Case Reference: 3306715

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 10-13 January 2023
Site visit made on 11 January
by Graham Chamberlain BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22 February 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/W/22/3306715
World of Pets, Thorley Lane, Timperley WA15 7PJ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant [outline] planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Trafford
Metropolitan Borough Council.
• The application Ref 105905/OUT/21, dated 20 September 2021, was refused by notice
dated 10 March 2022.
• The development proposed is described as ‘Outline planning application for up to 116no.
residential dwellings with all matters reserved aside from access, for which detailed
consent is sought.’
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and outline planning permission is granted for up to 116
residential dwellings with all matters reserved aside from access at World of
Pets, Thorley Lane, Timperley WA15 7PJ, in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref: 105905/OUT/21, dated 20 September 2021, subject to the
conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The planning application was submitted in outline with all matters of detail
reserved for future consideration save for the access into the site. I have
assessed the proposal on this basis. The appellant has submitted parameter
plans outlining certain details, but I have treated them as generally being
illustrative given the subsequent need for reserved matters to be approved.
3. However, it has been necessary to have regard to some parameters in order to
consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. In
particular, the maximum storey heights of the buildings and the position of a
landscaping zone adjacent to Timperley Brook. In respect of building heights,
the appellant confirmed that I should assess the scheme as proposing either a
mix of homes arranged over 2-3 storeys in height or an alternative where the
buildings would be no more than 2-storeys in scale. The dimensions have been
set out in the draft planning conditions.
Background and Main Issues
4. Policy R4 of the Trafford Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 (CS) states that new
development in the Green Belt (GB) will only be permitted where it is for one of
the appropriate purposes specified in national guidance, would not prejudice
the primary purposes of the GB or where very special circumstances can be
demonstrated in support of the proposal.
5. All parties at the inquiry agreed that the appeal scheme would not be one of
the types of development listed in Paragraphs 149 and 150 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’). Thus, the appeal scheme would
be inappropriate development within the GB which is, by definition, harmful.
6. The appellant and Council also agree that the submitted planning obligation, in
the form of a Unilateral Undertaking, would adequately address the provision of
affordable housing and biodiversity net gain and would secure a contribution
towards education. I will return to the necessity of these obligations later.
Similarly, it is common ground that conditions could be imposed requiring the
provision of an onsite play area, publicly accessible electric charging facilities
and pedestrian access improvements. Considering the foregoing, the third and
fourth main issues listed in my Case Management Conference Summary Note
have been addressed and are no longer matters in dispute.
7. Consequently, the remaining main issues in this appeal are:
• The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and its
purposes;
• Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, with
reference to the spatial strategy in the development plan and the
accessibility of services and facilities; and
• Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is
clearly outweighed by other considerations to establish the very special
circumstances necessary to justify the scheme.
Reasons
The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
8. The appeal site is not currently free of development because it encompasses a
collection of buildings and extensive areas of hardstanding located centrally
within the site. About 39% of the appeal site1 is previously developed
‘brownfield’ land, although a large part of this is hardstanding that has a
limited three-dimensional presence. Nevertheless, given the use and formality
of the site it does not have an overtly natural appearance or character despite
there being notable areas of greenery, including scrub and lawn.
9. The appeal scheme would involve the construction of up to 116 homes across
the appeal site. It is highly unlikely that this quantum of development could be
contained within the areas of previously developed land. Thus, new buildings
would be constructed on parts of the site that are currently undeveloped. The
development of the area of scrub behind the housing in Green Lane would
result in a loss of openness, but as this area is already contained by existing
buildings there would be only a limited visual perception of urban sprawl.
10. Conversely, the presence of new houses on the area south of the existing glass
house would result in some sprawl, as new development would extend beyond
what is already there and urbanise a softly landscaped area of the site. In
addition, the parameter plans indicate that the existing single storey buildings,
1 See ID5
including the lightweight glass walled garden centre, would be replaced with
buildings arranged over two or even three storeys.
11. That said, the impact could be moderately reduced upon what is proposed if
the buildings do not exceed two storeys and some form of generously planted
open space is provided along the Timperley Brook as a means of filtering and
softening views from the south. The latter is shown on the parameter plans
and the option of restricting building heights to two storeys was discussed and
agreed at the inquiry. However, even with these design elements there would
still be a notable and harmful uplift in the extent and spread of built form
within the appeal site when this is considered spatially.
12. The appeal site is reasonably contained visually due to the presence of housing
to the west and north. To the east is Thorley Lane, which is an apparently
busy throughfare, and further ad hoc development beyond. It is only the
southern boundary of the appeal site that adjoins open countryside.
13. From this direction when looking north, the site is softened by a thick belt of
landscaping along Timperley Brook. Nevertheless, it is possible, in the winter
at least, to see the existing glass house in vantage points that includes the
entrance into Footpath 27 from Thorley Lane. As a result, the presence of the
proposed dwellings would be apparent, especially as they would be closer to
the southern and eastern boundaries than the existing buildings. This further
reinforces my finding above that the homes should be two rather than three
storeys high as a means of moderating the impact.
14. That said, I share the view of the appellant that the section of Timperley Brook
immediately to the south of the appeal site marks the natural edge of
Timperley due to the change in character. The land becomes more rural on the
southern side of the Brook because of the presence of fields. The new housing
would be seen in this context as a redevelopment of an urban fringe site rather
than a stark encroachment into the countryside.
15. Nevertheless, the uplift in the extent of development would be very apparent to
users of Thorley Lane due to the amount and closer proximity of built form.
Some users of Thorley Lane would be travelling on foot and would therefore be
of higher sensitivity to change when applying relevant guidance2. The existing
landscaping along the eastern boundary would do little to dissipate this as it is
limited in extent. Additional landscaping would take a long time to mature.
16. As a result, the appeal scheme would be seen from Thorley Lane as a large
body of houses with an appreciably greater massing than what currently exists.
This would be compounded by the increased activity, which would include
lighting, additional movements and the removal of greenery within the appeal
site, including several trees. However, the visual impact would only be
apparent in a reasonably short section of Thorley Lane in views taken from
locations broadly between Viewpoint 13 (VP1) and Footpath 27. The views
closer to VP1 would be experienced in the context of sporadic surrounding
development, which would lessen the visual effect.
17. The development would be less prominent at street level from Wood Lane or
Green Lane due to the presence of existing intervening buildings. In neither of
these locations would it be possible to view the extent of development in the
2 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Version 3, landscape Institute – ID02
3 Of Mr Folland’s visual analysis – See Appendix 1 of his proof.
same way as it would be from Thorley Lane. However, some of the proposed
houses would be visible in glimpsed views from Green Lane and it would be
possible to see into the site along the Wood Lane access. The residents of
Green Lane would also be able to see the new houses, especially from their
upper floor windows. These residents would also be receptors of higher
sensitivity when applying GLVIA34.
18. In conclusion, when considering the spatial and visual dimensions of openness
it is apparent that the appeal scheme would have a much greater and
permanent urbanising impact on the openness of the GB than what is currently
on site. That said, the spatial and visual containment of the site and presence
of existing development would reduce the visual impact. The spatial impact
could also be moderated if the buildings are kept to two storeys in height and
away from Timperley Brook. Overall, the level of harm to openness would be
of significant magnitude. The appeal scheme would therefore be at odds with
the fundamental aim of the GB to keep land permanently open.
The effect of the proposal on the purposes of the Green Belt
19. The contribution the appeal site makes to the purposes of the GB formed part
of a Greenbelt Assessment5 in 2016. In this assessment the appeal site was
included within Land Parcel TF44. The study understandably concluded that
Parcel TF44 presented moderate evidence of urbanising features and lacks a
strong rural character. That said, it was also concluded that, in a general
sense, the GB in TF44 assists urban regeneration, plays a strong role in
inhibiting sprawl and assists in providing a critical gap between Hale and
Timperley. The study provides some context, but the appeal site only
encompasses the northern part of TR44. Importantly, the land parcel as a
whole includes agricultural fields and other areas of demonstrably more open
land such as Grove Park. It is therefore unclear whether the strong
contribution of Land Parcel TF44 to some of the purposes of the GB is equally
applicable to all parts of TF44. This is unlikely given what I observed.
20. Instead, a subsequent study in 20206 placed the site in land parcel GM46-1.
This did not include land south of Timperley Brook but did contain the ad hoc
urban fringe development to the east of the appeal site which is of a similar
urban fringe character. As a result, the findings of the 2020 study are of more
relevance to my assessment. In this respect, the study concluded that land
parcel GM46-1 made a relatively limited contribution to checking unrestricted
sprawl, preventing towns from merging, and safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment. In addition, the land parcel makes limited/no contribution to
preserving the setting of historic towns and an equal contribution to assisting in
urban regeneration. I share the view that land parcel GM46-1, and by
extension the appeal site, makes a limited contribution to each of the purposes
of including land in the GB.
21. The overall conclusion of the 2020 study was that releasing GM46-1 from the
GB would have a moderate adverse impact on the purposes of including land in
the GB and a minor impact on adjacent GB land. It is unclear how the overall
moderate score was arrived at given that most of the identified impacts on GB
purposes were rated as limited. It may be that the accumulation of limited
4 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Version 3 – ID02
5 By Land Use Consultants Ltd
6 Greater Manchester Green Belt Study Stage 2 2020
harm could justify a moderate overall score. Nevertheless, the conclusion in
respect of GM46-1 applied to the release of the entire land parcel from the GB.
Therefore, the release of the appeal site in isolation, as a notably smaller
component of GM46-1, would have a lower impact on the purposes of including
land in the GB. Thus, the harm from releasing the appeal site from the GB
would be less than moderate when applying the findings from the 2020 study.
22. That said, the appeal scheme proposes a large body of houses that would be
apparent in local views and sprawl into currently undeveloped parts of the site,
especially that south of the existing glasshouse. There would be a clear
perception that the extent of urban sprawl at the site had increased beyond
what is currently there. Accordingly, the appeal scheme would have an
adverse impact on the purpose of checking unrestricted sprawl. Nevertheless,
the sprawl would be occurring on a parcel of land that makes a limited/neutral
contribution to the purposes of the GB. This limits the impact.
23. The impact would also be moderated because the aim of checking unrestricted
sprawl has already been undermined to an extent by the encroachment of
existing development into the GB. It is not as if the appeal site is an
undeveloped rural field. Furthermore, the appeal site is well contained by
adjacent housing, a main road and Timperley Brook. Indeed, the appeal site
does not really read as part of the countryside given the extent of existing
development in and around it and the formality of the lawned area to the east
of the existing glasshouse which is flanked by a low wall. Thus, the impact on
safeguarding the countryside from encroachment would be limited.
24. The proposal would erode the gap between Hale and Timperley. The
settlements would not physically merge but the space between them would
decrease. Nevertheless, the extent of development would terminate at a
logical and defensible southern boundary. This is because in many respects
the appeal site when viewed on the ground is seen as part of the settlement of
Timperley. This is especially so when considering the extent of development to
the west of the appeal site, which although outside the GB, is also limited by
Timperley Brook. The land south of Timperley Brook also has a rural and open
appearance more typical of the Wooded Claylands landscape character type,
albeit interrupted by a pocket of development around Altrincham College. As a
result, the merging impact would be limited.
25. In conclusion, the appeal scheme would cumulatively have a moderate adverse
impact on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In this respect, the
proposal does not gain support from Policy R4 of the CS, which states that new
development will be permitted in the GB where the proposal would not
prejudice the primary purposes of the GB as set out in national guidance.
Spatial strategy
26. To direct and distribute new housing to sustainable locations, Policy L1 of the
CS states that significant new development is to be directed to the strategic
sites listed in Table L1. It goes on to set a target of 80% of new housing being
on previously developed land and directed in accordance with a sequential
approach. When following this sequential approach, the preferred location is
housing on land within the Regional Centre and Inner Areas, then locations
which would significantly assist regeneration and finally land that can be shown
to benefit the plan’s wider objectives.
27. The appeal site is not located within any of the strategic locations listed in
Table L1 and is not one of the sequentially preferable locations. Developing the
GB would not benefit the plan’s wider objectives. Thus, the appeal scheme
would broadly be at odds with the spatial strategy.
28. However, the strategy in Policy L1 is based on a housing requirement derived
from a now defunct Regional Spatial Strategy. This housing requirement is out
of date by some way when compared to the current Local Housing Need figure.
In fact, it’s about half of current requirements. As a result, it’s unlikely the
spatial strategy identifies enough housing land. Moreover, the spatial strategy
has an apparent over reliance on large strategic sites which have not delivered
as hoped. There are no contingency sites to address this, and the development
plan has not been subject to a review. When giving his evidence, Mr McGowen
accepted that given these matters the spatial strategy would probably need to
take a different approach if prepared now.
29. Thus, I share the view of the appellant that Policy L1 is out of date and should
only be afforded limited weight. This is despite it being a carefully considered
statement of policy intended to give consistency and direction. As a result, any
conflict with the spatial strategy is likewise a matter of limited weight.
The accessibility of services and facilities
30. Paragraph 129 of the Framework states that the National Design Guide (NDG)
and National Model Design Code (NMDC) should be used to guide decisions on
applications in the absence of locally produced design guides and codes. The
Council is preparing a design guide7, but the process is not complete. As a
result, I have been guided by the NDG and NMDC.
31. The NMDC states that walking and cycling should be the first choice for short
journeys of five miles or less. This is because travel by such modes can
contribute towards well-being and place making. However, this is not an
indication that five miles is an acceptable walking distance. That figure relates
to cycling. Instead, the NDG defines walkable developments as locations
where local facilities are within walking distance, generally considered to be no
more than a ten-minute walk (800m radius).
32. Within approximately 800m of the appeal site there are four bus stops, a
primary school, a veterinarian surgery, a secondary school, Grove Park, two
neighbourhood shopping parades, a garden centre and other facilities including
a church and nursery school. As a result, there is a reasonable array of
services and facilities within a walkable radius.
33. Although not referred to in national planning policy, the appellant has also cited
guidance prepared by the Chartered Institution for Highways and
Transportation (CIHT)8. This suggests that a preferred maximum walking
distance to local services is 1,200m. This exceeds the NDG definition of
‘walkable’, but it nevertheless demonstrates that the walking distance to
Timperley village centre of around 1,200m (15 minutes) would not be
excessive. The appeal scheme includes a pedestrian crossing at Wood Lane.
This would make it easier for pedestrians to walk into the centre of Timperley.
As a result, the route would be safe and convenient. Moreover, when applying
7 CD-D11
8 Providing Journeys on Foot
a lower 1,000m distance then a Tesco Express, allotments, public house and
sports club are also accessible by walking.
34. The CIHT guidance also suggests that residents may be prepared to walk up to
2,000m if commuting to work. This is logical as people may be willing to walk
further if they intend to spend longer at the destination. Within a 2,000m
radius of the appeal site there are several employment opportunities.
35. Paragraph 105 of the Framework states that significant development, such as
that proposed, should offer a genuine choice of transport modes. The NMDC
indicates that a genuine choice is one that is easy, comfortable and attractive.
In this regard there would be an adequate collection of services and facilities
within 800m. In addition, there would be further facilities available between
within 1,200m, including a village centre. These distances are not excessive,
and the routes are generally flat, along pavements and safe. Vehicle noise
may suppress the attractiveness of some sections of the routes, but not to a
significant extent. Thus, walking would be a genuine choice of transport mode
for future residents of the appeal scheme.
36. As already stated, the NMDC seeks to promote cycling as a mode of transport
for journeys under five miles. Accordingly, a large urban area becomes
potentially accessible from the appeal site by bicycle when applying this
distance. Many of the roads in the vicinity of the appeal site are residential in
nature and thus not unwelcoming to navigate by such a mode of transport.
Wood Lane is traffic calmed, thereby providing reasonable access to Moss Lane
and then onwards to the Bridgewater Canal Cycleway.
37. Furthermore, Shaftsbury Avenue has traffic free cycle lanes and Thorley Lane
has an unsegregated cycle lane. This infrastructure would assist cyclists.
Some of it is poorly maintained but that should not count against the appeal
scheme given the statutory duties placed on the Local Highway Authority to
maintain the public highway. Ridgeway Road is also traffic calmed and
provides an apparently lightly trafficked route to a dedicated cycle way, which
in turn provides access to major employment opportunities at Wythenshawe
Hospital and the surrounding industrial estate.
38. Consequently, there would be genuine opportunities for residents to travel by
bicycle. However, this would be tempered by the inherent limitation that
residents may not have the fitness, confidence or proficiency to cycle regularly
if at all. Many potential cyclists could also be put off by the volume and speed
of traffic on some local roads. For example, Thorley Lane has a 40mph speed
limit. The low up take of cycling is demonstrated by 2011 Census data for the
area, which confirms that only 3% of residents travel to work by bicycle.
Furthermore, some residents may simply not have a bicycle and the draft
Travel Plan proposes little to address this.
39. Guidance from CIHT9 indicates that new development should be within a
maximum 300m walk of a less frequent bus route. The bus stops in Wood
Lane are about 50-100m from the site access and therefore fall within this
recommended distance. The No 285/286 service provides a link with Timperley
and Altrincham. Buses are hourly but operate throughout the week and into
the weekend during most of the day.
9 Buses in Urban Development
40. Residents would need to plan their bus journeys so that they were not waiting
at the bus stop for up to an hour. However, this would not be a significant
drawback given the short walk to the bus stops. As a result, it would be easy,
comfortable and attractive to catch a bus to several local centres and facilities.
41. In addition, it would be possible to walk around 750m north of the appeal site
and catch the No 11 bus service. This has a twenty-minute frequency and
provides a link to other centres including Stockport and Cheadle. However, the
walk would exceed the CHIT guidance that a high frequency bus service should
be within 400m of a development. Nevertheless, the combined provision of the
No 285/286 and No 11 services means the appeal site is adequately served by
public transport.
42. The Navigation Road rail station is about 2,200m from the appeal site and
therefore not within CHIT10 guidance of an 800m walk. It would be possible to
combine a rail journey with walking and bus travel, but this would be quite
convoluted. As a result, rail travel is unlikely to be a regular genuine option for
many. That said, it would be possible to get into Manchester City Centre from
the appeal site within one hour when combining bus and rail travel. This could
be an infrequent travel option for future residents of the appeal site.
43. When applying the Greater Manchester Accessibility Levels (GMAL), the appeal
site falls within Levels 2 and 3, which is towards the lower end. It is however
near a higher GMAL level11 given the provision of bus stops in Wood Lane,
which are within a short walk of the appeal site. Even if this was not the case,
Paragraph 112 of the Framework establishes a hierarchy that places active
travel – walking and cycling - at the top. Access to public transport is to be
facilitated ‘as far as possible’. This is entirely logical as independent active
travel provides both resilience and health benefits.
44. Accordingly, GMAL should not be relied upon in isolation as a means of
assessing the accessibility of services and facilities from the appeal site. This
is because in this case, there would be reasonable access to several facilities by
walking, cycling and bus. Therefore, the position of the site in an area rated as
GMAL Levels 2 and 3 is not a determinative matter against the appeal scheme.
Indeed, neither the Local Highway Authority nor Transport for Greater
Manchester objected on this basis, although there was an indication that the
site is not particularly well served by public transport. This is not however,
sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeal given the analysis above.
45. The appeal site is allocated for housing in emerging Policy JPA 3.2 of the Places
for Everyone Joint Local Plan. If adopted, this Timperley Wedge allocation
would provide for new transport infrastructure such as a rapid transit bus
service and an extended Metrolink Line. A new local centre would also be
constructed. However, for the reasons already set out, the appeal site is
reasonably well placed to allow future residents to access services and facilities
by sustainable transport regardless of whether the Timperley Wedge allocation
comes forward or not. Furthermore, the appeal site would be closer to existing
services in Timperley than the new local centre. As a result, the appeal site
does not need to come forward as part of the allocation for future residents to
have adequate access to services and facilities by sustainable transport modes.
10 Planning for Public Transport in Developments
11 See Figure 7.3 of Mr Tilley’s proof
46. Based on current trends, around 73% of journeys by new residents would likely
be by private car. The appellant’s draft Travel Plan (TP) is not especially
ambitious and currently only includes ‘soft’ measures aimed at encouraging
sustainable travel, such as information and signage. However, the Council has
suggested a condition, agreed by the appellant, that would require the
measures, incentives, targets, and objectives of the TP to be submitted and
approved. This provides scope to set meaningful targets and include robust
measures to achieve them.
47. In conclusion, it would be an exaggeration to suggest the appeal site is in a
highly sustainable location, as advocated by Mr Harper. However, when judged
holistically the appeal scheme would be in a suitable location when considering
access to services and facilities. This is because future residents would have a
genuine choice of transport modes. As a result, there would be no conflict with
Policy L4 or Strategic Objective SO6 of the CS, which seek to promote
sustainable travel.
Other considerations
Contribution to housing land supply
48. Paragraph 60 of the Framework sets out the objective of significantly boosting
the supply of housing with Paragraph 74 setting out a requirement that local
planning authorities provide a minimum five-year housing land supply. The
appellant and Council suggest the housing land supply position is between 2.82
and 3.47 years. On either measure, the parties agreed that the shortfall is
substantial. Indeed, the short-term picture is a worsening one, as on the
Council’s own figures the supply has fallen from 3.75 years in March 2022.
49. This situation is aggravated by the long-standing nature of the shortfall with
the Council having been unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply
since 2014. For most of this period the supply has hovered around or below 3
years with 2.4 years being the low point in 2020. Furthermore, the most
recent Housing Delivery Test (HDT) measure was 79% of the relevant housing
requirement. The sanction is that the Council must apply a 20% buffer to its
housing requirement and prepare a Housing Delivery Test Action Plan. Mrs
Wright suggests that this situation has been caused, in part, by an increased
housing requirement and the slow delivery of strategic sites. The shortfall in
housing delivery is therefore acute and has been a persistent problem.
50. That said, when looking forward the Council is seeking to improve the supply
by taking proactive action that includes joint ventures and monitoring of stalled
developments through a housing tracker. These actions may well have
contributed to an uplift in the HDT measure, which was 58% in 2019. In
addition, the Council are approving more permissions than the housing
requirement, is working on a new development plan, has a reservoir of existing
urban land12 and has adopted the Civic Quarter Area Action Plan. Thus, an
Inspector13 recently commented that the Council appears to be doing all it can
to address the shortfall. There are also the site allocations in the emerging
Places for Everyone Joint Local Plan (PfE) to consider, but for reasons I will go
into this document currently carries only limited weight.
12 Table 5.2 of Mrs Wright’s proof
13 APP/Q4245/W/20/3258552
51. In an attempt to illustrate the improving situation, Mrs Wright provided Table
6.1 in her evidence which purports to demonstrate that in the next 12-24
months the housing land supply could reach 5.34 years. However, substantive
evidence demonstrating deliverability has not been provided and is not in the
public domain. Therefore, it would be unwise to rely on Table 6.1 as evidence
that the Council would achieve a five-year supply soon. Nor should I rely on
the reduced housing requirement set out in PfE as a route for the Council being
able to demonstrate a five-year supply in a year or two, because there are
unresolved objections that will need to be explored through the examination.
52. Therefore, I share the view of the Council that the overall situation is improving
despite the recent dip in the housing supply to 3.47 years. However, I also
share the view of a previous Inspector14 that there are too many unknowns and
consequently caution needs to be exercised in respect of future supply. What
is clearer is that there is currently a substantial shortfall.
53. In this context, the evidence from Mr Nicolson, which was not challenged by
the Council, is illuminating. He explained that the appellant’s aim is to move
into a tender process as soon as possible with a view to disposing of the site to
a housebuilder. Given the financial arrangements and the debt interest, there
would be no logical rationale for holding onto the site to speculate on land
values rising, which the Council suggested had supressed delivery elsewhere in
Trafford. The indicative timeframe could see the site marketed and sold in a
matter of months with reserved matters to follow promptly and completions
achieved in late 2024.
54. Although perhaps a little optimistic, the timeframe is not unrealistic given the
low supply and high demand for residential development land15. Furthermore,
there is nothing of substance before me to suggest there would be any unusual
challenges in bringing the appeal site forward promptly. The timeframes could
also coincide neatly with the completion of outstanding wildlife surveys in the
spring/summer. At the Inquiry Mr Swannell referred to a covenant prohibiting
development, but the point was not substantiated and neither the appellant nor
the Council were aware of this despite checking. Accordingly, the evidence
before me suggests that the appeal scheme could be delivered in good time.
In fact, clear evidence of the deliverability of housing on site within five years
could be demonstrated reasonably soon after outline permission is granted.
The appeal scheme would therefore provide a very valuable contribution to the
five-year housing land supply.
55. In coming to this view, I have carefully considered the appeal decisions16
referred to by the appellant where the Inspectors gave little weight to the
Written Ministerial Statement of December 2015 (WMS). This WMS indicated
that unmet housing need is unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the GB, and
any other harm, so as to establish very special circumstances. Limited weight
was afforded to this because the provisions in the WMS were not incorporated
into the revised Framework and the associated guidance was removed from the
Planning Practice Guide. Circumstances have not changed and therefore I
concur with the views of the other Inspectors.
14 APP/Q4245/W/20/3258552
15 See CBRE letter dated 6 December 2022 – Appendix 15 of Mr Harper’s proof
16 APP/C2741/W/19/3227359 and linked appeals APP/B1930/W/20/3265925 & APP/C1950/W/20/3265926
56. In summary, the Council have an acute housing supply shortfall, and this has
been a persistent problem. Matters are improving, but the unknowns are such
that caution should be applied and therefore I must factor in the real possibility
that the Council may not be able to demonstrate a five-year housing land
supply soon. In this context, the reasonably quick delivery of up to 116 homes
would be a benefit. Given Mrs Wright’s evidence the benefit would not be of
substantial weight, but it would nevertheless be very significant given the acute
and long-standing housing supply shortfall.
Provision of affordable housing
57. The appeal scheme would provide 45% of the homes as affordable housing,
this could equate to 52 homes. This would be a policy compliant level of
affordable housing but a benefit nevertheless. Mr Harper’s evidence, which is
uncontested by the Council, explains that the Trafford Housing Needs
Assessment 2019 demonstrates that there is a net need for 545 affordable
homes per annum in Trafford. Of this, 114 homes per annum are needed in
the Altrincham area, which is the location in which the appeal site falls. This is
important because the median house price in the Altrincham area is much
higher than in Greater Manchester, meaning the affordable housing situation is
more acute.
58. This is a point compounded by the apparent shortage of development sites in
the Altrincham area, with only two identified sites being capable of delivering
more than 50 homes. Moreover, an analysis of sites in the 2020 Strategic
Housing Land Availability Assessment in the Altrincham area suggests that
even if every identified site came forward and provided a policy compliant level
of affordable housing, only 246 affordable homes would be delivered. This
would only be enough to cover the annual affordable housing need for the next
couple of years. In any event, it is not uncommon for major housing schemes
to provide less than a policy compliant level of affordable housing. Some
locally approved levels have been as low as around 16%.
59. The appeal scheme would deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing
and could do so reasonably quickly given that there is already interest from
registered providers. This would amount to around half of the annual
affordable housing need for the Altrincham area. Given the context set out
above, the delivery of up to 52 affordable homes would be a significant benefit.
Use of previously developed land
60. Around 39% of the appeal site is previously developed land. Paragraph 120 of
the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the value of
using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes. There is nothing
before me to suggest the appeal site is located outside any defined settlement
boundary. Moreover, for the reasons already set out, the appeal site reads on
the ground as being part of Timperley, albeit a transitional urban fringe site.
61. However, much of the brownfield land within the site is simply hardstanding
and the site’s location in the GB means it is not ‘suitable’ brownfield land within
the meaning of Paragraph 120, especially as the scheme would have a greater
impact on openness. Thus, the reuse of brownfield land would not carry
substantial positive weight in this instance. Nevertheless, there is strong
support for the reuse of previously developed land in both national and local
policy. In this context, the reuse of a sizeable area of under-utilised and
unattractive previously developed land for housing still carries significant
weight as a benefit in favour of the proposal.
Other benefits
62. There would be some short-term benefits to the construction industry from
building the scheme. The Home Builders Federation Online Housing Calculator
estimates that the proposal could lead to 359 jobs being created including
direct and indirect employment17. Further economic benefits from local spend
could be as high as £3,055,347 per annum18. The Council has not sought to
challenge these figures. Accordingly, the economic benefits are of significant
weight in favour of the scheme.
63. The submitted biodiversity assessment19 demonstrates that even with the
planting of new hedgerows and trees within the site, retaining some boundary
bramble scrub and enhancing the onsite pond, the biodiversity value of the site
would fall by around half20. This needs to be considered in the context that
there is already limited land available for nature in Trafford. As a result, the
appellant intends to provide off-site enhancement measures on land in the
control of the Council. This would facilitate a 10% net gain in biodiversity.
That said, the site has a baseline unit score of 10.15. Therefore, a 10% gain
would only add around one unit21. This would be a modest increase in
biodiversity. However, given the pressing need to improve biodiversity, this
benefit should still carry limited weight as benefit.
64. The proposal would also provide a Sustainable Drainage System that would
help to reduce the risk of flooding downstream as run off would be controlled to
an appropriate rate. However, the extent to which this is a benefit has not
been set out in detail in the appellant’s submission. As a result, this is a
matter of modest weight in favour of the scheme.
65. The appeal scheme would also provide a public open space along the Timperley
Brook. However, if provided in accordance with the outline masterplan then it
would be a small space with little natural surveillance. In such circumstances,
its unlikely to be a destination for existing residents. Likewise, the play area
towards the centre of the site would also be small and would principally serve
the future residents of the appeal scheme. As a result, the open space
provision would be a limited benefit. It is also unclear whether residents from
outside the appeal scheme would wish to charge their electric vehicles on site
and therefore this would be a modest benefit.
66. The Statement of Common Ground suggests the appeal scheme could
incorporate a truly high-quality design. However, the scheme is submitted in
outline, so details are not before me. Moreover, the outline masterplan has
some drawbacks that would require revisions. For example, some public areas,
including the public open space along Timperley Brook, would have limited
natural surveillance. Some of the houses would be too close to the Thorley
Lane, as confirmed in the noise assessment, and the perimeter blocks are
loosely configured in areas, which would result in discordantly disjointed
building lines and street scenes. Nevertheless, these issues could be
17 Socio-Economic Statement – Appendix 16 of Mr Harper’s proof
18 Ibid
19 CD-A08
20 From 10.15 units to 5.84
21 By way of comparison, the existing pond, which is in moderate condition, is worth 0.89 units
addressed, and the appellant has committed to a design review and the
production of a design code. This would be an exemplar design approach that
could act as a template to be followed elsewhere.
67. At around 38 dwellings per hectare the density of the scheme would be higher
than surrounding development. A balance must be struck between using land
efficiently and having regard to the existing local character. In this respect, an
imaginative and responsive layout softened by high levels of quality
landscaping could be developed.
68. Overall, delivering high quality design is an expectation placed on all
development proposals and would therefore ordinarily be a neutral matter. The
Framework states that significant weight should be attached to outstanding or
innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability. However, this
has not been established given the outline nature of the proposal.
Nevertheless, the commitment to follow an exemplar design process means
that some modest positive weight can be afforded given the importance placed
on this matter in the Framework.
Emerging policy
69. The appeal site is allocated for housing in the emerging PfE. This draft
allocation is supported by a masterplan22 that places the appeal site in ‘Site 1
Phase 1’. The emerging allocation is supported by the Council, which is of the
view that some GB release is required to meet the current housing
requirement. As a result, the emerging policy sets a direction of travel that
would see the appeal site removed from the GB and allocated for housing.
70. That said, the appeal scheme is at odds with emerging Policy JPA 3.2 because
it would not make a proportionate contribution towards infrastructure delivery.
However, there is no charging schedule in place to support the equalisation
mechanism and therefore the appellant cannot contribute even if they wished
to. In any event, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that bringing
the appeal scheme forward without a contribution to infrastructure would
prejudice the viability or delivery of the allocation or the plan more generally.
To this end the Council did not run a prematurity case. In fact, the masterplan
expressly acknowledges that Phase 1 can come forward ahead of the provision
of wider infrastructure. Nor is there anything before me to suggest other
landowners would seek to ‘jump the gun’ in the event the appeal scheme is
permitted, and therefore an undesirable precedent would not be set.
71. Accordingly, the emerging policy position is such that, overall, it adds positive
weight towards the acceptability of the scheme, despite the policy conflict.
However, there are several unresolved objections to PfE, including the principle
of releasing GB land for housing. The objections go to the heart of Policy JPA
3.2 and perhaps the plan more generally. Thus, when applying Paragraph 48
of the Framework, PfE should only be afforded limited weight despite its
advanced stage of preparation and apparent consistency with the Framework.
Fallback position
72. The appellant submits that the appeal site could be developed for a smaller
number of houses and in a way that would not amount to inappropriate
development when applying Paragraph 149(g) of the Framework. It is also
22 CD-E4
suggested that the existing commercial use could be more intensively pursued.
However, planning permission has not been granted for such schemes. As a
result, the proposition is currently theoretical. Moreover, the Council correctly
suggest that the first scenario would be an underdevelopment of the appeal
site and would be unlikely to be granted planning permission because of this.
For these reasons, the potential fallback position is only a very modest matter
that weighs in favour of the appeal scheme.
Other Matters
73. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to Policy C4 of the Trafford Unitary
Development Plan (UDP). However, when asked at the Inquiry, the Council’s
witnesses explained that this policy simply refers to the extent of GB and lists
the primary purposes for this designation. The policy sets no development
management test that the proposal could offend. As a result, there would be
no conflict with Policy C4 of the UDP.
74. The outline masterplan indicates that some houses could be positioned in the
defined wildlife corridor23. Indeed, it is unlikely that a scheme could come
forward without this occurring. However, I have already explained that the
scheme would provide a 10% net gain in biodiversity with offsite mitigation. I
have not been directed to any policy requirement that the net gain must be on
site. As a result, there would be an overall benefit to wildlife.
75. Revisions to the Framework are currently the subject of public consultation.
However, the suggested revisions are in draft and therefore subject to
significant amendments. Thus, I share the view of the Council and appellant
that I need not consider the changes as part of my assessment.
76. The Council has referred to a dismissed appeal in Beaconsfield24 which also
related to housing in the GB. There are some parallels with the scheme before
me. However, the site is in a different local authority area where distinct
circumstances apply. Moreover, the Inspector found an acute effect on the
openness of the GB, which is not the case here. There was also other harm to
factor in, such as a poor design and a failure to preserve designated heritage
assets. Accordingly, the schemes are not alike and therefore my overall
conclusion would not amount to inconsistent decision making. A similar finding
applies to the Warburton Lane appeal25, where no affordable housing was
proposed and therefore the balance of harm and benefits was different.
77. The appeal scheme is supported by a comprehensive and carefully considered
Transport Assessment (TA)26 prepared by professional highway engineers. It
has been critically reviewed by the Local Highway Authority and Transport for
Greater Manchester and no objections were received.
78. The TA demonstrates that the two proposed accesses would be safe and
suitable with adequate visibility splays being provided. In fact, the proposed
accesses have been subject to a successful road safety audit. The analysis of
trip rates, flows, growth and assignment also confirms that there would be
capacity within the road network, and at specific junctions, to cater for the
traffic associated with the appeal scheme without a severe impact. Substantive
23 A plan of which is at Figure 1 of Mr Folland’s proof
24 ID01
25 APP/Q4245/W/19/3243720
26 CDA22
evidence to the contrary has not been submitted. Accordingly, I am satisfied
there are no grounds to dismiss the scheme on matters relating to transport,
congestion or highway safety. Parking would be addressed at the reserved
matters stage, but there is nothing of substance to demonstrate the proposal
would not be able to provide an adequate amount.
79. The evidence before me does not demonstrate that the appeal scheme would
place harmful pressure on healthcare infrastructure. In any event, the
proposal would make a sizable contribution through the Community
Infrastructure Levy, and this could be used to mitigate any residual impacts.
80. During the Inquiry I heard evidence from Mr Williams that the construction of
three storey dwellings would be out of character with the surrounding area and
therefore appear odd. Two storey buildings are the predominant building
typology in the locality. Taller buildings on the edge of the settlement would
indeed appear odd and effect the graduation of the settlement into the
countryside and GB beyond Timperley Brook. This adds further impetus to my
finding that the buildings should not exceed two storeys in height.
81. The appeal site is in a Critical Drainage Area but there is no objection to the
proposal from the Lead Local Flood Authority or the Environment Agency
subject to the use of a Sustainable Drainage System that manages surface
water flows. This is set out in a Flood Risk Assessment and secured through
planning conditions. A small part of the site is within Flood Zone 2, but this
would be left to remain part of a wildlife corridor and therefore a sequential
test in accordance with Paragraph 162 of the Framework is unnecessary.
82. Concerns relating to the impact on the privacy of neighbours can be addressed
at the reserved matter stage, as can details of bin collection and mitigating the
risk of crime. Similarly, concerns relating to land contamination, external
lighting and construction noise can be addressed through the imposition of
planning conditions. The Air Quality Assessment submitted with the application
and reviewed by the Council demonstrates that the scheme would not
harmfully affect air quality. The same can be said of noise, subject to
conditions and a carefully considered design and layout.
Whether there would be Very Special Circumstances
83. The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the GB. It would
also prejudice the primary purposes of including land in the GB. As a result,
the only pathway for approval within the context of Policy R4 of the CS is for
the appellant to demonstrate very special circumstances. As specified in the
Framework, very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm
to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is
clearly outweighed by other considerations.
84. I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development
that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. I have also concluded that the
appeal scheme would result in significant and permanent harm to the openness
of the Green Belt and moderate harm to GB purposes. Paragraph 148 of the
Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green
Belt. In addition, there would be some limited harm from a conflict with the
spatial strategy. Overall, the harm is cumulatively of very substantial weight.
85. On the other hand, the appeal scheme would assist in addressing the acute and
persistent housing supply shortfall and would deliver affordable housing in an
area of high need. The appeal scheme would provide other benefits including
the reuse of brownfield land, the accumulation of economic benefits and a net
gain in biodiversity. Emerging policy also seeks to release the appeal site from
the GB for housing. Overall, the cumulative benefits of the appeal scheme are
other considerations of a very high order.
86. Protecting the GB is a matter of great importance to the Government, and I
have considered the proposal with this in mind. However, in this instance, the
identified harm would be clearly outweighed by the other considerations
identified. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the
development have been demonstrated and therefore a conflict with Policy R4 of
the CS, and Paragraph 148 of the Framework, would not occur.
Planning Obligation and Conditions
87. The appeal scheme is supported by a completed planning obligation in the form
of a Unilateral Undertaking. This has been reviewed by the Council, which has
not raised concerns with its execution or content, save for one obligation
relating to a financial contribution towards a new roundabout on Thorley Lane.
Each of the obligations are considered below.
88. Affordable Housing – Policies L2 of the CS requires the provision of 45% on-site
affordable housing as part of schemes such as that proposed. This level of
affordable housing is required in ‘hot market’ locations where there are good
market conditions. The approach is also supported by a Housing Needs Survey
dating from 2019. Accordingly, the appellant is seeking to provide this in
accordance with the proposed tenure split, as the high level of need is not
disputed. This provision would be secured through the planning obligation.
89. Education – Policy L2.2 of the CS seeks to secure improvements to social
infrastructure when necessary. The Council has assessed the number of
primary and secondary school places and whether there is capacity to absorb
the likely demand generated by the appeal scheme. This analysis indicates
that there is adequate capacity at the local primary schools but not secondary
schools. A school place ‘score card’ has been used to assess the level of
financial contribution required to mitigate the impact. Both the Council and
appellant agreed that a financial contribution of £297,036 would be reasonable
in scale and kind to the proposal and the impacts.
90. Biodiversity net gain – Policy R2.1 of the CS requires developers to
demonstrate how their proposal would protect and enhance biodiversity. The
Phase 1 Habitats Survey suggests there would be a net negative effect on
biodiversity. Accordingly, the appellant is seeking to mitigate this impact by
providing enhancement measures on land controlled by the Council. The
Council have agreed to this. In so doing, the appellant is committed to
providing a 10% net gain. The policy requirement is to enhance biodiversity
but there is no requirement for a 10% net gain. Nevertheless, there is a
pressing national and local need to enhance biodiversity and therefore a 10%
net gain can be considered a benefit of the scheme. It is necessary to secure
this benefit through the planning obligation. This would be done by preventing
development until a net gain scheme is approved and the works carried out.
91. Thus, when applying Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations and Paragraph 57 of the Framework, the obligations identified
above are necessary to make the development acceptable and are directly,
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposal and its impacts.
As a result, I can take them into account.
92. The planning obligation also seeks to provide a £35,000 contribution to a new
roundabout on Thorley Lane. This new roundabout is a requirement set out in
emerging Policy JPA 3.2 of PfE. The appellant is offering it in lieu of a
contribution towards the equalisation mechanism also set out in the policy.
However, the evidence before me does not demonstrate the roundabout is
required to make the development acceptable. Moreover, I have afforded
Policy JPA 3.2 of the PfE only limited weight given the extent of unresolved
objections. A financial contribution is unnecessary to remedy a conflict with an
emerging policy of limited weight. As a result, this is an obligation that I have
not taken into account.
93. Turning to conditions. I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice
Guide and the conditions suggested by the Council27. In addition to standard
commencement conditions, it is necessary to define the reserved matters and
require their approval. A drawings condition relating to the position and design
of the external access is necessary in the interests of certainty and highway
safety. In assessing the scheme, I have factored in the position of an
enhanced wildlife corridor and landscaping zone adjacent to Timperley Brook.
It is therefore necessary to secure this parameter. In so doing it is
unnecessary to secure the matters detailed on Parameter Plan 1, or the
landscaping shown on Parameter Plan 2, because they are not details that have
factored into my assessment. They relate to reserved matters in any event.
94. The application is for up to 116 homes and no more. As a result, it is
unnecessary to impose a condition specifying a maximum number of homes.
Similarly, it is unnecessary to secure a phasing condition as the appellant was
unable to articulate why it was necessary or relevant with reference to the
harm that would occur if it were not imposed. To aim for a high-quality design,
it is necessary to secure the preparation and approval of a design code and
masterplan and for the scheme to be tested by a design review panel. For
similar reasons it is necessary to secure details of levels and to retain the
maximum building height to 2 storeys. The latter would also reduce the impact
on the openness of the GB relative to what was originally proposed.
95. To reduce the risk and fear of crime it is necessary for a Crime Impact
Assessment to be submitted and approved. To safeguard living conditions
and/or highway safety it is necessary for a Construction Method Statement,
Waste Management Strategy and Acoustic Assessment and maximum noise
levels for plant and equipment to be submitted and approved. For similar
reasons, it is necessary to secure details of the maintenance of the vehicular
access to be submitted and approved and to assess and remediate land
contamination, including any from ground gases.
96. To promote and facilitate active and sustainable travel it is necessary to secure
details of cycle parking, a Travel Plan, public EV charging points and off-site
pedestrian crossing works. To support health and well-being, it is necessary to
secure details of a Local Equipped Area of Play. For similar reasons, and to
27 ID10
reduce the risk of flooding to people and property, it is necessary to secure an
updated Flood Risk Assessment with drainage details and management. To
protect and enhance wildlife it is necessary for updated bat, amphibian and
badger surveys to be submitted and approved, including mitigation. For similar
reasons, it is necessary for an Ecological Method Statement, details of external
lighting and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to be submitted and
approved, and the Timperley Brook to be protected from foul water disposal.
97. Some pre commencement conditions have been imposed on this planning
permission. This is because the matters required for approval may ultimately
affect the design or layout of the scheme or the approach to construction.
Moreover, some pre commencement conditions are necessary because they
seek to mitigate impacts arising during the construction phase.
Conclusion
98. As there would be very special circumstances, the appeal scheme would adhere
to the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations
which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal has been allowed.
Graham Chamberlain
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant:
David Manley KC instructed by Mr Jonathan Harper
Called:
Nicolas Folland Director, Barnes Walker Limited
BA (Hons), DIP LA CMLI
Aaron Tilley Associate Transport Consultant, Curtins
HNC, CMILT, FCHIT
Jonathan Harper Partner, Rapleys
MA (Hons) MTCP MRTPI
AssocRICS
James Nicholson Manging Director, [APPELLANT]
Paul Arnott Solicitor, Town legal LLP
For the Local Planning Authority:
Stephanie Hall, of Counsel instructed by Stephen Moorhouse
Called:
Caroline Wright Strategic Planning and Growth Manager,
MRCP MRTPI Trafford Council
Cormac McGowan Major Planning Projects Officer, Trafford Council
BSc (Hons) MRTPI
Sarah Lowes Major Planning Projects Manager, Trafford Council
Stephen Moorhouse Council Planning Lawyer, Trafford Council
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Jeremy Williams Local Resident
Gary Swannell Local Resident
Louise Westwater Local Resident
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
I D01 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/22/3299849
ID02 Extract (p113-116) from Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact
A ssessment, Version 3, Landscape Institute
ID03 C ertified copy of draft Unilateral Undertaking received 9 January 2023
ID04 Letter from M R Harrison (Local Resident), who was unable to attend the
I nquiry
ID05 Plan (Ref. L(00)001) of the extent previously developed land, agreed by
the Council and appellant
ID06 Opening by David Manley KC
ID07 Opening by Stephanie Hall
ID08 Letter setting the appellant’s most up to date five year housing land
s upply position
ID09 Minor correction to Aaron Tilley’s proof
ID10 Suggested conditions table, subsequently amended following the
conditions session
ID11 R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and
others) (Respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council (Appellant)
ID13 John Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
a nd Another [2016] EWCA Civ 466
ID14 E mail from Kate Worsley, who was unable to attend the Inquiry
ID15 C losing by David Manley KC
ID16 Closing by Stephanie Hall
ID17 Executed copy of the Unilateral undertaking dated 19 January 2023
Schedule of Conditions
1. All applications for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local
planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.
2. The development hereby permitted shall commence not later than 2 years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
3. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, scale, and access (in part
relating to internal circulation) (hereinafter called "the reserved matters")
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
prior to the commencement of development and the development shall be
carried out as approved.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
• Indicative Access Arrangement Visibility Splays - 72011 CUR 00 XX DR TP
75001 P06;
• Swept Path Analysis Refuse Vehicle Thorley Lane – 72011 CUR 00 XX DR TP
75001 P06; and
• Site Location Plan – Drwg. No: L(00)001 Rev.P1.
5. The Reserved Matters submitted in relation to Condition 1 shall be in
accordance with Parameter Plan 2 – Key Urban Design Principles – Drwg. No:
L(01)111 Rev.P8 in so far as it relates to the location of an enhanced wildlife
corridor and landscaping zone adjacent to Timperley Brook.
6. Prior to the submission of the first application for Reserved Matters for the
first phase of the development hereby permitted, a site wide detailed
Masterplan and associated Design Code shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority, informed by:
• Part Two of the National Design Guide (October 2019) (The ten
characteristics of a well-designed place);
• Any Trafford Design Guide or Code that is adopted at the time; and
• A Design Review Outcome Report following a design review process
involving the Local Planning Authority carried out by Places Matter or
another appropriate design review panel that has been approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
7. The first reserved matters application shall include a full version of a Crime
Impact Statement (CIS), based on the approved Preliminary CIS
(Ref:2016/0760/CIS/03 Version A 08.06.2021). The Statement shall
demonstrate how crime has been considered for the development and the
surrounding area and how the development hereby permitted has been
designed to avoid/reduce the adverse effects of crime and disorder.
Thereafter, the development shall come forward in accordance with the
approved details and timetable, and retained thereafter.
8. Any applications for Reserved Matters shall be accompanied by:
• A Masterplan and Design Code Compliance Statement which demonstrates
how that phase of the development has been brought forward in
accordance with the approved Masterplan and Design Code pursuant to
Condition 6 of this permission; and
• An updated phase-specific Design Review Outcome Report (informed by a
design review process involving the Local Planning Authority carried out by
Places Matter or another appropriate design review panel agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority for that specific phase of the development).
9. Applications for reserved matters shall include a Construction Method
Statement (CMS). The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the
construction period. The CMS shall provide for:
• The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
• Loading and unloading of plant and materials;
• Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
• The erection and maintenance of security hoardings;
• Wheel washing facilities;
• Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction and
measures to prevent noise and vibration to adjacent properties including
any piling activity;
• Measures to protect Timperley Brook from spillages, dust and debris;
• A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and
construction works (including asbestos if uncovered);
• Days and hours of construction activity on site); and
• Contact details of site manager to be advertised at the site in case of issues
arising.
10. Any reserved matters application(s) which covers the matter of ‘scale’ shall
include details of existing and finished site levels relative to off-site datum
points or Ordnance datum points which should be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
11. Any application(s) for reserved matters which include layout and/or
landscaping matters shall be accompanied by a scheme for secure cycle
parking storage (including public cycle parking provision) which should be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
the commencement of development. The cycle parking shall be provided prior
to first occupation and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved
details.
12. Any application(s) for reserved matters for layout or appearance shall include
an updated acoustic assessment which should be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved report and any mitigation measures if required.
13. Any reserved matters application(s) that include access (internal circulation
roads), layout and/or landscaping shall be accompanied by a waste
management strategy which should be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The waste management strategy will be
implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.
14. Any reserved matters applications that include layout and/or landscaping shall
be accompanied with details of the location and design of a Local Equipped
Area of Play (LEAP) and a timetable for its implementation which should be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
the commencement of development. The LEAP shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.
15. No development hereby permitted shall take place until an updated Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) and detailed drainage plan has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The updated FRA and
drainage plan shall detail the proposed Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme
(SuDs), surface water discharge rate, attenuation figures as detailed in the
approved FRA (Document Ref: 071662-CUR-00-XX-RP-D-001 Rev.V07) and
the potential for infiltration. The FRA and drainage plan shall also include the
following mitigation measures:
• Construction shall be as per the provided approved FRA (Document Ref:
071662-CUR-00-XX-RP-D-001 Rev.V07), and no banks shall be raised for
this development; and
• The provided easement plan REF-L(01)110 shall be adhered to and a clear
8m easement maintained at all times to allow Environment Agency
emergency vehicles to gain access to the watercourse in any event;
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details,
which should be implemented prior to the first occupation of any
development. The measure details above shall be retained and maintained
thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.
16. No development hereby permitted shall take place, until a SuDs management
and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The SuDs
management and maintenance plan shall include the arrangements for (i) an
appropriate public body or statutory undertaker; (ii) management and
maintenance by a management company; or (iii)_ any other arrangements to
secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its
lifetime. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details.
17. No development hereby permitted shall take place until an updated bat survey
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with any mitigation
and/or enhancement measures as required by the approved survey.
18. No development hereby permitted shall take place, until an updated
amphibian survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with any
migration and/or enhancement measures if required by the approved survey.
19. No development hereby permitted shall take place until further precautionary
surveys of the site for badgers have been conducted, the results of which,
together with a scheme to mitigate the effects of the development on
badgers, if recorded on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance
with approved details and thereafter retained.
20. No development hereby permitted shall take place until a comprehensive
Ecological Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority containing details of the measures to be taken
to avoid and prevent harm to nesting birds, hedgehog, other mammals, and
amphibians arising during the course of carrying out the development hereby
permitted. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
21. No development shall take place until a scheme detailing measures to ensure
no negative impacts on the ecological status/potential of the Timperley Brook
resulting from the disposal of foul water and surface water post-development
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full in accordance
with a timetable which has first been approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
22. No development shall take place until details for maintenance of the vehicular
accesses and visibility splays to Thorley Lane and Wood Lane have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter
retained.
23. No development shall take place until a scheme detailing the provision,
management and maintenance of two publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV)
charging points has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The publicly accessible EV charging points shall be
installed prior to first occupation, in accordance with the approved details and
thereafter retained.
24. No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment in
relation to contamination on site (in addition to any assessment provided with
the planning application) has been submitted to and approved in writing by
Local Planning Authority. The additional assessment shall investigate the
nature and extent of any contamination across the site (whether or not it
originates on the site). The assessment shall be undertaken by competent
persons and a written report of the findings submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place
other than the excluded works listed above. The submitted report shall
include:
• A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
• An assessment of the potential risks to human health, property (existing or
proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, service
lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters,
ecological systems;
• Where unacceptable risks are identified, an appraisal of remedial options
and proposal of the preferred option(s) to form a remediation strategy for
the site;
• A remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures
required and how they are to be undertaken; and
• A verification plan/report providing details of the data that will be collected
in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy
are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring
of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency
action.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the
approved remediation strategy and verification report before the first
occupation of the development hereby approved.
25. No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall include:
• Habitat enhancement and creation proposals along the Timperley Brook
corridor;
• A bird nesting strategy;
• A strategy to maintain site permeability for small mammals such as
hedgehog; and
• Details of measures to improve the biodiversity value and creation and
enhancement of habitat across the site and details of the long term
implementation, maintenance and management body responsible for
delivery.
The approved LEMP shall be implemented prior to first occupation and
retained thereafter
26. No occupation of the development hereby approved shall take place until such
time as a travel plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The residential travel plan shall include the following
details:
• Marketing and sales information that shall promote sustainable travel and
clearly inform perspective residents of the reduced level of car parking,
including the potential for future parking restrictions to be imposed along
the roads surrounding the site.
• The measures, incentives, targets, and objectives of the TP.
• The timescales for implementation.
• The timescale for the appointment of a TP Co-ordinator (TPC) and when
their name and contact details provided to the LPA in addition to a list of
their duties and responsibilities.
• A strategy and timescales for long-term monitoring of the TP that shall
include residents travel surveys to be completed no less than once every
two-years, taken from the date of first occupation of the development.
• TP targets shall be reviewed and monitored against a baseline which will be
established within 3-months of 75% occupancy levels.
The approved Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented for a period of not
less than 10 years from the first date of operation.
27. No occupation of the development hereby approved shall take place until a
scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority for offsite highway improvements comprising a new controlled
pedestrian crossing at Thorley Lane near the roundabout with Wood Lane/Clay
Lane and a zebra crossing on Wood Lane. No occupation of the development
shall begin until those works have been completed in accordance with the
approved scheme of works.
28. Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a detailed lighting strategy
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,
which shall:
• Identify areas/features on site that are potentially sensitive to lighting such
as Timperley Brook for bats;
• Show how and where lighting will be installed and through appropriate
lighting contour plans demonstrating clearly that a dark corridor along the
Timperley Brook will be maintained and any impact on bats is negligible;
and
• Specify frequency and duration of use; Thereafter external lighting shall be
installed and retained in accordance with the approved details of the
lighting strategy.
29. The rating level (LAeq,T) from any plant and equipment associated with the
development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the
background noise level (LA90,T) at any time when measured at the nearest
noise sensitive premises at the quietest time that the equipment would be
operating/in use. Noise measurements and assessments should be compliant
with BS 4142:2014 "Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and
industrial areas.
30. The maximum building height for any building within the site shall be two
storeys. This being a maximum of 5.5m measured from ground floor
Ordnance datum points to the underside of eaves and a maximum ridge
height 8.5m from ground floor level datum.
End of Schedule