Case Reference: 3243720

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 19-23 October, 2-6 November, 9-13 November 2020
Site visits made on 17 and 31 October 2020
by Christina Downes BSc DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25th January 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/W/19/3243720
Land at Warburton Lane, Trafford
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against Trafford Borough Council.
• The application, Ref 98031/OUT/19, is dated 31 May 2019.
• The proposals are for a residential development of up to 400 dwellings, including the
creation of new points of access, provision of formal and informal open space, ancillary
landscaping, car parking and highway and drainage works.
DECISION
1. For the reasons given below, the appeal is dismissed.
APPLICATION FOR COSTS
2. At the inquiry an application for costs was made by Trafford Borough Council
against [APPELLANT]. This application is the subject of a separate
Decision.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
3. Due to time constraints, it was agreed that the costs application could be
made in writing. A timetable was drawn up accordingly. Furthermore, there
were a number of points relating to the Planning Obligation by Unilateral
Undertaking (the UU) that required further consideration by the main parties.
I therefore agreed to an extension of 21 days for the Deed to be completed
and I allowed each main party to submit any final comments within that
timescale. The inquiry was closed in writing on 10 December 2020.
4. The proposals are for “up to” 400 dwellings and thus give the potential for a
lesser number. However, that cannot be assumed at this stage and no
evidence was provided by the Appellant to support any specific reduction in
quantum. In the circumstances, my consideration will be on the basis of a
development of 400 houses.
5. There were 10 putative reasons for refusal. It was agreed that the provision of
primary school places could be addressed in the UU and that the mitigation of
adverse highway impacts could be controlled through planning conditions.
Remaining objections include the adverse effect on heritage assets and
archaeology; the failure to integrate with the adjoining settlement and provide
for sustainable growth; the inaccessibility of the site and dependency on the
private car; the failure to provide affordable housing; and the harm to
landscape character.
PRELIMINARY POINTS
6. The appeal site comprises about 25 hectares of land that lies immediately to
the north of the Green Belt and to the south of the Red Brook and settlement
of Partington. It is crossed by Warburton Lane, with site 1 on the eastern side
and site 2 on the western side. The sites are roughly equal in area and site 1
is bordered on its southern side by Moss Lane.
THE PARAMETERS PLAN
7. The application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved, save
for access. Drawings were submitted to show the details of two new accesses
onto Warburton Lane. The application was also accompanied by a Parameters
Plan (drawing no: A16942.010). Amongst other things this shows other
access points, termed “emergency/ localised access” denoted by arrows and
the main vehicular routes through sites 1 and 2, which are stated to be
indicative. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (England) Order 2015 makes clear that access for the purpose of
reserved matters means the accessibility to and within the site in terms of the
positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit
into the surrounding access network. Warburton Parish Council (WPC), who
was granted Rule 6 status, considered that the Parameters Plan did not
provide the necessary detail to allow the matter of access to be determined.
8. It would not be reasonable to expect a Parameters Plan to include all internal
roads and footways where layout remains a reserved matter. The Order
defines this as how “buildings, routes and open spaces are provided, situated
and orientated to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the
development”. It seems to me that there is some degree of overlap between
the two and that it is a matter of judgement as to whether what is shown is
sufficient to make an informed decision. There is no requirement for a detailed
design or specification at this stage as that will be firmed up when layout is
determined. The matter is further complicated by the desire of the Council not
to prejudice the provision of the Southern Relief Road (SRR), which would
provide a potential link road through site 1 in the policy GM Allocation 41 of
Greater Manchester's emerging Plan for Homes, Jobs and the Environment
(the GMSF). Purely in terms of serving the site itself, I consider that the detail
shown on the Parameters Plan is sufficient.
9. There are 3 emergency/ localised access points into site 1 from Moss Lane.
These do not appear to link up to the main internal circulation routes.
However, it would seem from other information that the intention would be to
serve small courtyards of houses close to that road frontage. This would
obviously be a matter closely linked to the layout. To allay any remaining
concerns, a condition could be imposed that these access points have not
been approved at this stage. I do not consider that this would be prejudicial or
alter the nature of the application.
10. The Council’s putative reasons for refusal include the contention that the
supporting information is not sufficient to assess the acceptability of the
outline proposals. In particular the Parameters Plan is considered too flexible
and unspecific. This is a different point to the one raised by WPC and relates
to whether sufficient supporting information has been provided to be able to
decide whether 400 dwellings could be accommodated on the site along with
all necessary mitigation. In particular, this relates to the Council’s concerns
about the effects on Green Belt boundaries, the landscape, heritage assets
and archaeology as well as the SRR referred to above. I consider these
matters under the relevant main issues below. However, the Council did have
the power to request further details that it considered necessary to enable it
to determine the application1. It declined to make such a request, which may
have been because at this time there were also 2 full planning applications
under consideration, but these were subsequently withdrawn.
REVISIONS TO THE PROPOSALS
11. WPC was concerned about whether various amendments made to the
proposals were lawful applying the Wheatcroft2 principles. An updated
Parameters Plan was provided to the Council prior to lodging the appeal. The
changes included pulling back the development area from adjacent listed
buildings and the public right of way crossing site 1; provision of a vista
towards Warburton Toll Bridge from site 2; extension of the development area
in site 1 towards Moss Lane; introduction of an additional green corridor on
site 2; introduction of a pedestrian/ cycle crossing point to Red Brook on each
site3; and a controlled crossing to Warburton Lane.
12. I have considered all of the proposed changes and do not consider that they
materially alter the nature of this outline application. Furthermore, they are
addressed in the Environmental Statement Addendum (March 2020), which
has been subject to full public consultation. In such circumstances I am
satisfied that the Wheatcroft principles would not be offended and that no-one
would be prejudiced by taking the proposed amendments into account.
Furthermore, it was the revised Parameters Plan that was the focus of
consideration at the public inquiry.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
13. There is no dispute that this would be EIA development. An Environmental
Statement was submitted with the planning application. As a result of the
aforementioned revisions the Addendum was produced to address impacts
arising from the proposed changes. In addition, a number of additional
updated technical reports were produced to address issues arising from
consultation responses, including revised mitigation proposals to the Flixton
crossroads and a Geophysical Survey as part of the archaeological
assessment. The Environmental Statement and its Addendum are in
accordance with the relevant Regulations. No concerns have been expressed
that the EIA is other than procedurally or legally correct, and I have no reason
to determine otherwise.
1 See Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)
(England) Order 2015
2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another (1982) 43
P. & C.R. 233
3 The pedestrian bridges are not being pursued although the Parameters Plan still indicates
a potential connection point from each site.
INSPECTOR’S REASONS
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT AND APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING
14. The development plan includes the saved policies in the Revised Trafford
Unitary Development Plan (UDP), adopted in 2006 and the Trafford Local Plan
Core Strategy (CS), adopted in 2012.
15. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where
strategic housing policies are more than 5 years old and have not been
reviewed, as is the case here, the local housing need should be determined
through the Government’s standard methodology. This has given rise to a
requirement for 1,369 homes a year, which is a considerable increase over
the figures in policy L1 of the CS. On this basis it is agreed that there is a
supply of just 2.4 years. The Housing Delivery Test results for 2019 show that
just 58% of this requirement was achieved, which is significantly below the
expectation in the Framework4. The presumption in favour of sustainable
development in paragraph 11d of the Framework is thus engaged. Whether
subsection i) or ii) applies will depend on my conclusions with regards to the
effect on heritage assets.
16. The appeal site is within open countryside to the south of the settlement of
Partington and immediately to the north of the Green Belt. Under saved policy
C8 it is included in a wider area that is designated as Protected Open Land.
The purpose of this is to avoid the need to review Green Belt boundaries in
the event that more land is needed for housing in the longer term, following a
review of the UDP. This designation was carried forward in policy R4 of the CS
where it is termed Other Protected Open Land. The policy itself only permits
future use for limited purposes, which do not include a residential
development such as is being proposed here. The supporting text explains
that the land is not identified for development within the plan period but may
be required to meet future housing needs following a strategic review of the
Green Belt. No such review has been undertaken.
17. The Proposals Map also shows the appeal sites and land to the east and west
as falling within the Priority Regeneration Area of Partington. This is clearly a
drafting error as the UDP Inspector indicated that this designation was
inconsistent with that of Protected Open Land and therefore the swathe of
countryside between the Green Belt and Partington should be excluded. The
accompanying proposed modification was accepted by the Council on adoption
of the UDP but for some reason has not been removed from the map. Policy
L3 in the CS relating to Priority Regeneration Areas is not relevant to the
appeal sites.
18. The appeal proposals would conflict with saved policy C8 and policy R4. On
the other hand, at the present time the Council is unable to provide sufficient
deliverable sites to meet its housing requirement. I heard a great deal of
evidence as to why this might be, and the Council emphasised that it was not
because insufficient planning permissions were being granted. The evidence
indicates that the Council is being pro-active in this regard. Nonetheless it
remains the case that the Borough has a serious deficit and in such
4 The 2020 Housing Delivery Test results were published on 19 January 2021. They show a
result for Trafford of 61%, which remains significantly below Framework expectations.
circumstances the conflict of the appeal development with the two policies
mentioned above, which restrict housing supply, is a matter to which I afford
limited weight.
19. The GMSF is a spatial framework covering the city region's 10 local planning
authorities over the period 2020 to 2037. It is currently at Regulation 19
consultation stage with the examination anticipated mid-2021. Draft policy
GM Allocation 41 is a large allocation to the north, east and south of
Partington for a mixed use regeneration known as New Carrington. It includes
the appeal site and land to the east and west, which is shown as an area for
residential use for approximately 420 units at an average density of 25
dwellings per hectare.
20. The associated New Carrington Masterplan also shows a SRR running around
Partington and through site 1 to connect to Warburton Lane. At the inquiry
there was a great deal of discussion about this draft allocation and the way
that the proposed development would respond to it, especially in terms of the
SRR. However, the fact remains that this is part of an emerging plan that is
not by any definition at an “advanced stage”. Furthermore, as I understand it
there are a large number of unresolved representations. I therefore afford the
GMSF and its Masterplan limited weight and conclude that prematurity is not
an issue in this case. Furthermore, for similar reasons, how the potential route
of the SRR would engage with the appeal site is not a determinative matter in
this case.
21. For completeness, I note that the Council is preparing a new Local Plan, which
will eventually replace the saved UDP policies and the CS. This is intended to
sit below the strategic level GMSF. It is at present at a very early stage and is
not relied on by any party as a material consideration in this appeal.
WHETHER THIS WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE LOCATION FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, HAVING REGARDS TO THE SPATIAL STRATEGY IN THE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE LOCATION OF THE SITE RELATIVE TO
NEARBY SETTLEMENTS.
22. The CS sets out a number of strategic objectives. These include meeting
housing needs within the most sustainable locations; reducing the need to
travel by improving accessibility in less sustainable locations; and
regeneration to reduce inequalities and improve prosperity in the Borough’s
most disadvantaged communities.
23. Warburton is a small rural community to the south of the appeal sites, which
dates back to Medieval times. To its north is a large tract of agricultural land
forming Warburton Park. As was noted by WPC and other local residents who
spoke at the inquiry, a development of 400 houses would be substantially
larger than the existing village. Whilst the future design of the new dwellings
may reflect the style of houses within this historic settlement, I do not
consider that the two would be be affiliated either visually, physically or
functionally.
24. Partington is a settlement that expanded significantly to provide overspill
council housing following the slum clearances in Manchester after the second
World War. It has relatively poor transport links and connections to
surrounding town centres, resulting in isolated and poorly integrated
communities. There is a single main road (the A6144) in and out of
Partington, which becomes very congested at peak times. There is a relatively
narrow range of housing types and tenures with a high proportion of social
rented housing. Parts of the settlement have high levels of social and
economic deprivation and it is designated as one of three Priority
Regeneration Areas.
25. Policy L1 in the CS sets out how and when land will be released for housing to
meet identified needs. A sequential approach is favoured, giving priority to the
development of previously developed land. Indeed, the plan indicates that
80% of its housing provision will be on brownfield sites. Five strategic sites
have been identified, which account for about 40% of the overall supply.
Policy SL5 identifies Carrington as one of the strategic sites. This is to the
north of Partington and the CS envisages an opportunity to reduce the
isolation of both Carrington and Partington and integrate them into a
sustainable mixed-use community.
26. Policy L1 envisages the release of greenfield land to accommodate supply
shortfalls provided the development will be capable of creating sustainable
communities and contribute to CS objectives. Whilst the appeal sites are
relatively close to Partington in terms of distance, the presence of the Red
Brook and its wooded corridor provide a clear physical and perceptual barrier
between the settlement and the countryside to the south. Unlike the western
boundary of site 2 where there is no physical delineation, the Red Brook
provides a strong defensible boundary to the settlement. This sense of
separation is increased by the presence of the flood plain and the new
development area would stand well back from the northern site boundary on
higher ground.
27. Notwithstanding the safeguarding of land to the south of Partington for
potential future development needs, the UDP Inspector in his 2003 Report had
serious concerns with regards to its suitability for housing. He opined that this
land was poorly integrated with existing housing and community facilities in
Partington. He saw the Red Brook, its wildlife corridor and its floodplain as
severely inhibiting such integration. It is the case that he was considering a
much more extensive tract of land and many more houses. It is also to be
noted that since 2003 there has been a new local shopping centre in
Partington and improvements to its school and community provision.
Nevertheless, insofar as the Inspector’s comments related to the locational
relationship of this land with the adjoining settlement, his comments still
resonate.
28. Policy L1 is out of date in terms of housing numbers. However, it does not
preclude greenfield development if there are supply shortfalls. Indeed, the
objective of creating sustainable communities is a strategic objective that is
entirely consistent with national policy and not a principle that is rendered
out-of-date in the face of the issue of housing land supply.
29. The proposals would not guarantee any new crossing points of the Red Brook.
The likelihood of Partington residents using the new open spaces and riverside
walks thereforefore seems relatively small. In the circumstances, the creation
of sustainable communities through the integration of the appeal development
and the existing settlement would be limited in this case. That situation may
change if the site is developed as envisaged in the emerging GMSF but that is
not a matter for this appeal. For all of the above reasons I do not consider
that the appeal proposals would accord with the spatial strategy in the
development plan and the conflict with policy L1 is a matter to which I afford
moderate weight in this case.
WHETHER AN APPROPRIATE DESIGN COULD BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF THE SUBMITTED PARAMETERS PLAN WITHOUT
UNACCEPTABLE HARM TO THE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
30. A preliminary point relates to the long-term future of this land and the
landscape implications. As I have already mentioned it has been designated
as Other Protected Open Land in the CS and it is allocated for development in
the emerging GMSF. However, these policy provisions are matters to be
considered through the future plan making process. At the present time the
development plan provides no certainty about when, how or even if the land
to the south of Partington will be developed. Although the sites adjoin the
boundary of the Green Belt, this is a spatial rather than a landscape
designation and no adverse effects were identified by the Council in this
respect.
31. The Council’s Landscape Strategy (2004) has been adopted as supplementary
planning guidance. This provides an assessment to support saved policy
ENV17 in the UDP, which seeks to protect, promote and enhance all of the
open land on the Proposals Map. This includes the area south of Partington,
which is placed in the the Settled Sandlands landscape type. The gently rolling
topography allows extensive views of medium to large sized fields defined by
hedgerows and prominent hedgerow trees. There are small isolated blocks of
woodland, watercourses and ponds. Farm buildings of traditional materials are
identified as a distinguishing visual feature. The site is within the subdivision
of Warburton Park Farm/ Mossland Fringe. Here particular mention is made of
the linear woodland along Red Brook, which is said to provide a visual
boundary between the built-up and rural areas. Historic and cultural
influences include the former manorial estate and its deer park and the
subsequent changes in the 18th and 19th century with the enclosure of the
moss and farmland to satisfy demand for food by the expanding urban areas.
32. The Greater Manchester Landscape Character and Sensitivity Assessment
(2018) was produced on behalf of the 10 Greater Manchester Authorities as
part of the evidence base to the emerging GMSF. The Mosslands and Lowland
Farmland landscape character type includes several different character areas
and the land to the south of Partington is classified as being within the
Warburton and Carrington Mosses. The assessment itself identifies key
attributes of the landscape character type overall. Whilst it includes similar
characteristics to those identified above it is a higher-level assessment and it
seems to me that the 2004 Borough-wide document is more useful for
present purposes.
33. The appeal sites are currently open arable farmland on the southern side of
the Red Brook valley. The southern boundary of site 1 adjoins Moss Lane with
an intermittent hedge running along the roadside edge. Its eastern boundary
has no physical delineation at present. Site 2 adjoins open countryside to the
south and this boundary is delineated by a hedge and a small woodland
adjacent to the south-west corner. The western boundary runs along an
arbitrary line that crosses the field. I consider that these sites share many of
the key characteristics pertaining to the Settled Sandlands landscape type.
Whether the site is within a valued landscape
34. Paragraph 170 of the Framework indicates that valued landscapes should be
protected and enhanced in a manner commensurate with their statutory
status or identified quality in the development plan. In this case the
landscape in question includes the village of Warburton and its former deer
park. This is within an Area of Landscape Protection under saved policy
ENV17. However, this designation applies to all of the landscape types that
make up the open areas of the Borough. It does not indicate that the
landscape around Warburton has a special quality or is anything other than
of local value.
35. There is no specific definition of what a valued landscape is, but case law
and past appeal decisions have indicated that to qualify it should be more
than ordinary countryside with physical attributes beyond popularity. The
site itself need not possess such qualities, what is important is that they
should be present in the landscape of which it forms a part. WPC considers
that the former medieval landscape around Warburton, including site 2, is of
regional value.
36. There is no doubt that Warburton and its surrounding landscape are highly
valued by the local community. There has been much research over a long
period of time about this ancient village and its environs. Dr Nevell, who is
acknowledged as the foremost expert in its archaeology and history, gave
evidence to the inquiry. The deer park was considered to be of central
importance to this landscape in medieval times and it is referred to by WPC
as a “designed” landscape.
37. The 2004 Landscape Strategy mentions the historic background of the
former Warburton deer park and the later change to dispersed and
centralised farm holdings. The 2018 Landscape Character and Sensitivity
Assessment refers to Warburton Park as an example of a post medieval field
pattern. Box 5.1 of the Landscape Institute’s Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment (2013) (GLVIA) provides 8 factors that are helpful
when considering value. These were considered in the Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment undertaken as part of the Environmental Statement and
WPC carried out its own Box 5.1 assessment.
38. I have considered carefully all of the evidence on this matter and I also rely
on my own observations from an extensive site visit. In my opinion, the
landscape has substantially evolved over the last 300 years and there are
relatively few visual clues that link it to its earlier history. As recorded in
both the 2004 and 2018 landscape documents, it is largely the product of
post medieval changes that occurred during the time of the enclosures. That
is not to say that there are not some vestiges of the past that can still be
seen. These include the mound that is now believed to have been
constructed as a rabbit warren; the scattered woodland copses and small
ponds; and the curved hedgelines indicating the possible line of the former
deer park boundary. However, these features would not indicate to the
observer without local knowledge that what is being seen or experienced is a
medieval parkland landscape.
39. Undoubtedly this is an attractive area of countryside that it is generally
representative of the Settled Sandlands landscape type. Local people clearly
hold it in high regard. However, I cannot agree that it is sufficiently intact or
visually apparent to be of regional importance. I do not consider that it is a
valued landscape within the terms of paragraph 170 of the Framework.
Effect on the landscape
40. When observed from the countryside to the south, the existing settlement
edge is relatively well screened by the intervening wooded corridor of the Red
Brook, especially when the trees are in leaf. The terraced housing on the
southern side of Oak Road is elevated above the valley floor, and towards the
eastern end of site 2 it is more visible due to breaks in the vegetation. From
Moss Lane, the upper parts of houses in Brook Farm Close and the buildings
associated with Broadoak School, The Fuse community centre and Partington
Sports Village are also seen in places, especially through gaps in the trees.
Top Park Close is a small outlier of houses, built on a site previously occupied
by farm buildings. However, it is, in my opinion, a visual anomaly in that it is
perceived neither as part of the settlement nor part of the countryside.
Notwithstanding this, I consider that the settlement is relatively well
contained behind a defensible boundary and is not unduly assertive on the
adjoining landscape. In this case there is no urban fringe transition, which so
often occurs close to the settlement edge.
41. I have no doubt that the appeal development would be built to a high quality
and that the large areas of green infrastructure would result in an attractive
place in which to live. Nevertheless, this would essentially be a relatively large
suburban housing estate, which is not a feature associated with the landscape
of the Settled Sandlands. One of the issues is that the Red Brook floodplain
and the position of the high-pressure gas main has meant that much of the
greenspace would be located on the northern side of the sites. Whilst this
would be an asset in terms of amenity and wildlife, it would be a disadvantage
by pushing new built development onto the higher land and further into the
rural area. For these reasons it is difficult to envisage how a development of
this size and in this location could be accommodated without harm to the
receiving landscape. The degree of harm would largely depend on the quality
of the new settlement edge and the strength of the embedded mitigation.
42. Whilst there is a Design and Access Statement and illustrative Masterplan
these provide an indication of how the site could be developed. The only
reliable indication of what would materialise if permission were to be granted
is the Parameters Plan. This shows landscaped buffers of between 10-15m
wide along Moss Lane and 10-12m wide along the southern and western
boundaries of site 2. On the eastern side of site 1, the northern section would
have a set-back of only about 5m. Whilst I would support an outward facing
development with boundary planting that would soften but not hide the new
houses, my concern is with the adequacy of the proposed set-backs.
43. I appreciate that there would be greater width in places, most notably in the
south east corners of both sites. However, the purpose is mainly to provide a
better relationship with the adjacent listed buildings rather than to improve
the juxtaposition with the countryside. Overall, bearing in mind the landscape
characteristics of the Settled Sandlands and the elevated topography,
especially on the southern side of site 2, I do not consider that the proposed
buffers would be sufficient.
44. Site 1 in particular has a relatively narrow development area with a long
boundary with Moss Lane, which runs along the northern edge of the former
mossland. This road is narrow and rural in character with no footways or
street lighting. It is fronted by occasional dwellings and farms, including Pear
Tree Cottage and Birch Cottage. The illustrative Masterplan suggests small
housing clusters and detached houses with front gardens within this part of
the site. Whilst there may be potential for such an arrangement to provide
more informality and visual interest it remains the case that there would be
an insufficient buffer beyond which built development would stand. The
development would result in a suburbanisation that would have a marked and
harmful effect on the character of this country lane and the countryside to the
south.
45. It is appreciated that layout and landscaping are reserved matters. However,
that to some extent is the problem because the only definitive plan, the
Parameters Plan, does not give me confidence that there could be a successful
transition between the new built-up area and the countryside. It indicates a
likelihood that the development would fail to successfully integrate with its
rural surroundings. Overall, I agree with the Council and Appellant that this
landscape has medium sensitivity and medium susceptibility to change. The
landscape type is not particularly extensive, and there would be a medium
magnitude of effect. Overall, the landscape effect would be of moderate
adverse significance. Over time, landscaping would mature but I do not
consider that the effect of built form and the harm to the countryside would
be reduced to any significant degree.
Visual effect
46. The appeal sites can be seen relatively extensively from many public
viewpoints. During my site visit I visited most of these and walked the nearby
footpaths and along the trails beside the Red Brook river corridor. The
Statement of Common Ground on landscape matters was agreed by all 3 main
parties and there was no dispute that from a number of viewpoints the visual
effect would be of minor or negligible significance. My consideration therefore
concentrates on the disputed viewpoints, which mainly relate to the
magnitude of effect and the effectiveness of mitigation in the longer term.
47. WPC considered that the sensitivity of people using the public rights of way
should be high rather than medium. GLVIA advises that people engaged in
outdoor recreation are amongst the groups most susceptible to change. It is
also important though to consider the value attached to the views. In this
case I have concluded that the surrounding landscape, including Warburton
Park, is of local and not regional value. This is not to diminish its attractive
qualities but I consider the medium sensitivity attributed to footpath users by
both the Council and the Appellant is in this case correct. People using the
footpaths will be enjoying a kinetic experience, which will continually change
as they move through the countryside.
48. On the whole the Appellant seems to me to have understated the magnitude
of effect and been overly optimistic about the effectiveness of the embedded
mitigation. I have not specifically considered the effects during construction
but have concentrated on the permanent effects following completion at year
1 and the residual effects at year 15.
49. The Parameters Plan shows that the footpath crossing site 1 would run
through a green corridor. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the slope of the land,
it is difficult to see how the embedded mitigation or tree planting within front
gardens or along roads would provide screening that would be sufficient for
the adverse effects from viewpoint 1 to be other than major adverse even in
the long term. From the short footpath that crosses the corner of site 1
between Moss Lane and Warburton Lane, Top Park Close is on one side and a
large swathe of open space crossed by the new spine road on the other.
Walking east the new development would be seen at a distance and in the
other direction the view would be mainly of the open space along the Red
Brook corridor with an oblique view of the houses fronting Warburton Lane. In
year 15 the landscaping in the open spaces would have matured to filter
views. For this reason, I consider that the significance of effect from viewpoint
2 would be minor/ moderate5 adverse.
50. From the eastern end of the public right of way to the south of site 2 the new
development would be seen in an elevated position behind the boundary
hedge and buffer. For all of the reasons I have given previously, the visual
effect of the new development from this part of Warburton Park would not
diminish significantly as a result of the proposed landscaping over time. There
would be the benefit of distance and the effects would be experienced over a
relatively short section of the footpath. From viewpoint 3 there would be a
moderate adverse significance of effect.
51. From Moss Lane the view into site 1 would substantially change from open
countryside to a suburban estate. From viewpoint 6 all parties agree that the
significance of effect would be major adverse. Whilst the green buffer planting
has the potential to provide some mitigation, I am not as confident as the
Appellant as to its long term effectiveness. In my judgement at year 15 this
would only reduce slightly to a major/ moderate significance of effect.
52. Approaching site 2 from Warburton Lane, the new development would be seen
above the roadside hedgerows. Top Park Close is a fairly prominent existing
feature in the view and the built area would be extended westwards. The
Parameters Plan shows the new houses close to the road but built form would
be seen at depth, especially through the access and its associated bellmouth.
Sections of the existing hedge along the site frontage would be removed.
Bearing all of this in mind I consider that the significance of effect from
viewpoint 5 would be moderate adverse both in the long and short term.
53. From Broadoak Meadow Walk, which runs along the Red Brook corridor on the
northern side of the river, viewpoint 10 is through a large gap in the trees. It
seems to me a significant point in the walk as a bench allows the walker to
stop and admire the rural view across the central part of site 1. In the
foreground the Parameters Plan shows a considerable depth of open space
occupying the floodplain, although there would be new housing behind it. It
should be borne in mind that this would be a short part of a walk that is very
well screened by trees and greenery. I therefore consider that the significance
of effect would be moderate adverse in year 1 but would reduce to minor
adverse in year 15 when landscaping has matured.
54. On the western side of Warburton Lane the Red Brook Wildlife Trail follows the
northern side of the river close to the valley floor. Views into site 2 vary
depending on the strength of the intervening tree cover. This is more patchy
5 The scale I have used puts the main value first. So in this case minor/ moderate would be
higher than minor but lower than moderate.
at the eastern end of site 2 where there is an area of gently rising land
outside the site boundary. The development area would be well set back at
this point. Further to the west the trees provide a thicker screen. Overall, I
consider that the significance of effect from this trail would be minor adverse
both in the short and long term.
Conclusions
55. For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the appeal site sits within
a valued landscape in terms of paragraph 170 of the Framework. To my mind
it is an area of countryside that is of local value. Nevertheless, I do not
consider that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that an appropriate
design could be achieved within the context of the submitted Parameters Plan
without significant harm to the landscape character and visual amenity of the
area. There would thus be conflict with policy R2 in the CS.
THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ASSETS.
56. The parties agree that the relevant designated heritage assets are 4 Grade II
listed buildings, that the effect on significance would derive from changes to
their setting and that any harm would be less than substantial in nature.
Paragraph 196 of the Framework would be engaged whereby harm is to be
weighed against public benefits. There are also non-designated heritage
assets in the vicinity but the number that would be affected is not agreed. In
the case of non-designated heritage assets, paragraph 197 of the Framework
makes clear that a balanced judgement should be made, having regard to the
scale of any harm and the significance of the asset. With regards to
archaeological assets, the dispute concerns whether the matter should be
addressed pre-determination or through a planning condition. This depends
on the value of the buried assets, which is not agreed.
57. The Framework defines “significance” as the value of the asset because of its
heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or
historic. The setting is defined as the surroundings in which the asset is
experienced, which may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. In
this case most of the affected built heritage assets are associated with the
area’s agricultural past. The farmland of the appeal sites has different degrees
of importance in terms of how the buildings are experienced and their history
is understood.
58. It is the Council’s role to identify non-designated assets but for the decision-
maker to determine the effect of proposals on their significance. WPC asserted
that similar reasoning can be applied to paragraph 189 of the Framework and
that the Council is the only arbiter of what information must be submitted to
understand the significance of a heritage asset. WPC relate this particularly to
the archaeological trial trenching, which the Council said was necessary pre-
determination. I do not agree with WPC on this point. The Framework does
not make such a specification and I am entitled, as decision maker, to make
up my own mind on the matter based on the evidence.
The listed buildings
Heathlands Farmhouse and Heathlands Barn
59. These are separately listed. The farmhouse dates to the late 18th century but
the adjacent barn has late medieval origins and may have formed the original
farmhouse. It includes significant elements from that period and the listing
description notes that it is a rare example of a multifunctional cowhouse and
hayloft in the north Cheshire plain. It was restructured in the 18th century in
association with Heathlands Farmhouse which was built on the edge of the
mossland at the time of agricultural reclamation. This is an attractive two-
storey house with a symmetrical front façade. The buildings have individual
significance and group value as a good example of an 18th century farmstead.
60. The Heathlands group were built facing onto Warburton Lane within a rural
setting of open agricultural fields. Site 1 forms part of this overall setting
although the agricultural fields to the east and south would remain unaffected.
There is also agricultural land to the north but its value in providing a setting
has been diminished by Top Park Close, which is a small but prominent
development of modern houses.
61. The Parameters Plan includes a green space in the south eastern corner of the
site, which it was confirmed at the inquiry would not contain built
development. This would help provide an open aspect in the immediate
foreground, but the new houses would be apparent behind. Overall, I consider
that there would be a moderate degree of harm to the significance of these
assets both individually and as a group.
Barn to south-east of Birch Farmhouse and curtilage listed farmhouse and barns
62. The listed barn is dated as 18th century although it incorporates cruck frames
that have earlier origins similar to Heathlands Barn. These would have been
associated with a late medieval landscape. The open bay at ground level was
probably a hay barn and there is a two-storey front wing which included a
hayloft. The barn is now a dwelling in separate ownership but it can still be
appreciated as part of the group of buildings that include two other barns and
a farmhouse. The farmhouse and one of the barns also incorporate cruck
frames and probably date from the 18th century. Due to their association they
are curtilage listed. As a group they provide a good example of a large
farmstead that was built on the edge of the mossland during the period when
this was being reclaimed for agricultural use. Their value is though
compromised to some extent by the large modern agricultural buildings sited
in close proximity to the north and east.
63. The barn and the farmstead face towards Moss Lane within a setting of open
agricultural land, which undoubtedly contributes to its historical context. Site
1 is shown on the 1757 Warburton Estate Plan to have formed part of its
landholding. It thus provides the agricultural setting to the west. The
Parameters Plan includes a green space in the south eastern corner of site,
which it was confirmed at the inquiry would not contain built development.
This would help maintain an open aspect in the immediate foreground, but the
new houses would be apparent behind. Overall, I consider that there would be
a moderate degree of harm to the significance of these assets.
Farm building at Warburton Park Farmyard and curtilage listed farmhouse and farm
buildings
64. The 17th century listed timber box framed farm building stands at the
southern end of the Park Farm farmyard. There are a number of 18th and 19th
century brick-built farm buildings around the edge of the large open farmyard.
The farmhouse stands to one side at the end of Park Road. It is believed to
occupy the site of a former moated medieval manor. These buildings are all
curtilage listed and contribute to the group value of this historic farmstead.
There are several modern farm buildings to the immediate north and west,
which detract from the integrity of the group.
65. The wider setting comprises an extensive tract of land that originally formed
the medieval deer park associated with the manorial estate. This was
subsequently abandoned, and the land was enclosed for agriculture. Site 2 is
within the land associated with Park Farm and the former manorial estate,
which provide an extensive setting through which the heritage assets are
experienced. The development would permanently remove a relatively small
section of land at the north-eastern corner. This would result in a minor effect
on the significance of the listed building and the farmyard group.
The non-designated heritage assets
Brook House
66. This building dates back to the late 18th/ early 19th century and may have
had origins as part of an earlier farmstead. It fronts onto Warburton Lane and
stands within a treed environment behind a front boundary hedge. This is an
attractive well proportioned small house that was built in an isolated rural
location. However, its sense of isolation has been considerably diminished by
the large houses at Top Park Close, immediately to the south. Its cream
coloured elevations enhance its visibility and it is therefore quite prominent in
short and long distance views. However, this seem unlikely to have been an
intentional consequence of its location.
67. The development of site 2 would remove the open outlook that currently
pertains to the west and provides part of the countryside setting. The
Parameters Plan shows development close to the Warburton Lane boundary.
Furthermore, it seems likely that parts of the hedge along the eastern edge of
the appeal site would be removed to provide sight lines to the new access. To
the north the land on site 1 would remain undeveloped, other than the new
access. In the circumstances there would be a further erosion of the rural
setting of Brook House. However, bearing in mind the existing situation, the
effect on significance would be minor adverse.
Birch Cottage (originally part of Mosslane Cottages)
68. This 18th century cottage was originally one of three, probably built to house
farm workers from Birch Farm. It is a modest sized dwelling in a relatively
isolated rural location on the northern side of Moss Lane. It stands on the
southern side of its hedged garden plot and the surrounding farmland
provides a wider setting. Even though the rural area to the south would
remain unchanged, the cottage is orientated east-west with its main
elevations facing away from the road. The development of site 1 would result
in the loss of farmland to the north, west and east. Mitigation would include a
5 metre buffer around the north, east and west site boundaries. These would
go some way to protect the immediate setting and the effect on significance
would be minor adverse.
Pear Tree Cottage
69. This cottage was probably built in the late 18th or early 19th century as an
agricultural worker’s dwelling. It has a similar orientation and relationship to
Moss Lane as Birch Cottage. The surrounding agricultural land contributes to
the significance of the dwelling in a similar way and similar mitigation is
proposed. The effect on significance would be minor adverse.
Moss Lane Farm
70. As with the other buildings along this stretch of Moss Lane, this 17th century
farmhouse is orientated at right angles to the road. However, unlike the
above 2 cottages, it is on the southern side and stands well back behind
gardens and a tall holly hedge along the road frontage. The evidence suggests
that this farmstead originated from the early post-medieval enclosure of the
mosslands. The farmland to the south, east and west provides its wider
setting and this would remain unaffected by the appeal proposals. The
development of site 1 would be seen in the background in northward facing
views, but overall I consider that the effect on significance would be
negligible.
Old Warburton Lane and Bridge
71. The present alignment of Warburton Lane and the bridge date to the 1960’s.
This has left a short section of the original lane adjacent to the western
boundary of site 1. This remnant section is at a lower level to the existing
road and can be used by pedesrians and cyclists although it is in poor
condition and partly overgrown with vegetation. The date of the old stone
bridge is unknown.
72. The appeal development would not impact on the bridge but the new access
to site 1 would cut across the lane requiring regrading in order to meet the
higher level of the existing road. The intention is to maintain it for use by
pedestrians and cyclists. The bridge and lane are not recorded in the Historic
Environment Record but it is agreed that they are heritage assets. I consider
them to be of relatively low historic value. The changes in levels would cause
some detriment of a minor nature.
Warburton Toll Bridge
73. This is a striking high-level late 19th century cantilever bridge that crosses the
Manchester Ship Canal. Due to its height it can be seen from a considerable
distance and in this respect it is something of a local landmark. However, the
significance of the bridge relates to its value in terms of its industrial history
and architecture. To my mind the appeal development would have no effect
on this whatsoever, notwithstanding that it would be visible from the bridge in
the far distance. Conversely, it is proposed to retain a view of the bridge from
across the south eastern part of site 2, and this is to be welcomed.
Warburton Park
74. I have already concluded that there is little now to indicate the former
medieval deer park or designed parkland in terms of the physical landscape
due to the considerable degree of agricultural change that has taken place
from the mid-17th century when it was presumed to have been disimparked.
During this later period it provided the farmland associated with Park Farm
and its farmstead and I have considered the part it played in that respect
already. With regards to its earlier history, there is no dispute that a medieval
deer park formerly existed in this vicinity, probably associated with a moated
manor on a similar site to Park Farm. Site 2 is likely to have been within its
boundaries. Its significance as a non designated heritage asset relates
principally to its historic interest.
75. The Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record maps a number of
visible features, including earthworks associated with the park pale6. This can
be seen most clearly along a section of the south-eastern boundary. The
curving nature of Warburton Lane is also indicative of the former perimeter.
More contentious is the boundary along the edge of the Red Brook, were an
earthern bank can be seen. The evidence indicates that along the northern
site boundary the hedgerow has been removed and the area ploughed. In
addition, a high pressure gas pipeline was installed across the northern part of
the site, which would have caused substantial ground disturbance. Another
feature is what is now thought to be a pillow mound7 within the adjoining
fields. There are also several pools in the copse adjacent to the south-eastern
site boundary, which are considered by the Greater Manchester Advisory
Service to be remnant medieval fish ponds.
76. On the basis of what I have seen and the evidence I have heard, it seems to
me that Warburton Park is a non designated asset of local value. The
proposed development would result in the permanent loss of a relatively small
section of the former deer park and manorial estate and would isolate part of
the park pale from other features such as the fish ponds and pillow mound.
On the other hand, the development would not result in the destruction of any
visible physical feature. Overall, I consider that the adverse effect on
significance would be of a minor nature. However, WPC and the Council
believe that there is much greater archaeological potential that is as yet
unknown but could increase the significance of this asset considerably. I
consider this next.
Archaeology
77. On sites where there is potential for archeological interest, paragraph 189 of
the Framework requires the submission of a desk based assessment and field
evaluation where necessary. In this case a desk based assessment has been
submitted, although it was agreed that this has shortcomings. Field evaluation
can include a geophysical survey, which has been undertaken.
78. The Council and WPC consider that footnote 63 of the Framework is engaged
because the archaeological resources in question have the potential to be of
national importance and equivalent significance to a scheduled monument.
The Appellant disagrees and considers that the evidence indicates assets with
the potential for no more than local importance. Whilst it is not disputed that
trial trenching is necessary, the Council and WPC say it should be carried out
pre-determination to reflect the significance of the asset. Their concern is that
if archaeology of national importance is discovered as a result of the trial
trenching and in situ preservation is proven necessary, this could mean that
the development would not be capable of being built out in accordance with
the Parameters Plan without harm to irreplaceable buried assets.
6 This was the boundary of the deer park and usually comprised a fenced or hedged bank
often several metres in height sometimes with an internal ditch. It often had a curved
alignment so that animals did not get trapped in the corners.
7 This was an artificial mound with burrows for rabbit breeding.
79. The importance of what lies below the ground cannot at this stage be known
with certainty from the investigation that has been carried out so far.
However, the geophysical survey provides important information in the
assessment of potential even though a lack of magnetic abnormality in itself
does not guarantee an absence of significant archaeology. There was no
dispute about the methodology employed, the issue is with the interpretation
of the results. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the Council’s
assertion that geophysical investigations are particularly problematic in the
North Western region. The reliability of the outcome is more likely to depend
on the soil conditions and subsurface environment of the site. The appeal sites
do not seem to present particular difficulties in this regard. I turn next to
consider the archaeological potential of the appeal sites.
Site 1: Romano-British settlement
80. An assessment was undertaken by Salford University in connection with the
draft policy GM Allocation 41 in the emerging GMSF. The higher land of the
southern part of site 1 is considered to have high potential for early
settlement. There are cottages and farmsteads adjacent to Moss Lane, which
was clearly a historic route around the mosslands. The geophysical survey
shows various features, including the probable line of an old lane, field
boundaries, possible evidence of ridge and furrow and drainage features.
There is also an area of burnt material suggesting the site of a post-medieval
clamp kiln. The Council agreed at the inquiry that these were features at most
of regional significance. The survey also showed various anomalies. Whilst
these could be indicative of past settlement activity, the Appellant’s expert
interpretation8 was that they were ephemeral features most likely to have
arisen from naturally occurring soil variation.
81. It is acknowledged that there have been other finds within locations between
the moss areas and the rivers. The Romano-British defended farmstead site at
Great Woolden Hall is about 3.5 km away, between the River Glazebrook and
Chat Moss. Port Salford is about 7 km away on dry ground also adjoining Chat
Moss. Here, Iron Age and Roman artefacts have been found and Romano-
British period ditches and enclosures. These have proved to be of great
significance but it does not mean that similar finds are present on site 1.
Indeed, the differential in height between the southern part of site 1 and the
adjoining former mossland is relatively small. Whether or not this area flooded
before the Manchester Ship Canal was constructed is unclear. However, there
have been finds on the ridge of higher land at Moss Brow about 1 km to the
south and this seems a more likely location for early settlement.
Site 2; Warburton medieval deer park
82. Salford University also assessed the area to the west of Warburon Lane, which
was part of the medieval deer park. It considered that there is good potential
for the survival of buried archaeological remains, including a former watermill,
salters9 and the moated manor site, although their extent and condition is at
present unknown. It considers the greatest potential for surviving remains on
the draft policy GM Allocation 41 site, which includes site 2 but extends
8 By Dr Kayt Armstrong who undertook the geophysical survey and is also an archaeologist.
9 These were used to encourage deer to enter but not leave the park. They involved
modifying the park pale and so were sited around the boundary.
further to the west, is likely to relate to the park pale bank and ditch. Salford
University conclude that the best preserved elements of the deer park could
achieve Scheduled Monument status following further detailed assessment.
83. The Historic England Scheduling Selection Guide: Agriculture indicates that
good examples of features such as medieval mill sites, pillow mounds,
fishponds and park pales may be schedulable. The Scheduling Selection
Guide: Settlement Sites to 1500 mentions moated sites in this regard. The
Scheduling Selection Guide: Gardens indicates that deer parks are generally
too extensive for scheduling. Specific features such as the park pale may be
eligible, but short lengths divorced from other associated features are unlikely
to qualify.
84. The appeal land has been subject to at least 300 years of agricultural use.
Deep ploughing over the last 70 years is likely to have had an advere effect
on below ground remains. The geophysical survey shows two parallel lines on
the eastern side of site 2. The expert interpretation7 is that these are most
likely to have been created by modern tractor movements at the edge of the
field. However, it is agreed that they could represent a previous field
boundary, a former road or a boundary to the former deer park. The Council
pointed out that this could be clarified by trenching and that its significance
would depend on how well preserved it was and how it related to other
features in the former deer park. The Council also refers to a curved feature
on the northern side of site 2. The expert interpretation7 is that it is likely to
derive from variations in the soil resulting from fluvial action. However,
Salford University considers it could be a potential Bronze Age ditch.
Conclusion
85. There is no dispute that there is the potential for archaeological assets to be
found below ground, but the experts did not agree on what their significance
was likely to be. The uncertainty of what lies below the ground would have
been greatly reduced if trial trenching had been undertaken in advance of the
inquiry. Indeed, the indications are that this was the intention but for some
reason the Appellant decided not to proceed. However, it is necessary for me
to consider what is reasonable and proportionate, based on the available
evidence. In this case I find the Appellant’s expert evidence10 more persuasive
and give it considerable weight. I have no doubt that the witnesses for the
Council and WPC have considerable expertise and experience. Nevertheless, I
did not find their belief that the archaeology is likely to be of national
importance supported by their evidence. On the balance of probabilities and
even taking a precautionary standpoint, I consider that in this case the
archaeology is likely to be of local and at most regional significance.
86. The Parameters Plan indicates that the areas shown for development and
access overlay some of the features and anomalies shown by the geophysical
survey although others would be in the open spaces. Further investigation
would be necessary, including trial trenching. However, I consider that it could
be post-determination and satisfactorily controlled through a planning
condition in this case.
87. I have considered the appeal decisions submitted by the Council but in each
10 By Dr Armstrong and Ms Kelly.
case there were different circumstances that led the Inspector to conclude
that pre-determination evaluation was required. This will largely relate to
individual site circumstances and so general comparisons are not particularly
helpful.
Conclusions
88. For all the reasons I have given there would be harm to the significance of
both designated and non designated heritage assets on account of
development within their setting. This would be less than substantial harm on
the scale of moderate to minor depending on the asset. The proposals would
therefore be contrary to policy R1 in the CS. I return to consider the proposals
in respect of paragraphs 196 and 197 of the Framework later in my decision.
89. The significance of the archaeological assets cannot be known at the present
time. However, for the reasons I have given, I consider that the probability is
that these are of local or at most regional value. Footnote 63 of the
Framework would not apply in this case. A planning condition could be applied
to require a scheme of written investigation, analysis, recording, deposition
and commemoration and this would, in my opinion, mitigate the potential
harm that could arise from the appeal development in this respect.
THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON CONGESTION AND
HIGHWAY SAFETY.
90. Amongst other things, policy L4 in the CS includes a provision that permission
will not be granted for new development likely to have a significant adverse
impact on the safe operation of the highway network unless appropriate
infrastructure improvements and/ or traffic mitigation measures are secured.
The Framework indicates that development should only be refused on
highway grounds if the residual cumulative impacts on the road network
would be severe, which is a more stringent requirement. The traffic generated
by the proposed development and its likely distribution is not disputed. The
A6144 provides the main route through Partington and Carrington and
becomes extremely congested at peak times.
91. It is agreed that to accommodate the additional flows, improvements would
be necessary to 3 junctions along the A6144 and that these could be
addressed through planning conditions. In terms of when these works would
be carried out, there is no dispute that the improvements to the Warburton
Road/ Central Road roundabout and the Moss Lane/ Manchester Road
roundabout should be carried out before occupation of 101 dwellings.
Furthermore, that the latter improvement would only be necessary if it had
not already been undertaken in conjunction with development at Lock Lane,
Partington. The capacity provided by the junction improvement would be
sufficient to accommodate the traffic generated by both developments and
this is refected in the suggested condition.
92. Flixton Crossroads is some 5km to the north of the site but is a particularly
congested junction during peak periods. There have been incremental
improvements to create the capacity for various developments that would
impact the junction and the appeal scheme proposes a further improvement
that would do likewise. The Council agrees that such works would be
necessary to mitigate the impact but it considers that congestion is so bad
that no new dwelling should be occupied until the capacity improvement is in
place. The Appellant pointed out that even with 100 dwellings there would be
less than one vehicle through the junction per minute in the critical morning
peak. It seems to me that this is likely to result in an imperceptible change. I
therefore concur with the Appellant that the works would not be necessary
until this trigger point had been reached.
93. In the circumstances I conclude that the proposed development would not
have an adverse effect on congestion and highway safety. In this respect it
would comply with policy L4 in the CS and the provisions of the Framework.
WHETHER THE LOCATION IS SUFFICIENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALLOW
OCCUPIERS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REAL CHOICES TO TRAVEL
BY MODES OTHER THAN THE PRIVATE CAR.
94. The CS specifies that improving accessibility is essential to building
sustainable communities and that it is influenced by where development is
located and the quality and choice of available transport links. Policy L7
includes a provision that development should be fully accessible to all sections
of the community, Policy L4, amongst other things, indicates that the location
of development in those areas most accessible to a choice of transport modes
is a priority. It includes provisions to secure improvements to the pedestrian,
cycling and bus network and elicit developer contributions towards the
provision of highway schemes in accordance with the CS Strategic and Place
Objectives.
95. Section 9 of the Framework promotes sustainable transport and opportunities
to improve walking, cycling and public transport. It also points out that
sustainable travel solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. In this
case the appeal site is within the countryside for planning policy purposes.
However, it is not within an isolated rural area and it is reasonable to bear
this in mind when considering what opportunities are available to maximise
sustainable travel solutions.
Walking
96. Manual for Streets indicates that walking offers the greatest potential to
replace short car journeys, particularly those under 2 km. Whilst not an upper
limit, walkable neighbourhoods are typically those where there are a range of
facilities within a 10 minute (800m) walk from home. The main route in and
out of Partington is along Warburton Lane. There are footways along each side
of the road, although on the western side it stops at the Red Brook bridge.
The proposal therefore includes a footway along the frontage of site 2, which
connects to a signal controlled crossing so that pedestrians can safely cross
onto the eastern footway. Whilst the existing footway does have some
narrower points, on the whole I consider that it provides an acceptable
walking environment for most people.
97. Those living on site 1 would have the option of walking into Partington via
Chapel Lane over the footbridge that crosses the Red Brook. However the
section of footpath that links to Chapel Lane crosses the western side of a
field and is neither surfaced nor lit. It would therefore not be a safe option
after dark, practical in inclement weather or suitable for those with pushchairs
or mobility impairments. Whilst this field is also part of the draft policy GM
Allocation 41, at the present time there is no proposal that it would be other
than a recreational footpath. In addition, the section of Chapel Lane south of
the entrance to Partington Sports Village has no footways or street lights.
Whilst some may use this route it should not be relied on as a satisfactory
walking route into Partington, the school or the sports centre.
98. Broadoak secondary school, Little Oaks nursery school, The Fuse community
facility and Partington Sports Village are all within 1 km of the centre of each
site using the main access points and Warburton Lane. The primary schools
are between 1.4 km and 1.6 km away. It seems to me that these facilities,
whilst beyond the ideal 800m walking distance could reasonably be
considered accessible on foot. Partington local centre has shops and facilities
to meet day to day needs and includes a post office, pharmacy, supermarket
and convenience stores. It is 1.5 km from the centre of site 2 and 1.7 km
from the centre of site 1. Again, walking would be an option although the
relatively short car journey would be an attractive alternative, especially
outside peak times and bearing in mind that there is a large car park adjacent
to the shops.
Cycling
99. All of the above facilities would be easily reached by cycle. There are on-street
cycle lanes on both sides of Warburton Lane, north of the Red Brook bridge,
into the centre of Partington. The proposal also includes a new on-street
section of cycleway along the frontage of site 2. It is proposed that the old
lane adjacent to the frontage of site 1 would be a dedicated cycle and
pedestrian route. With the Pelican crossing in place there would therefore be a
link from each site to the on-street cycleways. Chapel Lane is also relatively
quiet and would provide a pleasant route for cycling although the link between
the site and the road would have to be negotiated and would be an
impediment for the reasons given above.
Buses
100. The 247 bus service runs at 30 minute intervals (60 minute intervals in the
evenings and on Sundays) between the Trafford Centre and Altringham via
Partington. The Cat 5A service runs between Warrington and Altringham via
Lymm and Partington. The nearest existing bus stop northbound is on
Warburton Lane just north of the Oak Road junction and southbound north of
the junction with Moss Lane. The proposals include improvements to these
two stops as well as providing new bus stops on either side of Moss Lane. The
existing and new bus stops would be provided with raised kerbs to provide
easy access and good waiting facilities. With the improvements there would
be a bus stop within 100m of the centre of site 1 and within 400m of the
centre of site 2 so they would be easily accessible on foot.
101. I was told that the future of the subsidised CAT 5A service is uncertain. The
proposals would provide a financial contribution for an additional half hour
service. This would be for a 5 year period by which time it should be self-
supporting. This would mean that there would either be 2 buses an hour or
that the Appellant would be funding the only one, depending on whether the
subsidised service continues. These various improvements would benefit
those living on the new development but also existing residents living along
this section of the route. A bus journey to reach the Borough’s main town
centre of Altringham, for example, would typically take under half an hour and
a visit to the picturesque village of Lymm with its local shops, food and drink
establishments and various amenities would take about 10 minutes.
102. There are also additional bus services that terminate at Oak Road. A new
resident wishing to travel to central Manchester for example, could do so by
catching the 253/ 255 service from Oak Road or taking a bus to the Trafford
Centre and then catching the tram. However, a journey in this direction would
result in additional journey times during peak periods due to network
congestion along the A6144.
The Carrington Relief Road (CRR)
103. The CRR is a longstanding infrastructure project required as part of the
delivery of the Carrington strategic site under policy SL5 of the CS. The
evidence indicates that the cost of the CRR has escalated and that there is
currently a large funding gap. Whilst this could potentially be addressed
through the Community Infrastructure Levy, a significant shortfall would
remain to be met through developer contributions. The Council has therefore
devised a formula based on the vehicle trips what would be generated by the
various commercial and residential developments within the allocated area.
104. Whilst the Council is satisfied that the improvements to the Flixton junction
would provide satisfactory mitigation in terms of highway safety and
congestion, it would prefer a contribution to the CRR. The Appellant does not
object to this and the UU includes a contribution similar to the cost of the
Flixton junction improvement, which would not be needed if the CRR goes
ahead. However, the Council require a larger contribution based on applying
the aforementioned formula. The rationale for including the appeal sites,
notwithstanding that they are outside the policy SL5 allocation, relates to
sustainability and integration. Nevertheless, in view of the uncertainties
surrounding delivery, the Council would accept the Flixton improvements in
the event that it cannot confirm that the CRR is going ahead. As I undertand
it the Council, by means of a suitably worded planning condition, is proposing
to take the delivery risk on itself in order to avoid what it considers to be
unsustainable development at the appeal sites.
105. Policy L4 in the CS includes a provision that appropriate developer
contributions may be sought towards highway schemes in order to make less
sustainable locations accessible by improving transport links. In terms of
sustainability, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the accessibility or integration of the appeal site with
Partington as envisaged in the CS would be significantly improved by the CRR.
The situation could be very different if the wider policy GM Allocation 41 is
realised. However, that relates to a different and emerging plan with a high
degree of uncertainty at the present time. In such circumstances I am
doubtful that the contribution could be deemed necessary.
106. Furthermore, assuming that the formula may be legitimately applied to the
appeal sites, the contribution sought by the Council is based on the 182
dwellings envisaged for the appeal site in the draft Masterplan for the policy
GM 41 Allocation. It bears no relationship to the trips generated by the appeal
development. It may result in a lower payment, but nonetheless this would
not be related in scale and kind to the 400 dwellings being proposed.
Conclusion
107. The appeal site has relatively good connectivity to the pedestrian, cycling and
public transport network. The proposals offer various improvements to widen
modal choice. I consider that new residents would have the opportunity to
make a reasonable number of their daily journeys by travel modes other than
the private car. A Travel Plan would provide further incentive through the
introduction of measures to reduce car journeys over a 10 year period.
108. Accessibility is hampered by the sites’ location at the southern end of the
existing road network. With an absence of dedicated lanes, northbound buses
would be caught in the same traffic queues in peak periods as happens at the
present time. On the other hand, people would be likely to adjust their travel
behaviour to make their journeys outside of the most congested periods.
Whilst I can understand that the delivery of the CRR is a priority for the
Council, this is mainly to deliver the Carrington strategic site and there is little
evidence that a contribution over and above the cost of the Flixton junction
improvements would be justified in terms of highway safety or improvement
to the sustainability of the appeal site. Overall, I am satisfied that in this
regard the proposals would not conflict with policies L4 and L7 in the CS.
WHETHER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD MEET LOCAL HOUSING
NEEDS AND WHETHER THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION
WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
Affordable housing need
109. There is no dispute that the appeal site is within a “hot” market location
where in normal market conditions policy L2 in the CS expects 40% affordable
housing, subject to viability. This is in contrast to Partington, which is a “cold”
market location where 5% is required, subject to viability. Whether the
boundary between different market locations is justified should be considered
through the local plan process and is not a matter for this inquiry. The Council
has indicated that market conditions changed from “normal” to “good” in
November 2018. In such circumstances the Supplementary Planning
Document: Planning Obligations indicates that the affordable housing
requirement will rise to 45% and 10% in the respective market locations.
110. There is a considerable need for affordable housing within the Borough as a
whole. The 2019 Housing Needs Assessment identifies a Borough-wide annual
net affordable housing need of 545 homes. It is appreciated that this recorded
a net annual need of only 22 homes in Partington and Carrington but the
Rural Communities, within which the site falls, recorded a higher figure of 39
homes. Partington has a relatively high proportion of social housing due to its
growth as an overspill settlement. There is no dispute that more market
homes and family sized houses would help improve the housing mix and
contribute to a more balanced community. However, this does not mean that
there is no need for affordable housing in the mix. There is no evidence to
satisfy me that it should not be provided, if it is viable to do so.
111. The Appellant does not consider that the appeal proposals could viably
support any affordable housing at all. The Council believes that it could viably
support the full policy provision, along with all other contributions and
infrastructure improvements.
Accountability
112. Both the Council and the Appellant had points to make about the credibility
and integrity of the expert witnesses. This seemed to me to be part of a wider
agenda relating to land transactions, viability assessment and affordable
housing provision more generally across the Borough. I do not consider that it
is necessary for me to look at the wider picture in order to reach a reasoned
conclusion on this appeal. As far as I could tell the viability and costs
witnesses drew from their experience and expertise as practitioners. I am
satisfied that they conducted themselves in a suitably professional manner
and gave their considered and honest evidence. I find nothing to support the
assertion that any of the 3 members of RICS failed to meet the requirements
of their professional body.
113. The Planning Practice Guidance indicates that a viability assessment should be
prepared by a suitably qualified practitioner. It does not stipulate that being a
RICS member is mandatory in this respect but in any event in this case the
viability assessments were prepared by such a person. The disagreements on
costs and values resulted mainly from differences in professional judgement
and, in such circumstances, there are no right or wrong answers. The
judgements of the non RICS expert witness in this case seemed to me to be
credible and based on an acceptable level of experience.
Benchmark Land Value (BLV)
114. This comprises the Existing Use Value (EUV) enhanced by a premium (EUV+).
In this case the existing use is agricultural and there are no policy compliant
alternatives. The Appellant considers that agricultural land value is £10,000
per acre and the Council £8,000 per acre. In this respect I prefer the Council’s
approach, which uses farmland indices devoid of the effects of buildings and
any anticipated future higher value use (hope value). On this basis the EUV
would be £493,600.
115. The Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that the premium should provide
a reasonable incentive for a landowner to bring forward land for development
whilst allowing a sufficient contribution to fully comply with policy
requirements. However, it also indicates that this should reflect a minimum
return to a reasonable landowner. The price paid for the land is not relevant
justification for failing to meet policy commitments. Previously BLV was
guided by market comparables but these were driven by historic land values
inflated by non policy compliant developments. The Planning Practice
Guidance extolls an approach whereby policy commitments are central to
establishing a reasonable price.
116. The Planning Practice Guidance also indicates that BLV should reflect the costs
of development, including those specific to the site. In other words, a
landowner should not expect to receive the same price for a site where the
development costs are high to one where they are much lower. That is not to
say that all site-specific costs should necessarily be deducted. It may be that
a negative value would ensue, in which case there would be no incentive at all
for the landowner to sell the land.
117. The Appellant originally considered that a premium of 20 times EUV was
appropriate but reduced it to 15 times EUV to reflect an appeal decision for a
residential development at Poulton-le-Fylde11. The Inspector said that she
considered the Council’s viability assessment to be consistent with the
Planning Practice Guidance. However, in this case there does not appear to
have been any suggestion otherwise, and therefore no dispute on the matter.
My colleague indicated that typically 15-25 times EUV is applied to greenfield
sites, but where this conclusion comes from is not made clear. It is noted in
passing, that the agricultural land value in this case was £8,000 per acre.
118. The Planning Practice Guidance gives no indication as to what the uplift should
be and the reason for that is because it will vary according to site specific and
policy circumstances. There is no evidence that I have seen that says the
premium should be any particular value. The important point is that it should
be sufficient to incentivise the landowner to sell the land and should also be
the minimum incentive for such a sale to take place.
119. The Appellant’s assessment is on the basis of an uplift of 15 whereas the
Council prefers an uplift of 1012. It is relevant to note in this case that one of
the two landowners has agreed in the option agreement to sell the land for
whatever is left after a standard residual assessment. On the basis of the
Appellant’s assessment with no affordable housing the RLV is £2.8m.
However, if costs or values change this would of course be a different figure.
For example, on the Appellant’s assessment with 45% affordable housing the
residual becomes negative. In such circumstances the landowner obviously
would not sell. I consider that an uplift of 10 would not be unreasonable here
and this would result in a BLV of about £2.9m13. Whilst this is below the sum
advocated by the Appellant of some £5.3m it reflects the development costs
as well as the fact that the developable area comprises only about half of the
site. It was not satisfactorily explained why, in this case, it would not offer a
reasonable premium or reflect the approach advocated by the Planning
Practice Guidance.
120. The Appellant’s case is that the residual land value (RLV) with no affordable
housing would be some £2.8m, falling to about £-1.5m if 45% affordable
housing were to be provided. It seems to me that on the Appellant’s evidence
£2.8m, which is marginally below BLV, would be all that the scheme could
afford to pay for the land.
The financial viability assessment (FVA)
Preliminary Comments
121. There was little agreement on most of the inputs in the FVA, but on the
Appellant’s case, if costs were reduced or values were increased by
approximately £4.4m, there would be sufficient to fund 45% affordable
housing. Even if there was a lower differential, it would be possible to provide
some affordable housing. Whilst I have carefully considered all of the evidence
11 This appeal sought the removal of a planning condition for affordable housing in respect
of a proposal for up to 130 dwellings on land off Hoults Lane, Poulton-le-Fylde. The appeal
was allowed (ref: APP/U2370/W/19/3241233).
12 It should be noted though that this was only on the basis of net developable area.
13 Net developable site area of 33.75 acres x £80,000 = £2.7m. Remainder of 27.95 acres x
£8,000 = 223,600. Total BLV = £2.9m (approx.).
it therefore seems to me unnecessary to reach a conclusion on all of the
disputed inputs.
122. The FVA is a snapshot in time with costs and values corrected accordingly.
The relevant time period in this case is the fourth quarter of 2020 to accord
with the time of the inquiry.
Costs
123. The Viability Statement of Common Ground agrees a housing mix and
floorspace figure for the purposes of the assessment. Overall, the evidence
suggests to me that the Appellant has taken a rather conservative approach
to costs. This is mainly due to the fact that there is relatively little information
as to how this outline scheme would eventually be built out. The FVA appears
to have placed considerable reliance on the illustrative Masterplan. However,
it was made clear in answer to my specific question at the second Case
Management Conference that this was illustrative. It is not to be treated as an
application plan and therefore cannot be relied upon to show details of the
layout. The Appellant’s costs expert did his best but, in my opinion, he has
been overly cautious in his assessment. Little consideration has been given to
the not unreasonable assumption that the volume housebuilder who would be
constructing this development would seek to reduce costs through value
engineering wherever possible. I give two examples where I consider that
significant cost savings could be made.
The garages
124. The FVA has assumed that all 3 and 4 bedroom houses would have a single
detached garage at a cost of about £11,300 each. On the basis of the agreed
mix this would apply to about 67% of the dwellings and result in an additional
cost of over £3m. However, there is no evidence that the developer would
recoup that cost in the sales value. It is therefore difficult to understand why
such a significant additional expense would be incurred by a prudent
housebuilder when an integral garage would be significantly cheaper. The only
indication of the cost of an integral garage is found in the May 2019 FVA
where it is indicated to be £4,725. Whilst cost inflation means that exact
comparisons cannot therefore be made, it is reasonable to conclude that there
would be significant cost savings to be made.
125. In reality the situation is likely to be more nuanced and it is not unreasonable
to surmise that a developer would wish to offer a range of options with some
detached garages, some integral garages and some driveway or on-street
parking. The Council has suggested a blended allowance of £7,000 per
dwelling for the units in question, which would allow roughly one third to have
detached garages. This would obviate the Council’s concern about a
development dominated by houses with integral garages. Such an alternative
option would result in a cost saving of around £1.13m.
The abnormal costs
126. These costs amount to about £16.4m or about £486,500 per net developable
acre. This seems to me a very large sum for a greenfield site with no obvious
impediments and I remain unconvinced about the complexities that the
Appellant asserts present such a challenge. Indeed, the Appellant’s own
evidence cites 9 housing developments of 251-550 units on greenfield sites in
the North West of England, where in all but 2 the abnormal costs were under
£350,000 per acre, with an overall average of about £338,000. Whilst it is
acknowledged that abnormal costs are, by their very nature site specific, this
information does not allay my concern that a conservative position has been
adopted.
127. The Ground Investigation Report indicates that based on existing ground
levels, strip/ trench foundations may be suitable across most of the site.
Whilst it indicates that special foundations could be required where
groundwater is very shallow, the built development would be on higher
ground away from the Red Brook and its floodplain. Ground levels may need
raising in places, but there is insufficent evidence to support the assertion
that 50% of the houses and 25% of the garages would need to have non-
standard foundations. Whilst some special foundations may be required, it is
highly probable that the developer would seek to keep these to a minimum to
reduce the cost. This has been estimated at approximately £1.4m.
128. Enabling works are required to get the sites ready for development. Two
items that stand out are the £2.2m required for topsoil and subsoil removal.
The Ground Investigation Report indicates a variation in topsoil depth, which
averages 391mm across the site. It has been assumed that on the area to be
developed there would be 150mm thickness of topsoil on the gardens, which
are assumed to comprise 25% of the development area. The remainder would
be carried away off site and either sold or taken to landfill at a cost of £25 per
m3 or approximately £1.2m. With regards to subsoil, it is assumed that
300mm would be cut from both sites within the development areas and that
this would be removed from the site at a cost of around £1m.
129. Unless the soil can be sold for more than the cost of disposing of it, I consider
it reasonable to expect the developer to use as much as possible on-site. An
obvious location would be increased depth on the gardens, which would
benefit plant growth. It could also be directed to the open spaces, green
corridors and buffers outside the floodplain. Whilst some removal may be
necessary, the assumption as to the extent seems to me excessive.
130. Although it is important to bear in mind that any planning permission runs
with the land, Redrow has stated in terms that it will be developing the site.
No approach was made for information about its approach to value
engineering or economies of scale. In the absence of information to the
contrary it is a reasonable assumption that it would behave in a similar way to
any other volume housebuilder. Even if only half of the above costs were
saved, there would be a potential costs saving of over £2m.
Values
131. The Planning Practice Guidance indicates that for site-specific assessments,
market evidence should be used and that this should be adjusted to take
account of variations such as form, scale and location. The difference in
overall sales values between the Appellant and the Council is about £5.8m.
Within a “hot” market location values are assumed to be high and this is
reflected in the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy that has to be paid.
The Appellant’s argument is that in this case the values are not high but the
Levy payment cannot be avoided as a significant cost.
132. It seems to me that one of the main differences between the parties relates to
the likely influence of Partington. I have no doubt that a prospective
purchaser would be fully aware that immediately north of the Red Brook is a
large estate of social housing and that this includes areas with high levels of
social and economic deprivation. However, for the reasons I have already
given, I consider that the Red Brook and its wooded corridor provide a
substantial physical and perceptual barrier. Furthermore, this sense of
separation would be enhanced by the swathe of landscaped open space on the
northern side of each site.
133. From site 1 the estates of social housing are not readily apparent. The main
view northwards is of playing fields, although the upper parts of the school,
sports and community buildings and the two cul-de-sacs of private detached
homes are evident, especially in the winter months. From the eastern end of
site 2, there is a more open view of the terraced social housing on the
southern side of Oak Road but from the centre and western end this is largely
screened by vegetation. The proposals include a large amount of open space
with several green corridors running through each site. About half of the total
land area would remain undeveloped. Bearing all of this in mind, I have no
doubt that the marketing of these houses would emphasise the proximity to
the countryside, the green credentials of the site and the closeness to the
historic village of Warburton as well as other attractive settlements such as
Lymm and Altringham. Of course, prosective purchasers would be well aware
of the presence of Partington but I would expect any competent marketing
exercise to emphasise its positive attributes such as the relative proximity of
schools, shops, sports and leisure facilities.
134. The most relevant new build comparator is agreed to be Glazebrook Meadows.
This is a relatively small development of 27 houses and 9 apartments on the
western side of the Manchester Ship Canal. From my visit I observed that this
is in a countryside location just outside the village of Glazebrook. One of its
great advantages is its proximity to the railway station with services between
Liverpool and Manchester. I also noted that there did not appear to be any
social housing in the vicinity, including at Glazebrook Meadows itself14. On the
other hand the northern site boundary adjoins the railway line and there are
few convenient shops, schools or other facilities nearby.
135. The proposed 2 bedroom dwellings are quite similar in size to the 3 bedroom
houses at Glazebrook Meadows. The average 2019 sales price was £250 per
ft2, which would result in a unit price of £187,50015 if applied to the 2
bedroom houses at the appeal sites. I am not convinced that Glazebrook is a
superior location or that there are grounds to apply a consequent discount to
the price of the 2 bedroom appeal dwellings. On the other hand, there is
evidence that the housing market is performing strongly in the North West
and in the Greater Manchester area in particular resulting in house price
increases. In the circumstances, I prefer the Council’s assessment to that of
the Appellant.
14 It is understood that a commuted sum was paid to provide affordable housing off-site.
15 This is derived from multiplying the square footage of the proposed 2 bed dwellings (750
ft2) by £250.
136. The 3 and 4 bedroom houses in the appeal scheme are significantly larger
than the houses in Glazebrook Meadows and there is very little other nearby
new build comparative evidence to assist. The Appellant has referenced the
second-hand market and applied an uplift to reflect that new-build homes
generally command a premium price. However, the uplift to be applied will be
a matter of judgement. For the reasons I have given Partington, although it is
the closest market area, is of a very different nature and character. The two
marketing reports16 commissioned by Redrow placed too much emphasis on
the negative influence of Partington, in my opinion. I note that the more
recent report by Property Perspective, which concludes similar values for the
new houses as the Appellant, was a desk top analysis without the benefit of a
site visit. Furthermore, these reports relied on second-hand sales data mainly
from 2018 and 2019 and it is unclear whether any allowance was made for
house price inflation.
137. Between July 2019 and April 2020 the average sale price for houses in
Partington overall was £155,630 (£178 per ft2) and £137,000 (£143 per ft2)
for the southern part of the settlement closest to the site. On the Appellant’s
assessment the average sales price across the appeal sites would be £236 per
ft2.(32% above Partington overall). The Council’s equivalent figure would be
about £249 per ft2 (39% above Partington overall). For all the reasons I have
given I prefer the Council’s figure in this case. However, even if it is overly
optimistic as the Appellant claims, on the available evidence I consider that
the appeal development has been significantly undervalued in the FVA.
The Unilateral Undertaking
138. There is a covenant in the UU that requires a revised FVA to be submitted
along with the reserved matters. This was inserted into the draft Deed at the
very end of the inquiry. However, I have serious doubts about the suggested
covenant in the UU for various reasons.
139. Whilst I am sure the intention is that the revised FVA would be based on the
reserved matters there is no requirement that it should do so. Even on the
assumption that this were to be the case, any form of dispute resolution
requires both parties to have an input into the proceedings. This would not be
the case here as the Council would not be permitted to question the inputs or
judgements on which the revised FVA was based. It was clear from the length
and detail of the evidence on viability to the inquiry that there is considerable
scope for expert disagreement. I have no reason to believe that the
professional costs witnesses17 did not act other than in full accordance with
their professional code of conduct. Yet there was so little agreement between
them that they were not even able to sign a statement of common ground.
140. In addition, the dwelling mix was agreed by the viability experts. I do not
therefore consider that there is any justification for a review on values. As far
as I can see, the covenant would effectively transfer the decision on
affordable housing provision to a third party who has no legitimacy as a
decision maker in the public interest. The Council would be by-passed in this
respect and bound by the terms of a covenant to which it is not a signatory
and does not agree. In the circumstances, I do not consider that the
16 By Property Perspective (September 2020) and Bellhouse Surveyors (March 2020).
17 Ms K Sandford BA(Hons) MRICS and Mr G Bushell FRICS MAE QDR APAEWE.
suggested planning obligation would be an acceptable means by which to
address the affordable housing issue in this case.
Overall conclusions
141. For all of the above reasons, I consider that the costs in the Appellant’s FVA
are likely to be too high and the values too low. This means that effectively
the risk to the developer is reduced at the expense of the public purse. I have
not assessed all of the inputs but have done sufficient to conclude that there
is the reasonable probability that significant costs savings and value increases
could be made. Of course this would have an implication for various
contingencies and fees. However, any adjustment would not alter my headline
conclusion that, on the available evidence, there would appear to be sufficient
residual value to fund 45% affordable housing or at the very least a
significant proportion to help address local and Borough-wide affordable
housing needs.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE
142. The proposed development would be contrary to the spatial strategy in the
development plan, including saved policy C8 in the UDP and policies R4 and
L1 in the CS. It would also cause harm to landscape character in conflict with
saved policy ENV17 in the UDP and policy R2 in the CS. There would be harm
to heritage assets, contrary to policy R1 in the CS. The failure to provide
affordable housing would conflict with policy L2 in the CS. Whilst it would not
offend policies relating to accessibility and highway safety, overall I consider
that the appeal scheme would be contrary to the development plan when
taken as a whole. I now turn to consider whether there are material
considerations that would determine that my decision should be made
otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.
143. The Council can only demonstrate a deliverable supply of land to meet about
2.4 years of the Borough’s housing requirement. This is a very serious
shortfall and does not comply with the Government’s objective of boosting the
the supply of homes to meet peoples’ housing needs. Furthermore, the
Housing Delivery Test indicates delivery is well below the Framework
requirement over the last 3 years. Whatever the reason for these failures,
they are a matter of considerable concern.
144. Paragraph 11 of the Framework indicates that in such circumstances the
presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. In this case
however I have found there is applicable policy in the Framework that
protects assets of particular importance and provides a clear reason for
refusing development. The assets in question here are several Grade II listed
buildings and the applicable policy is paragraph 196. Before I consider this
matter I turn to the benefits of the scheme.
Benefits
145. The evidence indicates that the site could yield 150 dwellings within the next
5 years and this would make a significant contribution to reducing the deficit.
There would also be provision over the longer term. In addition, the provision
of market homes and family housing would help improve the housing mix and
balance within a part of the Borough with a relatively high proportion of social
housing. These are matters to which I attribute substantial weight as a
planning benefit, especially at a time when the construction of housing will be
an important driver in economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic.
146. The development would generate employment during the construction period
over several years. Furthermore, there would be a reliance on associated
goods and services that would help support local businesses and
tradespeople. The new population would generate additional income that
would increase spending in the local economy and support local shops and
services. These are economic advantages of moderate weight.
147. The scheme would deliver a number of accessibility benefits. The new bus
stops in Moss Lane, the improvements to the two bus stops in Warburton
Lane and the additional CAT 5A bus service would provide additional facilities
to encourage the use of public transport by existing as well as new residents.
Indeed the CAT 5A contribution may provide the only service to Warrington in
the future, if the current subsidy is withdrawn. These are benefits of moderate
weight.
148. The site would include a large amount of open space and green infrastructure
in excess of the policy requirement. As I have indicated this would be
available for Partington residents if they wished to use it. It would add to the
recreational facilities provided by the walking trails beside the Red Brook,
although outsiders would have to reach it via the main accesses in the
absence of additional pedestrian bridges. There is also scope to enhance
biodiversity, although this would be expected in accordance with Framework
objectives. The green corridors through the site could provide scope for links
to the surrounding countryside, although much of the surrounding land is in
private ownership. These are benefits of limited weight.
149. The improvements to the Manchester Road/ Moss Lane roundabout junction
would provide capacity over and above what is required to accommodate the
development traffic. On the other hand, it may be provided by the Lock Lane
developer rather than the Appellant. In the circumstances this is attributed
minimal weight as a benefit.
150. The Appellant mentions a number of other things that are considered as
benefits. However, these are generally required to address development
specific impacts. The Cross Lane Playing Fields improvement is a case in
point. Reference has been made to various generic payments. The New
Homes Bonus is intended to incentivise housing growth but as far as I am
aware this would not be ring fenced by the Council for projects that might
benefit the local area. Council Tax and the Community Infrastructure Levy
may generate significant revenue but they are necessary to deliver local
services and infrastructure to support the new development. I therefore
attribute negligible weight to these factors as benefits of the scheme.
The heritage balance
151. The harm to the significance of designated assets would be less than
substantial in nature. In the case of Heathlands Farmhouse, Heathlands Barn,
the barn to the south-east of Birch Farmhouse and the curtilage listed
buildings, the harm would be at a moderate level within that spectrum. In the
case of the farm building at Warburton Park Farmyard and the curtilage listed
buildings it would be at a minor level within that spectrum.
152. Nevertheless, in my judgement the benefits that I have outlined above would
be of sufficient importance to outweigh the harm that would arise to the
significance of the designated heritage assets, both individually and in terms
of group value where relevant. In reaching this conclusion I have applied the
balancing exercise so as to give great weight and importance to the
conservation of the heritage assets, understanding that they are an
irreplaceable resource.
The “tilted” balance
153. In view of my conclusions on heritage matters, the relevant approach in the
Framework is to consider the balance in accordance with paragraph 11d)ii).
154. The proposal would be on greenfield land outside the settlement of Partington
and in this respect it would not accord with the spatial strategy in the
development plan. However, bearing in mind the housing land supply position,
the policy conflict in this respect would be a matter to which I give limited
weight. Nevertheless and notwithstanding its relatively good accessibility
credentials, the development would not be well integrated with Partington or
contribute to improving the sustainability of that settlement. This is an
important strategic objective of the development plan and the conflict with it
is of a matter of very significant weight.
155. The failure to provide affordable housing is a matter to which I give very
substantial weight in this case. The policy context is up to date and the need
is clear. The viability evidence indicates that even if 45% could not be
achieved, a significant amount of affordable housing could be provided.
156. Although the landscape is of local value there would be significant harm
arising both to the countryside and to visual amenity. The relevant
development plan policies are consistent with the Framework and are not
otherwise out-of-date. I have addressed the harm to the significance of
designated heritage assets above. There would also be harm to the
significance of non designated assets, although the scale of harm would be
relatively small in this case.
157. There is no doubt that the appeal scheme would offer substantial benefits as I
have outlined above. However, there would also be very substantial harm. My
judgement is that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against Framework policy as a whole.
In the circumstances of this case there are no material considerations to
indicate that this decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with
the development plan.
158. I have taken account of all other matters that have been raised, but have
found nothing to alter my conclusion that the appeal should not succeed.
Christina Downes
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr David Forsdick Of Queen’s Counsel, instructed by the Borough
Solicitor, Trafford Borough Council
He called:
Mr J Morley BSc(Hons) Principal Engineer with Amey Consulting
MSc CMILT MIHT
Mr N Redhead BA(Hons) Heritage Management Director (Archaeology) of
MCIFA FSA the Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory
Service
Ms E Lewis BA(Hons) Heritage Development Officer at Trafford
DipTp(Conservation) Borough Council
MRTPI
Mr N Folland BA(Hons) Director of Barnes Walker Limited
DipLA CMLI
Mr M Lloyd Director of Trebbi Continuum
Ms K Sandford Divisional Director of AA Projects Ltd
BSc(Hons) MRICS
Ms R Coley BA(Hons) MA Head of Planning and Development at Trafford
MRTPI Borough Council
Ms S Todd BA(Hons) Principal Transport Policy Officer at Trafford
MCD MRTPI Borough Council
Mrs B Brown BA(Hons) Major Planning Projects Officer at Trafford
DipTP MRTPI Borough Council
*Mrs S Lowes BA(Hons) Major Planning Projects Manager
MRTPI
*Participated in the Planning Obligation and Planning Conditions session only
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr David Manley Of Queen’s Counsel, instructed by WSP
He called:
Mr D Roberts IEng FIHE Director of SCP
FCIHT
Mr I Grimshaw Director of The Environment Partnership
BA(Hons) MA(LM) MSc
CMLI MRTPI
Ms H Kelly BSc CIfA Director of Heritage Archaeology Ltd
Dr K Armstrong MCIfA Director of Magnitude Surveys Ltd
Mr D Nesbitt MRICS Partner of Cushman and Wakefield
APAEWE
Mr G Bushell FRICS MAE Director of Expertqs
QDR APAEWE
Mr D Hann BA(Hons) Director of WSP
MTpl MSc MRTPI
*Mrs S Wozencroft Planning Director of WSP
MPlan(Hons) MRTPI
**Ms C Cockrell Solicitor for [APPELLANT]
*Participated in the Planning Obligation and Planning Conditions session only
**Participated in the Planning Obligation session only
FOR THE RULE 6 PARTY:
Mr Killian Garvey Of Counsel, instructed by Warburton Parish
Council
He called:
Dr M Nevell CIfA FSA Archaeological Advisor to Warburton Parish
Council
Mr P Beckmann CMLI Environmental Advisor to Warburton Parish
Council and Member of the Parish Council
Mr Priestner Member of Warburton Parish Council
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mrs C Grace Local resident and member of Warburton Parish
Council
Dr T Fairbairn Local resident
Mr B Jones Local resident and member of Warburton Parish
Council
Mr R Nicholls Local resident and Chair of Warburton Parish
Council
Dr J Chillala Local resident and Senior Consultant at Trafford
Hospital
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY
1 CEG Land Promotions Limited v Secretary of State for housing,
Communities and Local Government v Aylesbury Vale District
Council [2018] EWHC 1799 (Admin), 2018 WL 03440406,
submitted by Mr Garvey
2 Inspector’s question on prematurity: Council’s response
3 Written representation of the Jukanti family (21 October 2020)
4 Email from Mr Gary Hall, Chief Execuive Officer of Chorley
Council and Interim CEO of South Ribble Council regarding Mr
Lloyd’s involvement on the Leyland Test Track viability case (22
October 2020)
5 Viability Supplementary Note prepared by Mr Nesbitt regarding
evidence of Mr Lloyd relating to the Leyland Rest Track viability
case
6 Additional information provided by the Council relating to the
viability evidence
7 Plan showing the 3 main junction locations, submitted by Mr
Forsdick
8 Outstanding points arising from Ms Sandford’s cross-
examination, submitted by Mr Forsdick
9 Information on Mouseprice, submitted by Mr Forsdick
10 Comparison between Council and Appellant’s abnormal costs and
base build costs, submitted by Mr Forsdick
11/A Note on drainage to the existing ponds to the south-west of the
appeal site by Betts Hydro, submitted by Mr Manley
11/B Response from Mr Beckmann on behalf of Warburton Parish
Council
12/A Letter from Ms S Todd, Chief Executive of Trafford Council to Peel
Land and Property Group concerning Ms R Coley’s evidence to
the inquiry, submitted by Mr Forsdick
12/B Letter to Ms Todd from Mr J Whittaker, Peel L&P in response,
submitted by Mr Forsdick
12/C Trafford City – Economic Impact
12/D Note by the Council regarding Documents 12/B and 12/C
13 Inspector’s question on prematurity: Appellant’s response
14 Court of appeal documents in relation to an application to appeal
against the refusal of the High Court to grant Peel Investments
(North) Limited permission to apply for judicial review (11
January 2018), submitted by Mr Forsdick
15 Housing Delivery Test Action Plan (August 2020), submitted by
Mr Forsdick
16 The Council’s written response to the design evidence of Mr
Haralambous
17 New Carrington GMSF Masterplan (September 2020)
18 Extracts from Regulation 19 draft Greater Manchester Spatial
Framework, including Policy GM-STRAT 11 and Policy GM
Allocation 41
19 Technical Note on Old Warburton Lane by SCP (29 October
2020), submitted by Mr Manley
20/A Note from Keppie Massie on its experience of viability
assessment, submitted by Mr Manley
20/B Addendum Advice Note by Keppie Massie for South Ribble
Borough Council (September 2019), submitted by Mr Manley
20/C Email from Mr Ged Massie regarding a request from the Council
that a representative from Keppie Massie attend the inquiry (4
November 2020), submitted by Mr Manley
20/D Letter from South Ribble Borough Council regarding Document
20/B, submitted by Mr Forsdick
21 Additional information from the Council on appeals in Trafford
over recent years
22 Letter from Redrow in answer to Inspector’s questions regarding
build out periods and implementation of development (3
November 2020), submitted by Mr Manley
23 Additional information from the Council on various points raised
by the Inspector with Mrs Brown
24 Warburton Parish Council’s written response to the design
evidence of Mr Haralambous
25 Carrington Relief Road: Outline Business Case – Executive
Summary (December 2019), submitted by Mr Forsdick
26/A Extract from WYAS Archaeological Services Report: Plots E1 and
E2 at Carrington – Archaeological trial trenching and excavation
(September 2019), submitted by Mr Forsdick
26/B Emails from Mr P Owen (RPS) to Mr N Redhead regarding the
geophysical survey and trial trenching at the appeal site,
submitted by Mr Forsdick
26/C Historic England: Agriculture – Scheduling selection guide,
submitted by Mr Forsdick
26/D Historic England: Settlement sites to 1500 – Scheduling selection
guide
27/A Report to the Planning and Development Management
Committee on developer contributions towards the Carrington
Relief Road (15 October 2020), submitted by Mr Forsdick
27/B Addendum to the above document
27/C The Council’s note regarding the application of contributions to
the Carrington Relief Road from sites outside of the policy SL5
area, submitted by Mr Forsdick
27/D List of schemes making up the anticipated developments in Table
2 of the Committee Report, submitted by Mr Forsdick
28 Leyland Test Track: Response by Cushman & Wakefield to the
Trebbi viability synopsis (July 2019), submitted by Mr Forsdick
29 Council’s response to the Document 19 Technical Note relating to
Old Warburton Lane
30 Outline Business Case for the Carrington Relief Road (1 May
2918), submitted by Mr Forsdick
31 Addendum to the above Outline Business Case, including
Appendices A-G, submitted by Mr Forsdick
32 Carrington Relief Road – Forecast cost profile, submitted by Mr
Forsdick
33 The Appellant’s response to the written representations by the
Council and Warburton Parish Council on Mr Haralambous’s
evidence on design matters (Documents 16 and 24)
34/A Letter from the Appellant regarding an updated viability appraisal
and identification of the potential for affordable housing provision
following the submission of reserved matters (6 November 2020)
34/B The Council’s response to Document 34/A (7 November 2020)
35 Supplementary Note by Mr Bushell concerning the expenditure
profile of the abnormal drainage infrastructure
36/A Appellant’s Supplementary Planning Note on the Council’s
approach to viability and benefit weight on other schemes
36/B Planning Committee Report on Land at Heath Farm Lane,
Partington (12 November 2020), submitted by Mr Manley
36/C Planning Committee Report on the former Kellogg’s site, Talbot
Road, Stretford, submitted by Mr Manley
37 Appellant’s CIL compliance rebuttal note
38 Carrington Relief Road contributions calculation, submitted by Mr
Manley
39 Technical Note on the Carrington Relief Road and public transport
contributions by Mr Roberts
40 Appeal decision relating to land east of the former shellfish
packing station, South Fambridge (APP/B1550/W/15/3130774),
submitted by Mr Garvey
41 Junction capacity at the Flixton Crossroads in the AM peak for
scenarios including the development with and without mitigation,
submitted by Mr Forsdick
42 Appellant’s further response to the Council’s response to
Document 19 relating to Old Warburton Lane
43/A Covering email regarding instruction of The Property Perspective
and Bellhouse Surveyors, submitted by Mr Manley
43/B CV and Terms of Engagement for the author of the Report by The
Property Perspective referred to in Mr Nesbitt’s evidence,
submitted by Mr Manley
43/C CV and Terms of Engagement for the author of the Report by
Bellhouse Surveyors referred to in Mr Nesbitt’s evidence,
submitted by Mr Manley
44 The Council’s response to the WSP note on other planning
applications, particularly Heath Farm Lane (Document 36A)
45/A Schedule of draft conditions agreed between the Council and
Appellant
45/B Schedule of draft conditions not agreed by the Council and
Appellant
45/C Council’s suggested amended noise condition
46 Written representation by Altrincham and Bowdon Civic Society
(11 November 2020)
47 Chronology of events regarding RPS involvement in the
archaeology evidence to the appeal and related emails (see
Document 26B), submitted by Mr Manley
48/A Planning Obligation by Unilateral Undertaking dated 2 December
2020, submitted by Mr Manley
48/B Appellant’s covering letter to the Planning Obligation
48/B Council’s final comments on the Planning Obligation
49/A Costs application by the Council
49/B Costs reply by the Appellant
49/C Final costs response by the Council
50 Inspector’s letter closing the inquiry in writing (10 December
2020)


Costs Decision
Inquiry Held on 19-23 October, 2-6 November, 9-13 November 2020
Site visits made on 17 and 31 October 2020
by Christina Downes BSc DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25th January 2021
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/W/19/3243720
Land at Warburton Lane, Trafford
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Trafford Borough Council for an award of costs against
[APPELLANT].
• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the failure of the Council to issue a
notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for a residential
development of up to 400 dwellings, including the creation of new points of access,
provision of formal and informal open space, ancillary landscaping, car parking and
highway and drainage works.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process
3. Costs are being sought on the basis that the Appellant’s viability case had no
chance of succeeding. In this case the failure to provide affordable housing on
the basis of viability was not the sole determinative issue and so I do not
consider that the appeal itself was bound to fail. It was one factor in the overall
planning balance and for that reason I have considered this application on the
basis of a partial award. Many of the points made in the costs application and
response seem to me to repeat matters of evidence. I have dealt with the
planning merits in my appeal decision and do not repeat them here.
4. Benchmark Land Value (BLV) was a contested issue in the viability evidence.
However, both the Applicant and the Appellant used the EUV+ approach
endorsed by the Planning Practice Guidance. The + value is a matter of
judgement and there is no requirement in the guidance that all costs must
necessarily be taken into account when seeking to establish the minimum price
that a landowner would accept. Whilst I did not agree with the BLV put forward
by the Appellant in this case, that does not mean that it was unreasonable.
5. In terms of values, the Appellant’s expert agreed that Glazebrook Meadows
was a good comparator for the smaller dwellings. Whether Glazebrook was a
superior location to the appeal site and the degree of influence of Partington on
sales values at the appeal site are matters of professional judgement. Whilst I
have not agreed with the Appellant’s expert witness on these points, his
conclusions were not unreasonable. I note that they were supported by the
expert reports commissioned independently by Redrow.
6. In terms of costs, it is clearly much easier to undertake an assessment with a
full planning application. However, outline applications are commonplace for
larger development proposals and affordable housing provision has to be
determined at this stage. In such circumstances the information will be less
clear and involve assumptions. The value of such assumptions will depend on
the basis on which they are made. In this case I am satisfied that the
Appellant’s costs expert had a wide experience and that he acted in accordance
with his professional obligations.
7. I do not consider that there is evidence that there was a deliberate attempt to
inflate costs, indeed that would be contrary to the RICS Code of Conduct. I
have concluded that a conservative approach was taken, and I agreed with the
Council that it is likely that costs savings would be made through value
engineering, amongst other things. However, there is no right or wrong answer
as certainty would only be provided once the scheme has been worked up in
detail. I have indicated that it would have been a good idea to ask Redrow
about their approach to costs savings, but a reason was given as to why this
was not considered appropriate. To my mind it was a credible explanation.
8. There were three days of viability evidence at the inquiry and virtually no
agreement on any of it. It seems to me that the forensic examination by the
Applicant was bound to reveal some errors and areas that were not as robust
as they could have been. However, this was certainly not helped by the
antagonism of the expert witnesses to each other and the resultant failure to
obtain any degree of co-operation. Although the costs application is made
against the Appellant, the Applicant must take its fair share of responsibility for
this unfortunate state of affairs. As I have indicated in my decision, I consider
that this was at least in part due to broader issues going on in the Borough that
had little relevance to this appeal.
9. I do not consider it necessary to go through each point made by the Applicant
and rebutted by the Appellant. Much of it, as I indicated above, is a repeat of
the planning merits raised at the inquiry and which I have considered, where
necessary, in my appeal decision. Standing back, and considering the evidence
overall, I do not conclude that unreasonable behaviour has been demonstrated.
It follows that unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning
Practice Guidance, has not been incurred.
Christina Downes
INSPECTOR