application from St. James Catholic High School to hold a sponsored
walk through Bruntwood Park on 19 June 2015,
RESOLVED That approval be given to an application from St. James
Catholic High School to hold a sponsored walk through Bruntwood
Park on 19 June 2015, subject to the production of appropriate
papers and event plans.
Councillor Peter Burns in the Chair
12. BROOKFIELD PARK SHIERS FAMILY TRUST ANNUAL REPORT
2014/15
A representative of the Corporate Director for Corporate and
Support Services submitted a report (copies of which had been
circulated) setting out the financial standing of the Brookfield
Park Shiers Family Trust which indicated the amount of money
available for distribution to organisations and also requesting
that the Area Committee formally adopt the Financial Accounts of
the Trust for the year ending 31 March 2015 and advise as to the
investment strategy that they wished to follow.
RESOLVED (1) That the report be noted.
(2) That the Financial Accounts of the Brookfield Park Shiers
Family Trust for the year ending 31 March 2015 be formally
adopted.
(3) That a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Area
Committee regarding the effect of loneliness amongst elderly
residents and the consequential effect on their health.
(4) That 25,000 be reserved from the Trust towards addressing
the issues referred to in (3) above.
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
(5) That 15,000 be made available for support to local voluntary
organisations.
(6) That the current investment policy of the Trust be
retained.
13. ARGYLL ROAD AND COUNCILLOR LANE, CHEADLE - TRAFFIC
REGULATION ORDER
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) regarding the
findings of an investigation into parking concerns at the junction
of Argyll Road and Councillor Lane, Cheadle.
RESOLVED That the Executive Councillor (Supporting Places) be
recommended to approve the statutory legal advertising of the
following Traffic Regulation Order on Argyll Road and Councillor
Lane, Cheadle at an approximate cost of 525 to be funded from the
Area Committees Delegated Budget (Cheadle Hulme North Ward
allocation) and, subject to no objections being received within
twenty one days from the advertisement date, the order be
made:-
Revocation of No Waiting Mon-Fri 8.30am-9am, 11.30am-2pm &
3.15pm-4.30pm
Councillor Lane, Cheadle - south side, from the westerly kerb
line of Argyll Road for a distance on 10 metres in a westerly
direction.
Proposed No Waiting at Any Time
Councillor Lane, Cheadle - south side, from a point 10 metres
west of the westerly kerb line of Argyll Road to a point 10 metres
east of the easterly kerb line of Argyll Road.
Argyll Road, Cheadle - both sides, from the southerly kerb line
of Councillor Lane for a distance of 15 metres in a southerly
direction.
14. WALDON AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD, CHEADLE - TRAFFIC
REGULATION ORDER
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) setting out the
findings of a consultation exercise and seeking approval to the
introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order on Waldon Avenue and
Wilmslow Road, Cheadle.
RESOLVED That the Executive Councillor (Supporting Places) be
recommended to approve the legal advertising of the following
Traffic Regulation Order at an approximate cost of 975 to be funded
from the Area Committees Delegated Budget (Cheadle and Gatley Ward
allocation) and, subject to no objections being received within
twenty one days from the advertisement date, the order be
made:-
Proposed No Waiting at Any Time
Waldon Avenue, Cheadle - both sides, from the westerly kerb line
of Wilmslow Road for a distance of 10 metres in a westerly
direction.
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
Wilmslow Road, Cheadle - west side, from a point 10 metres south
of the southerly kerb line of Waldon Avenue to a point 10 metres
north of the northerly kerb line of Waldon Avenue.
Proposed No Waiting Monday Friday 10am 4pm
Waldon Avenue, Cheadle - north side, from a point 10 metres west
of the westerly kerb line of Wilmslow Road for a distance of
approximately 79 metres in a westerly, south westerly, south
easterly and north easterly direction (encompassing the whole
turning circle of Waldon Avenue terminating at the boundary between
numbers 1 and 3).
Waldon Avenue, Cheadle - south side, from a point 10 metres west
of the westerly kerb line of Wilmslow Road for a distance of 30.5
metres in a westerly direction.
15. TRAFFIC ISSUES - QUEENS ROAD AREA, CHEADLE HULME
A representative of the Democratic Services Manager reported
that this item had been placed on the agenda at the request of
Councillor John Pantall.
The Area Committee was advised that the timetable for the
implementation of the Traffic Regulation Orders in the Queens Road
area, Cheadle Hulme would be as follows:-
The draft designs would be issued to the Ward Spokesperson for
consideration. Once the draft designs were approved, consultation
would be undertaken on the
scheme. It was anticipated that this would commence during the
week commencing 1 June and run for a period of three weeks.
Residents comments and suggestions would then be discussed with
the Ward Spokesperson.
The details of the consultation and agreed amendments would then
be reported to the next available meeting of the Cheadle Area
Committee on either 14 July or 11 August 2015.
RESOLVED That a report on the consultation with residents of the
Queens Road area, Cheadle Hulme be submitted to the meeting of the
Area Committee on either 14 July or 11 August 2015.
16. SHORT-STAY PARKING IN CHURCH ROAD/WOODS LANE CAR PARK,
SMITHY GREEN, CHEADLE HULME
With the agreement of the Committee, this item was
withdrawn.
17. CHEADLE VILLAGE GREEN, CHEADLE
A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a
report of the Corporate Director for Corporate and Support Services
(copies of which had been circulated) regarding a request from the
Cheadle Civic Society for a lease in respect of Cheadle Village
Green, as shown on the plan attached to the report.
The following comments were made/issues raised:-
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
There should be a plaque on the green acknowledging the donor of
the green. The Council was grateful to the current commitment of
the members of Cheadle
Civic Society, but this could not be guaranteed in the future if
its membership changed. The Council was, however, keen to encourage
community groups to do as much as possible.
The Cheadle Civic Society could consider appointing a Councillor
to it as a means of supporting a strong working relationship
between the Society and the Council.
Local traders should be strongly encouraged to engage in the
Makers Markets. A Member felt that the Area Committee should retain
some involvement in the
organisation of wider community events at Cheadle Green. It was
important that the condition of Cheadle Green was retained.
RESOLVED That the Corporate Director for Corporate and Support
Services be advised that the Area Committee recommends that a six
year lease be offered to Cheadle Civic Society for Cheadle Village
Green, with the intention that after two years it is renewed for a
further two years.
Councillor Adrian Nottingham in the Chair
18. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - HEALD GREEN FESTIVAL AT OUTWOOD
ROAD PLAYING FIELDS ON 27 JUNE 2015
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) regarding a
request from the Heald Green Festival to hold the annual festival
on Outwood Road Playing Fields on 27 June 2015.
RESOLVED That the application from the Heald Green Festival
Committee to hold the annual festival on Outwood Road Playing
Fields on 27 June 2015 be approved, subject to the production of
the appropriate papers and event plans.
19. AREA COMMITTEE HIGHWAY WARD SPOKESPERSON
A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a
report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Area
Committee to nominate Ward Spokespersons with whom the Corporate
Director for Place Management and Regeneration could consult on
highway maintenance and traffic management matters, and the
expenditure of the Ward Delegated Budget up to 300.
RESOLVED That the following councillors be appointed as Ward
Spokespersons for highway and traffic management issues:-
Cheadle and Gatley Ward Councillor Graham GreenhalghCheadle
Hulme North Ward Councillor Paul PorgessHeald Green Ward Councillor
Sylvia Humphreys
20. NOMINATION OF AUTHORITY GOVERNORS
There were no vacancies to consider.
-
Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015
The meeting closed at 8.23 pm
-
CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE Date: 14 July 2015
PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS
Report of the Democratic Services Manager
WARD FLEXIBILITY FUNDING
The amounts available to be spent in 2015/16, incorporating the
monies carried forward and a budget of 3,000 per ward for 2015/16,
are as follows:-
Cheadle and Gatley Cheadle Hulme North Heald Green
Funding awarded in 2014/15
Chelwood Foodbank Plus
Cheadle Village Partnership
Manchester Rugby Club
St. Anns Road North Allotment Association
Budget carried forward
Cheadle Golf Club
150
500
250
450
5,404.25
250
Funding awarded in 2014/15
Chelwood Foodbank Plus
Cheadle Village Partnership
Manchester Rugby Club
St Anns Road North Allotment Association
Budget carried forward
All Hallows Church Youth Group
Cheadle Golf Club
250
500
250
50
11,095.30
452.92
250
Funding awarded in 2014/15
Chelwood Foodbank Plus
St. Anns Road North Allotment Association
Budget carried forward
Cheadle Golf Club
100
450
13,549.60
200
AGENDA ITEM 3
-
All Hallows Church Youth Group
500
8,154.25 12, 892.38 16,349.60
-
Appendix A - Resume Of Issues Progress Report
SCHEME
CA
LLED
IN?
Y/N
WIT
H T
RA
FFIC
SE
RVI
CES
WIT
H L
EGA
L
ON
AD
VER
T
OB
JEC
TIO
NS?
Y/N
AW
AIT
ING
O
PS. D
ATE
OPE
RA
TIVE
D
ATE
COMMENTS
Manchester Road, CheadleMJ11/03/2014
Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration
submitted a report seeking the comments of the Area Committee
regarding the proposed Manchester Road cycle route following the
successful bid for funding from the Department for Transport, via
the Cycle City Ambition Grant. The cost of the scheme was
approximately 450,000 which would be included in the 2014/15
Highways Capital Programme. Scheme on site est 12 week construction
programme. Civil works substantially complete by end of October,
works over M60 bridge delayed due to Highways Agency request for
additional info.
Cycle Links to Gatley StationMJ23/09/14
Corporate Director for Place Management and
Regenerationsubmitted a report seeking the Area Committees comments
regarding the proposed cycle links to Gatley Railway Station
following the successful bid for funding from the Department for
Transport via the Cycle City AmbitionGrant to provide cycle safety
improvements on/off the highway within the Borough. Scheme on
site.
Waldon Avenue, CheadleAV03/02/2015
A report setting out the results of an investigation with regard
to parked vehicles causing access problems on Waldon Avenue,
Cheadle. Re-consultation underway with local residents, details
will be reported back to the Ward Spokesperson. Report issued to
June AC meeting
Outwood Drive, Corporate Director for Place Management and
Regeneration regarding the
-
Heald GreenAV10/03/2015
findings of an investigation into the proposed extension of the
existing No Waiting At Any Time restrictions on Outwood Drive,
Heald Green. Operative from 25th June 2015. Lining crew having
problems due to vehicle parked blocking access. Traffic Services
investigating if vehicle can be removed.
Stanley Road, Heald GreenAV10/03/2015
Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration
outlining the results of vehicle speed data obtained arising from
an investigation into the speed of vehicles using Stanley Road,
Heald Green close to the entrance to the Seashell Trust. Exec Cllr
has approved, decision to be published. Works order for VAS signs
has been issued to contractor
Councillor Lane, CheadleAV04/15
Democratic Services Manager submitted a report regarding the
findings of an investigation into concerns regarding parking on
residential roads adjacent to a local clinic in the vicinity of
Councillor Lane, Cheadle. On advert.
Church Road/Stonepail Road, GatleyAV04/15
Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate
Director for Place Management and Regeneration regarding the
outcome of an investigation into parking at the junction of Church
Road and Stonepail Road, Gatley. On advert. Operative from 24th
August 2015.
Byron Drive, CheadleAV04/15
Democratic Services Manager submitted a report regarding the
findings of an investigation into concerns with regard to on-street
parking on Byron Drive, Cheadle. Works order has been issued. Works
have been completed.
Argyll Road, CheadleAV
Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate
Director for Place Management and Regeneration regarding the
findings of an investigation into parking concerns at the junction
of Argyll Road and Councillor Lane, Cheadle.
-
06/15
Waldon Avene,CheadleAV06/15
Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate
Director for Place Management and Regeneration setting out the
findings of a consultation exercise and seeking approval to the
introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order on Waldon Avenue and
Wilmslow Road, Cheadle.
-
Cheadle Delegated Budget
Ward Balance brought forward from
2013/14)
Budget 2014/15
Total Available
Approved and Estimated Schemes
Available Balance
Cheadle and Gatley
20,910 10,750 31,660 700 30,960
Cheadle Hulme North
3,990 10,750 14,740 1,500 13,240
Heald Green 26,260 10,750 37,010 0 37,010
Total 51,160 32,250 83,410 2,200 81,210
-
Cheadle Committee 14 July 2015
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Report of the Corporate Director Place Item 1: DC/056819 SITE
ADDRESS: 9 RODMILL DRIVE, GATLEY, STOCKPORT, SK8 4JX PROPOSAL:
Erection of one detached dwelling (Resubmission of application
DC053379). Item 2: DC/057948 SITE ADDRESS : 22 CRANSTON GROVE
PROPOSAL: Change of use to seperate dwelling. Item 3: DC/058710
SITE ADDRESS: BRUNTWOOD HALL, BRUNTWOOD PARK, CHEADLE PROPOSAL:
Refurbishment of Bruntwood Hall to create a 22 room luxury hotel,
with associated bars and restaurant areas, external terrace and spa
at ground floor and courtyard extension to create additional
circulation space. Item 4: DC/058745 SITE ADDRESS: 12 MILL LANE,
CHEADLE HULME PROPOSAL: Proposed adaptations and extensions to
existing detched dwelling. INFORMATION These applications need to
be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Under Article 6, the applicants [and those third parties, including
local residents, who have made representations] have the right to a
fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full
consideration to their comments. Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1
confer(s) a right of respect for a persons home, other land and
business assets. In taking account of all material considerations,
including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development
Plan, the Head of Development and Control has concluded that some
rights conferred by these Articles on the
applicant(s)/objectors/residents and other occupiers and owners of
nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that
that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by
being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning
merits of the development proposal. He believes that any
restriction on these rights posed by approval of the application is
proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a
decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the
Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
-
This Copyright has been made by or with the authority of SMBC
pursuant to section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act
1988 (the Act). Unless the Act provides the prior permission of the
copyright owner. (Copyright (Material Open to Public Inspection)
(Marking of Copies of Maps) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1099) Application
Reference: DC/056819 Location: 9 RODMILL DRIVE, GATLEY, STOCKPORT,
SK8 4JX Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling (Resubmission
of
application DC053379)
Type of Application: Full Planning Permission
Registration Date: 17/10/2014 Expiry Date: 12/12/2014 Case
Officer: Jim Seymour
Applicant: Mr C Yiasoumi Agent : Garner Town Planning Ltd
COMMITTEE STATUS Cheadle Area - More than 4 letters of support
received. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Full application for the
erection of one detached dwelling. The application is a
resubmission of previous application DC053379 (see history below).
This is also an amended proposal which has been modified in an
attempt to deal with a variety of issues raised by officers. The
dwelling would be sited adjacent to the existing property at no.9
Rodmill Drive with the existing garage at this property being
demolished to part facilitate the development. The dwelling would
front onto the existing turning head and have a small area of front
garden and be set back slightly from the existing building frontage
of no.9. Due to the steep nature of the site, which falls away
sharply from the highway in an easterly direction towards a
watercourse, the building is built out and elevated above
prevailing ground levels culminated in two storey dwelling with
rooms in the roof space and a raised decking area on pillars to the
rear. The dwelling has a footprint dimensioning 7.7m wide x 8m
deep. The design of the property has been amended to reflect the
prevailing character of the area and presents a gable elevation to
the street frontage with a slightly higher ridge line than the
adjacent property. The dwelling is single storey to the frontage
but contains accommodation within the roof space and a flat roofed
dormer window on the southern roof slope. The dwelling contains two
bedrooms in the roof space with the main bedroom served by a large
window and Juliet balcony detail on the rear gable. To the rear of
the property elevated above ground level lies a level decking area
accessed from the ground floor of the premises with a set of steps
at its northern end down the intended garden area. The intended
garden is of an irregular shape and dimension occupying the
remaining sloping valley side immediately below the proposed
dwelling and then extending
-
as a narrow swath of land in a northerly direction to the west
of the brook. A single car parking space is proposed to the side of
the property accessed via the turning head at Rodmill Drive. SITE
AND SURROUNDINGS The application relates to part of the side garden
area on no. 9 Rodmill Drive and lies to the south of the dwelling.
No 9 Rodmill Drive is a detached bungalow and garage fronting onto
Rodmill Drive within a row of similar properties forming of this
small cul-de-sac. The property is sited at the end of the
cul-de-sac and has a large irregular shaped garden that occupies a
small but steep valley side running down towards a brook. No. 9 has
a plateau rear garden above a retaining wall with immediately to
its rear at a significantly lower level a flatter elongated area
that runs in a northerly direction behind no.s 5 and 7 Rodmill
Drive and adjoins the brook. To the south of no. 9 lies the site of
the proposed dwelling consisting of a steeper section of valley
side and is overgrown with vegetation and contains several mature
and semi mature trees and other vegetation. Several mature trees
also overhang the site from land adjacent to the south which is a
wider wooded area covered by Tree Preservation Order. On the
opposite side of the brook to the east lies more woodland on the
opposite valley side with a large property beyond on higher ground
at no.61 Linksway. POLICY BACKGROUND The application site is
allocated as lying within a Predominantly Residential Area, as
defined on the UDP Proposals Map. The rear section of the site is
also allocated as part of a wider green Chain Designation. The
following policies are therefore relevant :- Saved UDP policies
EP1.10 : AIRCRAFT NOISE L1.2 : CHILDRENS PLAY NE3.1- PROTECTION AND
ENHANCEMENT OF GREEN CHAINS Core Strategy DPD policies CS1 :
OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING
INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGES SD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES SD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN : NEW
DEVELOPMENT SD-6 : ADAPTING TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE CS2 :
HOUSING PROVISION CS3 : MIX OF HOUSING CS4 : DISTRIBUTION OF
HOUSING H-1 : DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT H-2 : HOUSING
PHASING CS8 : SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT SIE-1 :
QUALITY PLACES SIE-2 : PROVISION OF RECREATION AND AMENITY OPEN
SPACE IN NEW
DEVELOPMENTS SIE-3 : PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE
ENVIRONMENT
-
CS9 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT T-1 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
T-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS T-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE
HIGHWAY NETWORK Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS SPG DESIGN
OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPD SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
SPD National Planning Legislation THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
FRAMEWORK (NPPF) PLANNING HISTORY No relevant planning history.
NEIGHBOURS VIEWS The occupiers of 16 neighbouring properties have
been notified in writing of the proposal. In total 9 letters of
objection have been received on the following grounds: 1. There
have been various sets of drawings submitted many which are
different form each other. 2. There is a watercourse within 20m of
the site. 3. The steep bank is unstable and a construction
management plan should be submitted. 4. The proposed garden size is
too small. 5. The site has badgers and bats on it and the impact on
these has not been properly assessed. 6. The garden would be too
steep and unsafe for children next to a watercourse. 7. How will
sewerage be disposed of ? 8. Loss of garage will set a precedent 9.
The proposal will impact on the turning circle and service vehicles
being able to service other properties. 10. Building in this
location would impact on maintenance access for numbers 9, 7 and 5
Rodmill Drive. 11. The proposal will impact negatively on birds,
badgers and bats and this has not been considered properly. 12. The
proposal will not provide enough separation to the back of footway.
13. The proposal does not provide enough space around it. 14. The
proposal does not provide a useable garden area. 15. The proposal
does not respect the character of surrounding properties. 16. The
dormer in the roof is ugly and out of character. 17. The raised
decking is out of character.
-
18. The proposal will result in reducing no.9 amenity to a below
standard level. 19. The proposal will result in another buy-to-let
property. 20. The proposal could lead to subsidence. 21. Subsidence
has occurred in the area and this proposal will increase the risk
to other properties in particular no. 9. 22. The proposal does not
provide enough off street parking. 23. The dwelling will not
maintain the spacious feel of the area. 24. The proposal is
overdevelopment 25. There is not enough space here to slot in
another dwelling. 26. The forms are incomplete with various
sections not filled in properly. 27. The proposal is "Garden
Grabbing" 28. The proposed will be in shade for most of the day 29.
The decking will overlook no. 9. 30. The proposal will result in
the removal of mature trees and damage those that remain. 31. The
tree survey submitted is not adequate 32. The energy statement is
not adequate. 33. The proposal contravenes lifetime homes
standards. 34. The proposal represents cramming. 35. There is no
refuse storage area. 36. The removal of trees will impact on the
ecology of the area. 37. The proposal will trespass on adjoining
land 38. The site has been partially cleared prior to permission
being granted which is underhand practice. 39. No information on
materials of construction is used. 40. The applicant has simply
ignored the feelings of all other residents/neighbours. 41. The
letters of support come form people who do not live near the site
or family members of the applicant. This is inappropriate. In
addition letters of support from 5 addresses have been received. It
should however be noted that one of these addresses relates
directly to the applicants own house with letters of support from
either the applicant or his family members and these letters
therefore do not carry weight. The other letters raise support on
the following grounds: 1. Gatley does not have enough houses. 2.
There are no houses in Gatley for family members to move into who
want to stay in Gatley. 3. There is plenty of space for a house in
this location 4. The land isn't used for anything so a new house
would be a good use of land 5. The proposal will add value to the
site. 6. No wildlife will be lost to the development. 7. This part
of the cul-de-sac is dark and gloomy and a new dwelling will
brighten it up. 8. The new house will be a small affordable unit
and will benefit the area. 9. A house should have been built here
in the first place. CONSULTEE RESPONSES
-
Arboricultural Officer: The building footprints predominantly
sits within the existing garden area of the residential property.
The development of the residential property shall have a negative
impact on many mature trees or high level specimen tree within the
property of the development or the neighbouring property. The site
design appears to be a high density for the small garden area which
will have a high demand/risk for future tree works and actionable
nuisances from the trees on the site and neighbouring sites and as
such will require the detailed method statement for preventative
actions, restrictions on access and ground protection to be
conditioned and implemented as only with these restrictions on
construction will this development not affect the trees to an
unacceptable level, as several trees will either be lost or heavily
pruned losing the amenity levels of the trees as such I could not
recommend the application without it. The main residential access
driveways/roads will also create additional semi major tree loss
and open up access into the steep valley for the woodland area.
There is clearly a need for a detailed landscaping plan to show the
level of off-setting the loss and further more enhancing the site
in accordance with council policy, which could be conditioned as
long as they acknowledge the need for improving the
amenity/biodiversity prior to approval. The site layout plan and
application has finally included information in relation to the oak
trees situated in the woodland on the south eastern boundary which
shows the level of encroachments and the required root protection
areas as these trees are within influencing distance and have a
major canopy area over the proposed residential property. To this
end the issues relate to root zone encroachment as several working
areas are located within these zones it will be a condition to work
in accordance with the proposed method of protection identified by
the arboriculture impact assessment. As such there are
arboriculture reasons to refuse this application unless the
detailed method statements for construction period, root protection
plans conditioning restrictions and landscaping proposals showing
the replacement trees and hedges to off-set the tree loss on the
site. These will give more detailed assessment on the potential
impact on the trees in or neighbouring the site, the following
documents will be required to be submitted; method statements for
construction, arboriculture impact assessment, additional root
protection plans and the landscape proposals. Nature Development
Officer: The trees that will need to be removed to accommodate the
development will need to be assessed for bat roost potential, as
will the building proposed for removal (the garage) with the
possibility of a bat survey being required, as per the ecology
report. Appropriate mitigation/compensatory planting will also be
required. There has also been no reference to the presence of the
Green Chain within/directly adjacent to the site, despite this
being raised in my previous comments, nor details of a method
statement for the construction of the proposed property to
demonstrate how the site will be levelled to build the property
without impacting on the TPOd woodland/green chain and water
course. Highways Engineer: The concept of a new dwelling at this
location has been previously reviewed by highways engineers at part
of application DC/053379. No highway objections were
-
raised at that time and I can see no real change from the
previous application therefore I raise no objection subject to the
previously suggested conditions. Recommendation: No objection
subject to conditions (Comments for DC/053379 - The application is
for a new dwelling at the end of a cul-de-sac. The site is situated
in an accessible location having regard to the Council's assessment
criteria and is considered appropriate for residential development.
The provision of one additional dwelling in this location raises no
concerns.) Recommendation: No objections. Planning Policy
(Housing): The proposal is for one no. 2/3-bed detached dwelling on
garden land of an existing residential property. On the upper floor
plans 2 bedrooms are indicated along with a study. The development
is of such a scale that there is no requirement for any affordable
housing provision. The site is over 800m from the nearest large
local or district centre and therefore does not fall within the
first two spatial priority areas for housing location as set out in
Policy CS4 (Distribution of Housing) of the Core Strategy. However,
the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply with
3.1 years of supply against a requirement in national policy for at
least 5 years. In such situations Policy H2 (Housing Phasing) of
the Core Strategy allows for housing development on sites which
meet the Councils accessibility criteria. In this case the front of
the site scores 43.5, which exceeds the current minimum score of 34
for housing. The site appears to be mainly greenfield land
currently used as garden land for an adjacent residential property.
Policy CS4 sets out a hierarchy for development of urban greenfield
sites. The first of these is accessible sites not designated as
open space, with the second the use of private residential gardens
in accessible urban locations where proposals respond to the
character of the area and maintain good standards of amenity and
privacy for the occupants of existing housing. Given the Councils
continued position of housing under-supply urban greenfield sites
need to be considered as potential development sites, subject to
the hierarchy and sequential approach described in Policy CS4.
There are very few sites in the first level of that hierarchy and
therefore garden sites which meet the requirements of policy are
currently acceptable sites for housing development. Consequently,
subject to assessment against other policies relating to design,
amenity and privacy, the proposal meets the requirements of Core
Strategy Policies CS4 and H2, as well as adding to the housing
numbers and mix in line with Core Policies CS2 and CS3. Environment
Egency: No objections Environmental Health (Contaminated land): No
objections subject to standard informative. ANALYSIS
-
1. Landuse The front section of the site application site is
located within a Predominantly Residential Area, as defined on the
UDP Proposals Map. It is noted that the application site is not
located within one of the two main spatial priority areas for
residential development, as set out in Core Strategy DPD policy
CS4. However, the Council is currently in a position of housing
under-supply, with 3.1 years worth of supply against a requirement
in national policy for 5 years plus. In these circumstances, Core
Strategy DPD policy H-2 allows for residential development on sites
that meet the relevant accessibility criteria. It is noted that the
site achieves an accessibility score of 43.5 which exceeds the
current minimum accessibility score of 34 (for housing) required
for new housing. In view of the above, as outlined by the policy
officer, the general principle of an additional residential
dwelling on the site is considered acceptable, in accordance with
Core Strategy DPD policies CS2, CS4 and H-2. Matters of detail as
required by policy CS-4 are discussed below. The rear section of
the site is also located within a Green Chain which forms a link
between Gatley Golf Course and Scholes Park. Saved UDP Review
policy NE3.1 seeks to protect Green Chains throughout the borough
and will not permit development which would detract from their
value in this respect. It should be noted that the presence of a
Green Chain does not preclude development but proposals should not
lessen their value in terms of wildlife potential or impede
movement of wildlife through them. The proposed dwelling does not
build across the Green Chain in the whole. The majority of the site
affected by the designation would remain as garden as shown on the
plans and the proposed decking would be elevated above it. The
agent has specified that this would mean wildlife would retain the
ability to move through the site. The proposal does however alter
the appearance of the site, result in the removal of trees and
potentially generate conflict for damage too and removal of other
trees off site which could affect the quality and value of the
Green Chain designation. This is discussed in more detail within
the Tree and Ecology section below. 2. Residential amenity The
proposal would result in a building almost level with the adjacent
property frontage at no.9 and as such continues the straight run of
properties along this side of Rodmill Drive. The proposal dwelling
is one storey in height with rooms/accommodation within the roof
space and gable fronted with a roof height to respect the existing
ridge heights of other properties in the street. In terms of
existing residents the proposal will introduce a new building to a
currently undeveloped plot of land and therefore will clearly alter
the outlook for nearby properties. In this respect the main
properties affected are those on the opposite side of Rodmill Drive
and the adjacent property at no. 9 (which is also in the applicants
control). Properties on the opposite side of Rodmill Drive will
have a clear view of the proposal however the required 21m
separation distance is provided so there is no policy confliction
with privacy separation distances in this instance. The side
elevation of no. 9 contains no habitable windows and therefore,
being in line with this property, the proposal raises no amenity
issues in this respect either. The nearest property to the opposite
side of the valley (61 linksway) is sited so far away and offset
from view that there no issues in respect of overlooking in this
direction either to its occupants. The proposal incorporates a
dormer window to its side elevation but this faces open woodland
and offers no overlooking to any adjoining properties. The proposed
deck
-
would allow some overlooking to the rear garden area of no.9 but
this is not unusual of any residential situation and the decking
would be approximately at the same level as that garden level
rather than elevated above it. In summary the proposed dwelling
raises no immediate concerns in terms of overlooking or loss of
privacy to neighbouring properties. In terms of intended residents
the situation is less straightforward. Given the above situation
the proposed dwelling is not considered to be overlooked and will
offer adequate privacy in this regard for its occupants. However
the proposed dwelling does not offer a particularly good
outlook/aspect or amenity space for its intended residents. The
site is narrow from front to back tapering quickly in depth as it
reaches the southern end of the site. The site also slopes steeply
with steepness increasing also towards the southern boundary. The
net result is a dwelling built at street level on the frontage but
with a rear elevation is elevated significantly above true ground
levels (approximately 4m to ground floor/decking level and 6m to
first floor level) and therefore would extend outwards into the
site almost at canopy level with trees to the rear and side. Three
trees would be removed to facilitate the development however other
trees are nearby and would be close to the deck and rear elevation
of the property offering a potentially very enclosed feel to the
rear elevation and deck. This combined with the sloping nature of
the land immediately to the rear of the dwelling and long and thin
swath of garden area to the north overlooked from both the east and
west by existing properties means that other then the decked area
the dwelling would have very little private and beneficially
useable garden space as required by the Councils policies and
design guidance. In this respect it is not considered that the
proposed dwelling would offer and acceptable level of amenity for
its residents. On this basis the proposal is not considered to
comply with policies SIE-1 and H-1 of the Core strategy which seek
good quality design with good levels of residential amenity and
privacy for intended residents. In addition given that the proposal
is considered to fail the basic tests of Policy H-1 the proposal is
also consider to conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS4 which will
only permit new dwellings on urban greenfield sites where they
accord with policy H-1's requirements. The site lies within the
noise contour area where aircraft noise is a relevant
consideration. However the standard condition to require and
provide acceptable sound attenuation could be added to any
permission issued and this would adequately deal with this amenity
issue. 3. Design. Policies H-1, SIE-1 and the SPD require all new
housing development should respond too the local area in terms of
layout, scale, and appearance and should employ design measures
that follow existing street proportions, plot densities and
layouts, building lines, building composition and roofline's and
have a general design and appearance that respects the prevailing
character of the area. This proposal has been amended and now
considered to satisfactorily deal with many of the above
requirements in terms of its siting, general appearance and roof
type and now sits appropriately within the prevailing character of
the area. The addition of the dormer adds a feature to the roof
that is not typical of the prevailing house designs. It should
however be noted that a similar dormer could be added to many of
the adjoining properties as permitted development and therefore it
would be unreasonable to resist the design of the proposal based on
this element. The proposed rooof also has a slightly higher ridge
height than the adajcent
-
property however this is not considered to be so significant to
be a major concern. In respect of impact within the streetscene the
proposal is considered to be acceptable. Although the proposal
would result in an acceptable street appearance the comments
outlined above, regarding the level of amenity that would be
offered to intended residents in terms of outlook and beneficial
amenity space, and the contrived elevated nature of the design
which raises the dwelling significantly above prevailing ground
levels to the rear to give enough useable floor space is considered
to identify that this is really not a plot that is capable of being
satisfactorily developed. The elevated rear nature is
uncharacteristic of all adjoining properties which have a similar
ground level, at least in part, to front and rear and are not built
into such a steep slope with the resultant tall rear elevation. On
this basis the proposal is considered to represent poor design and
not respect the character of the area contrary to the provisions of
policies H-1, SIE-1 and the associated residential design SPD. 4.
Trees and Ecology Part of the site is designated as a green chain
on the proposal map and the site contains mature trees (some
scheduled for removal), is adjoined by mature trees (their canopies
and root zones) and has known ecological value (Badger set nearby).
There is also potential for bat roosting environment at trees on
site and at the detached garage scheduled for demolition. Three
trees would be removed and the current undeveloped and partially
overgrown nature of the site would be lost to the proposal for
development by the dwelling/decking area and more manicured garden.
The Councils Arboricultural and nature Development Officers have
considered the proposal with both having initial concerns about the
impact of the proposal on these ecological interests. Information
has been submitted to try and deal with these issues including a
revised tree report and method statment however both officers still
have concerns over the impact of the proposal and the failure to
demonstrate that such impacts could be adequately mitigated
against. Relevant development plan policies SIE-3 and NE3.1 seek to
ensure there is no detriment to the ecological and nature interests
of a sites and green chain designation and will not permit
development until it is demonstrated that the ecological value of
the site can be maintained. At present the tree officer is not
satisfied that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on
surrounding trees (their root zones and canopies) nor that the
presence of a dwelling in such close proximity will not generate
future pressure and damage on these trees. In addition it is not
considered that a satisfactory replacement tree planting or
landscaping scheme is included as part of the development to
mitigate for tree loss proposed. In respect of other nature/ecology
issues, whilst a badger survey has satisfactorily dealt with this
specific species the Nature Conservation Officer is not satisfied
that the proposal has properly considered its position within the
green chain designation, the impact it would have on the
designation or undertaken the relevant studies for other protected
species including bats. On this basis the proposal is not
considered to comply with the requirements of policies SIE-3 and
NE3.1 of the development plan. 5. Highways The proposal includes a
single parking area for the new dwelling accessed via Rodmill Drive
turning head. The highways engineer has inspected the proposal and
raises no objections to the amended proposal subject to conditions
relating to permeable surfacing, visibility for
-
pedestrians and cycle parking provision. On this basis the
application is considered to comply with Core Strategy Policies
T-1, T-2 and T-3. 6. Open Space The proposed 2 bed dwelling would
increase the population capacity at the site and therefore falls to
be considered under Policy SIE-2. The proposal generates a
requirement for a commuted sum of 1950.50 to satisfy policy
requirements however as a result of the Ministerial Statement of
November 2014 and associated amendments to the National Planning
Practice Guidance (NPPG) this cannot be collected. 7. Other matters
There is no reason to suggest that land contamination would be an
issue at the site. Standard conditions/informative's could over
come this issue and provide the necessary protection in any case.
An energy statement has been submitted which identifies that this
is a single plot development and any dwelling would be design to
latest building regulations (Part L1A) requirements so therefore
there is no reason to suggest the proposal could not comply with
Core Strategy DPD policy SD-3. In addition permeable drainage could
be secured via planning condition for the proposed parking areas
which would adequately deal with the requirements of policy SD-6.
There is a brook with in the site however no objections have been
received from the Environment Agency and there are not considered
to be any flood risk issues given the scale of the development.
Neighbours have raised drainage as a concern however it is not
considered that the standard conditions relating to drainage would
not ensure the site was adequately and satisfactorily drained.
Obviously satisfactory drainage would also be necessary to achieve
building regulation approval. There are no issues relating to the
above matters which would generate refusal reasons sustainable at
appeal. SUMMARY The proposal is considered to represent poor design
of a substandard plot that is not considered to provide
satisfactory levels of amenity for its intended residents. The
submission has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal will
not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding trees and
ecological value of the site. On these two grounds the application
is recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION Refuse
-
Application Reference: DC/057948 Location: 22 CRANSTON GROVE,
GATLEY, CHEADLE, SK8 4HS Proposal: Change of use to seperate
dwelling
Type of Application: Full Planning Permission
Registration Date: 13/05/2015 Expiry Date: 08/07/2015 Case
Officer: Jim Seymour
Applicant: Mrs N Khalid Agent : COMMITTEE STATUS Cheadle Area
Committee - more than 4 letters of objection received. DESCRIPTION
OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks to allow the use of an
existing section of the property as a separate residential unit.
The section concerned is the existing two storey extension located
on the south western elevation of the property. The extension was
granted permission under DC049407 and until recently was used as
ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling by a family member of
the applicant. The family member has now left the premises and the
applicant wishes to rent/let the property as an in dependant
entity. The application also seeks to regularise differences
between what was approved under DC049407 and what has been built in
particular relating to window and door sizes, types and position
and the internal room layout of the upper floor. The proposal would
permanently break the link between the extension accommodation and
the main dwelling and provide the property with its own garden to
the rear and car parking space to the front. A bin store is shown
to the frontage. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application relates to
22 Cranston grove which is an extended detached property sited at
the end of a residential cul-de-sac. The main property has been
extended to both sides with two storey extensions. The application
relates principally to the extension on the left side (as viewed
from Cranston Grove). To the rear of the property the original rear
garden has been subdivided to provide two separate garden areas
with a solid boundary fence. The rear and side boundaries are
enclosed with boundary fences. The property is adjoined to the
north west by no. 20 Cranston Grove a detached house and to the
south by no. 24 Cranston Grove which is also a detached property.
The wider area is residential in character.
-
POLICY BACKGROUND The application site is allocated within a
Predominantly Residential Area, as defined on the UDP Proposals
Map. The following policies are therefore relevant:- Saved UDP
policies EP1.10 : AIRCRAFT NOISE L1.2 : CHILDRENS PLAY Core
Strategy DPD policies CS1 : OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING
INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGES SD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES SD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN : NEW
DEVELOPMENT SD-6 : ADAPTING TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE CS2 :
HOUSING PROVISION CS3 : MIX OF HOUSING CS4 : DISTRIBUTION OF
HOUSING H-1 : DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT H-2 : HOUSING
PHASING CS8 : SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT SIE-1 :
QUALITY PLACES SIE-2 : PROVISION OF RECREATION AND AMENITY OPEN
SPACE IN NEW
DEVELOPMENTS SIE-3 : PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE
ENVIRONMENT CS9 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT T-1 : TRANSPORT AND
DEVELOPMENT T-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS T-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY
ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS SPG DESIGN
OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPD SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
SPD National Planning Legislation THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
FRAMEWORK (NPPF)
-
PLANNING HISTORY DC026428 - Two storey side / rear extension,
single storey rear extension and alterations to roof. Granted
27/6/12. DC049407 - Erection of single and double-storey extensions
to the sides.Granted 8/5/12. NEIGHBOURS VIEWS The occupiers of 10
nearby properties have been notified in writing of the proposal. In
total 7 objections have been received on the following grounds: 1.
The proposal would increase parking problems on the road. 2. The
road is already congested with car parking problems. 3. The
increased traffic and car parking will be dangerous for children
playing on the street. 4. Premises in the street need access for
emergency vehicles at all times. 5. The planning officers have been
duped into granting an extension which was intended to be a
separate dwelling. 6. The drawings are inaccurate. 7. The visual
impact of the extension is monstrous and completely ruins what was
once a very nice road. 8. There is no space for amenities and bin
stores at the property. 9. The proposal will change the peaceful
character of the cul-de-sac. CONSULTEE RESPONSES Highways Engineer:
Following on to my consultation dated 7 May and further discussion
and review I make the following comments: Whilst the submitted
layout shows parking to the front of the property the frontage
width and available space does not enable provision of three bays
(as has been shown on the drawings) which are independently
accessible. It is however clearly possible to lay out two spaces
which can be used independently and this would afford one space per
property. The provision of one space to serve each property accords
with Council Parking Standards and would be reflective of a number
of properties along the street, however I do need to be satisfied
that any over spill parking can take place in a safe manner. In
order to ascertain the impact of increased parking demand I have
undertaken observations on the street during the evening and
weekend periods. This has shown that there is kerbspace and
capacity down the street for overspill parking to occur without
causing highway operational and safety concerns. Whilst I
acknowledge parking outside another persons property may be
perceived to be inconsiderate and an inconvenience for other
residents, this would be an amenity issue and would not provide
justification for refusal on highway grounds. Putting into
perspective the potential over spill from the development site
would be one, perhaps two spaces.
-
There is a risk that over spill parking could occur within the
turning area at the end of the cul-de-sac as this would clearly
inhibit the ability of vehicles to turn and cause unacceptable
highway operational and safety issues. I do however acknowledge the
risk is low given the availability of kerbspace further down the
street, the provision of parking within the site and the presence
of signage to discourage parking in the turning area and as such I
feel that this may prove sufficient to discourage parking in the
turning area. Having discussed the proposal with the Planning Case
Officer I am advised that the issuing of a temporary permission
would be reasonable under the circumstances as this would enable
the impact of the development to be monitored over a short period
of time. This I consider would be appropriate noting the
development does actually accord with Council Standards and there
is scope for parking further down the street, this being balanced
against the risk of residents parking in the turning area for
reason of convenience. The alternative to a temporary permission
would be to implement Traffic Regulation Orders with prompt effect
and on a preventative basis. Should the Committee deem it
appropriate for a TRO or access protection markings early stage
then this would cost 1500 and needs to be secured at the applicants
expense under either the terms of an appropriate legal mechanism or
one off payment. In conclusion I think it is more reasonable to be
reactive in this case, issue a temporary permission and enable
review over time. Should over spill parking prove to be an issue
then this can be considered as part of a subsequent application and
I note there is potential to implement TRO's at a later stage as
part of any permanent permission. In the event that permission is
to be granted an informative should be included on the decision
notice: The applicants attention is drawn to the need to seek
approval under the Highways Act 1980 from the Highways Maintenance
Section (telephone 0161 217 6111) regarding the widening of the
dropped crossing prior to works commencing on site. Recommendation:
No objections to a temporary permission for a period of 12 months.
Planning Policy (Housing): The proposal is for a the conversion of
one detached dwelling house into two dwellings. The existing
dwelling appears to have 5 or 6 bedrooms with the proposed break
down being 1 house of 4 bedrooms and 1 house of 2 bedrooms. The
site is within 800m of Gatley large local centre and therefore
complies with the spatial priorities set out in Core Strategy
Policy CS4 as well as adding to the housing numbers and housing mix
as set out in Policies C2 and CS3. The proposal is not of
sufficient scale to require any affordable housing provision. The
proposal represents an unusual arrangement and the Council will
need to be satisfied that, amongst other things, provision can be
made to ensure good standards of amenity and privacy
-
for the occupants of both the existing and proposed properties,
as required by Core Strategy Development Management Policy H1
(Design of Residential Development). ANALYSIS The application seeks
to effectively sub-divide the existing property and create a new
dwelling. The proposal therefore requires assessment in respect of
the following relevant matters: 1. Landuse The application site is
located within a Predominantly Residential Area as defined on the
UDP Proposals Map. The application site is also allocated within
one of the two main spatial priority areas for residential
development, as set out in Core Strategy DPD policy CS4, being
within 800m of Gatley Large Local Centre. The accommodation
concerned is already in existence. The site is therefore is
acceptable in principle for housing development and complies with
Core Strategy Policy CS4. The proposal would also add to the
housing numbers and mix in the borough in line with the aims and
aspirations of Core Policies CS2 and CS3. (It should be noted that
the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply,
with 3.1 years worth of supply against a requirement in national
policy for 5 years plus a 5% buffer.) 2. Residential amenity In
terms of existing residents it should be noted that the structure
concerned is already on site having previously been assessed as
acceptable as and extension under permission DC049407. This
established that the principle of a block of residential
accommodation in this location, albeit as an extension rather than
as a separate dwelling, is acceptable. Residential extensions are
subject to the same scrutiny has new dwellings under the Councils
standards and the fact that the proposal complied with relevant
privacy and separation distances as an extension means that
logically the proposal will also comply as an independent dwelling.
It should be noted that the extension that has been built did not
follow the approved plans under DC049407. Whilst the extensions
size and dimensions are correct several windows/doors were not
built out as approved. This application also seeks to regularise
these differences. It should be noted that although different from
those originally approved the windows and openings in the extension
element in question do not raise any concerns or conflictions in
respect of the Councils adopted policy or guidance and therefore,
although giving this section of building a slightly different
appearance, there is no additional or worse impact on neighbours in
respect of overlooking or privacy. The main consideration in
respect of nearby properties is therefore whether the use of the
premises as a separate dwelling will have an impact on neighbours
that is greater than that if it was continued to be used as an
annex or ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling. In this
respect the difference is considered to be marginal. It is
reasonable to assume use as a separate dwelling may increase
movements too and from the house slightly as these are more likely
to happen independently from each other and usage, noise and
disturbance may therefore also be slightly greater as a pair of
properties rather than a sole dwelling. However, given the unit
proposed is small in size with only two small bedrooms its
occupancy level is likely to be very low, perhaps a single person
or couple at most, rather than a family. As an annex or ancillary
accommodation the element of the building concerned could house a
similar number of people and therefore impact of the proposal
should not be great or excessive on
-
neighbouring residents. Highways concerns in respect of parking
is potentially more of a concern and these matters are discussed
below within the highways section of the report. In terms of
intended residents, given the above situation, the proposed
dwelling is not considered to be overlooked by existing properties
and will offer adequate privacy in this regard for its occupants
from the front, side and rear. The proposal includes a rear garden
area to serve the property which is small (approx 49m2) but is
capable of beneficial use. The Council does not have specified
standard for this type of development. The nearest comparison would
be the Councils standard for a terraced house (50m2) or as a 2 no.
bedroom flat (18m2). The 49m2 provided is therefore within an
acceptable tolerance of the councils recommended amounts for this
type of development. In summary there are no residential amenity
issues for either existing or proposed residents that immediately
fail to meet the councils policies and guidelines. Neighbouring
occupiers have raised concern about the proposed subdivision and
the impact this could have on the character of the area and
residential amenities. It is acknowledged that this is an unusual
situation and residents concerns are acknowledged. As the proposal
is unusual and untested it is therefore considered that a temporary
1 year permission should be considered to allow for monitoring and
assessment (or trial run) to take place and offer some protection
to residents. This is particularly relevant in respect of highways
matters as outlined below. 3. Design. As outlined above the
structure concerned is already in place. The design of the proposal
is relatively traditional in form and scale and incorporates a
design style and features that are in keeping with the surrounding
properties which are a mixture of ages and designs. Materials of
construction are also acceptable. The fenestration changes sought
for regularisation under this application also raise no objections
as outlined above. The proposal is considered to comply with all
the development plan design related policy and guidance listed
above in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies H-1 and SIE-1
and the Design of Residential Development SPD. Given that there
would be partially limited remaining space for extensions at the
site it is considered appropriate to remove permitted development
rights from the resultant subdivided property to allow the Council
to consider/limit any subsequent extensions. 4. Access, highway
safety and parking The comments of the highways engineer are
enclosed above. Clearly the proposed 3 car layout shown on the
submitted plan is not workable however there is enough space for
two cars to be parked in front of the premises and this would meet
the Councils standards i.e. 1 space per dwelling. It is also clear
that some parking problems have been experienced in the cul-de-sac
over the years as evidenced by residents comments and signage
within the turning head outside the application property. The
engineer has indicated that despite the provision of one space per
dwelling there needs to be satisfaction that any overspill car
parking would take place in a safe manner. Consideration has been
give to the imposition of TRO's within the turning head to prevent
overspill parking in this area. At this stage however this may be
excessive and it is considered that a temporary consent of 12
months would give the chance to monitor the situation from a
highways point of view. Should parking issues prove to be a
-
problem over this period then proper use of TRO should be
considered as part any more permanent consent. On this basis no
highways are objections are raised. 5. Developer contributions As a
result of the Ministerial Statement of November 2014 and the
associated amendments to Government policy in the form of the
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), due to the fact that
the proposal is for development of ten or less units, the Council
can no longer require this application to make a contribution
towards open space. SUMMARY Grant - temporary 1 year
permission.
-
Application Reference: DC/058710 Location: BRUNTWOOD HALL,
BRUNTWOOD PARK, CHEADLE Proposal: Refurbishment of Bruntwood Hall
to create a 22 room
luxury hotel, with associated bars and restaurant areas,
external terrace and spa at ground floor and courtyard extension to
create additional circulation space
Type of Application: Full Planning Permission
Registration Date: 20/05/2015 Expiry Date: 19/08/2015 Case
Officer: Jim Seymour
Applicant: Oddfellows Holdings Ltd Agent : Formroom Architects
COMMITTEE STATUS Committee Item - Cheadle Area Committee - more
than 4 letters of objection received against the proposal contrary
to officer recommendation. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Re-submission
of previous application DC057581. Change of use and refurbishment
of existing premises from offices to a 22 bedroom hotel and with
associated bars, restaurant areas and spar. The proposal includes
physical alterations including the creation of a terrace and
courtyard extension. The proposed hotel would be operated by
"Oddfellows Hotels" who operate a boutique style hotel currently in
Chester town centre and intend to bring their brand to the parkland
setting of Bruntwood Park. The submission outlines that Bruntwood
Hall and the wider park setting will offer a significant
opportunity for Oddfellow's to develop their existing brand within
a different setting and redevelop the site into a luxury venue as a
hotel, bar, restaurant spa treatment room and event space. The use
would employ 20-30 full time members of staff and would be open as
follows: Hotel: 11am to 11pm Bar:12pm to 11pm Restaurant: Lunch
12pm to 2.30pm, Dinner 6pm to 10pm Spa: 10am to 6pm
-
The proposed use has 14 dedicated parking spaces to the building
frontage within a small triangular hardstanding. The use would
share the existing communal park car parking facilities with other
users at the main car park to the south east. The application
includes the provision of a financial contribution of 40,000
towards the surfacing and marking out of the existing unsurfaced
car park area. The proposal also includes a financial contribution
of 20,000 towards the provision of improvements to the exciting
footway that runs to the east of the driveway to the site from the
gated entrance at Schools Hill. The proposed terrace would be
located on the northern elevation and extend a short distance into
the open grassed area to the front of the building. The existing
footway around the building would remain and be unrestricted
running through the centre of the terrace. The creation of the
terrace requires some minor re-profiling and re-grading of land to
create a level area. The plans show 15 sets of tables/chairs. The
extension would take wholly within the confines of the existing
Courtyard on the eastern elevation of the building and provide
additional floorspace within a predominantly glazed flat roof
structure. The extension would provide additional space for spar
facilities. The application has been accompanied by the following
supporting documents. 1. Transport Statement 2. Heritage Statement
3. Planning Policy Statement 4. Noise Assessment 5. Design and
Access Statement 6. Energy Statement SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The
application relates to Bruntwood Hall which is a large detached
traditional stone built hall set within the extensive grounds of
Bruntwood Park. The application relates to the main southern
section of Hall building (formerly in use as offices) and land
immediately around it. This part of the building is two and a half
storey with a distinctive tower to the front elevation. The
existing northern single storey wing section of the building, in
use as The Vinery, does not form apart of the application. The
application site also includes a small triangular section of car
park to the south of the building and as small area of external
space to the north currently laid to grass with a path running
through it. The wider park lies beyond this boundary with the ponds
and play areas and car parks lying to the east. The hall is
accessed via two existing access points along The driveway from
Schools Hill and along Bruntwood Lane. POLICY BACKGROUND The
application site is allocated as lying within an allocation of
Strategic open Space and a Green Chain on the UDP Review proposals
map. The site also lies close to a SBI and the access roads through
the park that serve the site form part of a Strategic Recreation
Route again identified on the UDP Review proposals map. The
following saved policies of the UDP Review and Core Strategy DPD
are relevant:
-
UDP Review Saved Policy UOS1.3 - Protection of local Open Space
HP1.3 - Avoidance of loss of dwellings MW1.5 - Control of Waste
fro