cheadle area committee papers, 14th july 2015

Web: www.stockport.gov.uk/democracy or scan the QR Code*

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE

Meeting: Tuesday, 14 July, 2015Tea: 5.00 pm

Ladybridge Park Residents Club, Edenbridge Road,Cheadle Hulme

Business: 6.00 pm

Introductions

1. MINUTES (Pages 7 - 16)

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2015.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

3. URGENT DECISIONS

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

4. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS (Pages 17 - 22)

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.

The report provides an update on progress since the last meeting on decisions taken by the Area Committee and details the current position on ward flexibility funding. The report also includes the current position on the ward delegated budgets.

The Area Committee is recommended to note the report.

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

Democratic ServicesTown Hall, Stockport SK1 3XE

Contact: Democratic Services on 0161 474 3216Email: [email protected]

Area Governance

AGENDA

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

(i) Chair's Announcements

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

(ii) Public Question Time

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

(iii) Public Realm

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

(iv) Petitions

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

(v) Open Forum

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

(vi) Ward Flexibility Funding

To consider any applications for Ward Flexibility Funding or to receive feedback from organisations who have received funding.

Non-Executive Business

6. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (Page 23)

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

(a) To consider the development applications where members of the public have attended the meeting in order to speak or hear the Area Committees deliberations.

(b) To consider the remaining development applications.

(c) To consider consultations (if any) received by the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration on any planning issues relevant to the Cheadle area.

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

(i) DC056819 - 9 Rodmill Drive, Gatley (Pages 24 - 40)

Erection of one detached dwelling (resubmission of application DC053379)

The Area Committee is recommended to refuse planning permission.

(ii) DC057948 - 22 Cranston Grove, Gatley (Pages 41 - 51)

Change of use to separate dwelling

The Area Committee is recommended to grant temporary planning permission for a period of one year.

(iii) DC58710 - Bruntwood Hall, Bruntwood Park, Cheadle (Pages 52 - 87)

Refurbishment of Bruntwood Hall to create a 22 room luxury hotel, with associated bars and restaurant areas, external terrace and spa at ground floor and courtyard extension to create additional circulation space.

The Area Committee is recommended to authorise the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration to determine the application, subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement and the relevant commuted sum arrangements.

(iv) DC058745 - 12 Mill Lane, Cheadle Hulme (Pages 88 - 98)

Proposed adaptations and extensions to existing detached dwelling.

The Area Committee is requested to recommend the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee to grant planning permission.

Officer Contact: Jim Seymour on 0161 474 3656 or email: [email protected]

7. PLANNING APPEALS, ENFORCEMENT APPEALS AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICES (Pages 99 - 102)

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive

The report summarises recent appeal decisions, current planning appeals and enforcement activity within the area represented by the Cheadle Area Committee.

The Area Committee is recommended to note the report.

Officer contact: Joy Morton on 0161 474 3217 or email: [email protected]

Executive Business

8. BARCHESTON ROAD AND BROADWAY, CHEADLE - NO WAITING AT ANY TIME TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER (Pages 103 - 107)


The report considers the findings of an investigation into parking concerns at the junction of Barcheston Road and Broadway, Cheadle.

The Area Committee is requested to approve the statutory legal advertising of a No Waiting At Any Time Traffic Regulation Order and, subject to no objections being received within the statutory period, the Order can be made.

Officer Contact: Ed Parry on 0161 474 4801 or email: [email protected]

9. COMMUTED SUMS FOR PLAY (Pages 108 - 112)


The report sets out commuted sums received by the Council from housing developers towards the cost of play provision in the Cheadle area.

That approval be given to the allocation of the commuted sums as detailed in the report.

Officer Contact: Richard Booker on 0161 474 4829 or email: [email protected]

10. ABNEY HALL PARK CAFE (Pages 113 - 116)

To consider ca report of the Corporate Director for Corporate and support Services

The report considers the proposed grant of a lease of the pavilion to allow Abney Project Community Interest Company to continue to operate a tea room with ancillary retail sales.

The Area Committee is requested to note the contents of the report and provide any comments on the proposal to grant a further lease for a term of one year.

Officer Contact: Murray Carr on 0161 474 3019 or email: [email protected]

11. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - MAKERS' MARKETS IN CHEADLE GREEN ON 5 SEPTEMBER, 3 OCTOBER, 7 NOVEMBER 2015 (Pages 117 - 120)


The report considers an event application from Cheadle Civic Society to hold a Makers' Market on Cheadle Green on 5 September, 3 October and 7 November 2015.

The Area Committee is recommended to approve the application, subject to the production of appropriate papers and obtaining a Temporary Event Notice and Street Collection Permit.

Officer Contact: Iain Bate on 0161 474 4421 or email: [email protected]

12. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - 'BARK IN THE PARK' IN ABNEY PARK ON 20 SEPTEMBER 2015 (Pages 121 - 125)


The report considers an event application from Lisa Graham of Muttley Crew Dog Walking and Pet Services to hold a Community Fun Day and Dog Show on 20 September 2015.

The Area Committee is recommended to approve the application, subject to the production of appropriate papers and event plans, to include:-

- An agreed traffic/parking management plan- That the organisers ensure all litter is removed from the event site- That no roadside flyposting is undertaken to advertise the event.

Officer Contact: Iain Bate on 061 474 4421 or email: [email protected]

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive

Town HallStockportMonday, 6 July 2015

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

If you require a copy of the agenda or a particular report(s) by e mail or in large print, Braille or audio, please contact the above person for further details. A minicom facility is available on 0161 474 3128.

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

* Smartphone users can download a QR reader application onto their phone for free. When they see a QR code they can use the phones camera to scan it and are directed automatically to the related web information. The cost of using a QR code is dependent on your mobile phone contract or pre-paid bundle. For further information on costs please contact your mobile provider.

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE

Meeting: 9 June 2015At: 6.00 pm

PRESENT

Councillors Peter Burns, Graham Greenhalgh, Keith Holloway, Sylvia Humphreys, Adrian Nottingham, John Pantall, Paul Porgess, Iain Roberts and June Somekh.

1. ELECTION OF CHAIR

RESOLVED That Councillor Peter Burns be elected Chair of the Area Committee for the period until the next Annual Council Meeting.

Councillor Peter Burns in the Chair

2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR

That Councillor Adrian Nottingham be appointed Vice-Chair of the Area Committee for the period until the next Annual Council Meeting.

3. MINUTES

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 14 April 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors and Officers were invited to declare any interests which they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

The following interests were declared:-

Personal Interest

Councillor Interest

Paul Porgess Agenda item 10 Stockport Neighbourhood Action Plans 2015/16 (Minute 10) as a member of the Board of Stockport Homes.

Personal and Prejudicial Interests

Councillor Interest

Peter Burns Development application DC058201 for a two storey side and front extensions, single storey rear extension and increase in ridge height at 276 Styal Road, Heald Green as he knew the applicant and

Cheadle Area Committee - 9 June 2015

Peter Burns

Peter Burns

had a business connection with him.

Councillor Burns left the meeting during consideration of the item and took no part in the discussion or vote.

Agenda item 17 Park Event Application Sponsored Walk by St. James Catholic High School through Bruntwood Park on 19 June 2015 as one of the beneficiaries of the charity walk is The Wellspring (Stockport) Limited of which he is a Director and Trustee.


Agenda item 18 Park Event Application Heald Green Festival at Outwood Road Playing Fields on 27 June 2015 as his wife is a member of the Heald Green Festival Committee.


5. URGENT DECISIONS

The Chair reported that on 26 May 2015 the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration, in consultation with the then Chair of the Area Committee and Ward Councillors, had determined Prior Approval reference DC058221 upgrade of existing telecommunications equipment, including a 12.0 metre steelworks tower, equipment cabinet and associated works at a bridge over the A34, Turves Road/Etchells Road within the Heald Green Ward.

6. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS

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

RESOLVED That the report be noted.

7. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

(i) Chair's Announcements

The Chair advised members of the public of the details of the summer festivals being held in the Cheadle area during June and July, and encouraged members of the public to support them.


(ii) Public Question Time

Members of the public were invited to put questions to the Chair of the Area Committee on any matters within the powers and duties of the Area Committee, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.

Two public questions were submitted.

The first question related to the recent application for Bruntwood Hall which had included an external terrace. This terrace was on land not owned by the current owners of Bruntwood Hall and the questioner enquired whether the Council has come to an arrangement with the applicant about the use of the land.

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration confirmed that a revised planning application for Bruntwood Hall had been re-submitted. The proposed terrace was on land owned by the Council and would therefore be subject to the Councils procedure for determining land and property transactions as opposed to development applications.

The second public question had been submitted by a member of the public who was not present at the meeting. The representative of the Democratic Services Manager advised that, in accordance with the Code of Practice, a written response would be provided to the questioner.

(iii) Public Realm

David Wilson (Public Realm Inspector) attended the meeting to report on current issues and to answer questions from Councillors and members of the public in relation to public realm issues within the area represented by the Cheadle Area Committee.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

The problems in coordinating work being carried out by United Utilities and the Council, as had recently been experienced at the junction of Ladybridge Road and Twining Brook Road, Cheadle Hulme. The resurfaced road now meant that traffic was travelling more quickly along it.

Motorists were now speeding on Norbrack Avenue following its resurfacing and the introduction of speed restrictions were being examined.

Motorists speeding in the 20mph zone on St. Anns Road, Heald Green. An infestation of weeds on Wilmslow Road, Heald Green, near to The Griffin public

house, on the Cheadle Royal side of the traffic lights as motorists turn right to go down Finney Lane required attention.

A badly rusted sign at the junction of Outwood Road and Finney Lane, Heald Green which was obscured by overgrown vegetation also required attention.

The problem of parked cars meaning potholes could not be repaired in the Hamilton Road area. Heald Green.

There had been a number of outbreaks of graffiti in the area, in particular on Brown Lane, Heald Green.


RESOLVED That David Wilson be thanked for his attendance.

(iv) Petitions

No petitions were submitted.

(v) Open Forum

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

(vi) Ward Flexibility Funding: All Hallows Church - Youth Group

Helen Turner of All Hallows Church Youth Group attended the meeting to answer questions from the Area Committee in relation to an application for Ward Flexibility Funding seeking funding towards the provision of equipment for the church youth group.

RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Manager be recommended to make a grant of 500 to All Hallows Church Youth Group towards the cost of the equipment for the church youth group, to be funded from the Cheadle Hulme North Ward budget.

(vii) Ward Flexibility Funding - Targeted Youth Engagement Services C.I.C (TYES)

Mr Simon Leroux attended the meeting and submitted an application on behalf of the Targeted Youth Engagement Services CIC for Ward Flexibility Funding towards the cost of providing a series of intensive sessions covering issues around self-esteem, sexual exploitation, appropriate relationships and sexual health culminating in a film being presented in schools across the borough by the young women who made it.

RESOLVED That ward flexibility funding be not provided to Targeted Youth Engagement Services CIC, but that the organisation be offered assistance, if requested, in approaching other funding sources.

8. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Development applications were submitted.

(NOTE: Full details of the decisions including conditions and reasons for granting or refusing planning permission and imposing conditions are given in the schedule of plans. The Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration is authorised to determine conditions and reasons and they are not therefore referred to in committee minutes unless the committee makes a specific decision on a condition or reason. In order to reduce printing costs and preserve natural resources, the schedule of plans is not reproduced within these minutes. A copy of the schedule of plans is available on the councils website at www.stockport.gov.uk/planningdecisions. Copies of the schedule of plans, or any part thereof, may be obtained from the Services to Place Directorate upon payment of the Councils reasonable charges).


The Chair outlined the procedure approved by the Council for public speaking on planning applications.

Councillor Adrian Nottingham in the Chair

(i) DC058201 - 276 Styal Road, Heald Green

In respect of two storey side and front extensions, single storey rear extension and increase in ridge height at 276 Styal Road, Heald Green

the applicant spoke in support of the application

It was then

RESOLVED That the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee be recommended to approve the application, subject to the conditions contained in the report and the removal of permitted development rights.


(ii) DC058234 - Pendlebury Road, Gatley

In respect of plan no. 58234 for the demolition of existing garages and erection of two dwellings at Pendlebury Road, Gatley

a member of the public spoke against the application.

It was then

RESOLVED (Eight for, One against) That planning permission be granted, subject to the removal of permitted development rights.

9. APPEAL DECISIONS, CURRENT PLANNING APPEALS, ENFORCEMENT APPEALS & ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report of the Deputy Chief Executive (copies of which had been circulated) listing any outstanding or recently determined planning appeals and enforcements within the area represented by the Cheadle Area Committee. RESOLVED That the report be noted.

10. STOCKPORT NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTION PLANS 2015/16

A representative of the West Area Housing Manager (Stockport Homes Limited) submitted a report (copies of which have been circulated) providing the Area Committee with an update on progress on the delivery of Stockport Homes Neighbourhood Action Plans and sought comments on progress to date and any future actions for inclusion in the current 2015-16 and future action plans.



Members expressed appreciation for the work carried out at the flats at York Close, Cheadle.. Residents had requested whether some of the land could be used for gardening or allotments.

Whether there was any targeted provision towards combating unemployment and benefit dependency in the Cheadle area.

The poor condition of the stairwells in the flats on Councillor Lane, Cheadle. The need for collaborative working between Stockport Homes and other housing

providers, such as Mossbank Homes.

RESOLVED That the achievements during 2014/15 and the proposed Neighbourhood Action Plans for 2015/16 be noted.


11. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - SPONSORED WALK BY ST JAMES' CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL THROUGH BRUNTWOOD PARK ON 19 JUNE 2015

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated) regarding an application from St. James Catholic High School to hold a sponsored walk through Bruntwood Park on 19 June 2015,

RESOLVED That approval be given to an application from St. James Catholic High School to hold a sponsored walk through Bruntwood Park on 19 June 2015, subject to the production of appropriate papers and event plans.


12. BROOKFIELD PARK SHIERS FAMILY TRUST ANNUAL REPORT 2014/15

A representative of the Corporate Director for Corporate and Support Services submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the financial standing of the Brookfield Park Shiers Family Trust which indicated the amount of money available for distribution to organisations and also requesting that the Area Committee formally adopt the Financial Accounts of the Trust for the year ending 31 March 2015 and advise as to the investment strategy that they wished to follow.

RESOLVED (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That the Financial Accounts of the Brookfield Park Shiers Family Trust for the year ending 31 March 2015 be formally adopted.

(3) That a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Area Committee regarding the effect of loneliness amongst elderly residents and the consequential effect on their health.

(4) That 25,000 be reserved from the Trust towards addressing the issues referred to in (3) above.


(5) That 15,000 be made available for support to local voluntary organisations.

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

13. ARGYLL ROAD AND COUNCILLOR LANE, CHEADLE - TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated) regarding the findings of an investigation into parking concerns at the junction of Argyll Road and Councillor Lane, Cheadle.

RESOLVED That the Executive Councillor (Supporting Places) be recommended to approve the statutory legal advertising of the following Traffic Regulation Order on Argyll Road and Councillor Lane, Cheadle at an approximate cost of 525 to be funded from the Area Committees Delegated Budget (Cheadle Hulme North Ward allocation) and, subject to no objections being received within twenty one days from the advertisement date, the order be made:-

Revocation of No Waiting Mon-Fri 8.30am-9am, 11.30am-2pm & 3.15pm-4.30pm

Councillor Lane, Cheadle - south side, from the westerly kerb line of Argyll Road for a distance on 10 metres in a westerly direction.

Proposed No Waiting at Any Time

Councillor Lane, Cheadle - south side, from a point 10 metres west of the westerly kerb line of Argyll Road to a point 10 metres east of the easterly kerb line of Argyll Road.

Argyll Road, Cheadle - both sides, from the southerly kerb line of Councillor Lane for a distance of 15 metres in a southerly direction.

14. WALDON AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD, CHEADLE - TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the findings of a consultation exercise and seeking approval to the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order on Waldon Avenue and Wilmslow Road, Cheadle.

RESOLVED That the Executive Councillor (Supporting Places) be recommended to approve the legal advertising of the following Traffic Regulation Order at an approximate cost of 975 to be funded from the Area Committees Delegated Budget (Cheadle and Gatley Ward allocation) and, subject to no objections being received within twenty one days from the advertisement date, the order be made:-

Proposed No Waiting at Any Time

Waldon Avenue, Cheadle - both sides, from the westerly kerb line of Wilmslow Road for a distance of 10 metres in a westerly direction.


Wilmslow Road, Cheadle - west side, from a point 10 metres south of the southerly kerb line of Waldon Avenue to a point 10 metres north of the northerly kerb line of Waldon Avenue.

Proposed No Waiting Monday Friday 10am 4pm

Waldon Avenue, Cheadle - north side, from a point 10 metres west of the westerly kerb line of Wilmslow Road for a distance of approximately 79 metres in a westerly, south westerly, south easterly and north easterly direction (encompassing the whole turning circle of Waldon Avenue terminating at the boundary between numbers 1 and 3).

Waldon Avenue, Cheadle - south side, from a point 10 metres west of the westerly kerb line of Wilmslow Road for a distance of 30.5 metres in a westerly direction.

15. TRAFFIC ISSUES - QUEENS ROAD AREA, CHEADLE HULME

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

The Area Committee was advised that the timetable for the implementation of the Traffic Regulation Orders in the Queens Road area, Cheadle Hulme would be as follows:-

The draft designs would be issued to the Ward Spokesperson for consideration. Once the draft designs were approved, consultation would be undertaken on the

scheme. It was anticipated that this would commence during the week commencing 1 June and run for a period of three weeks.

Residents comments and suggestions would then be discussed with the Ward Spokesperson.

The details of the consultation and agreed amendments would then be reported to the next available meeting of the Cheadle Area Committee on either 14 July or 11 August 2015.

RESOLVED That a report on the consultation with residents of the Queens Road area, Cheadle Hulme be submitted to the meeting of the Area Committee on either 14 July or 11 August 2015.

16. SHORT-STAY PARKING IN CHURCH ROAD/WOODS LANE CAR PARK, SMITHY GREEN, CHEADLE HULME

With the agreement of the Committee, this item was withdrawn.

17. CHEADLE VILLAGE GREEN, CHEADLE

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Corporate and Support Services (copies of which had been circulated) regarding a request from the Cheadle Civic Society for a lease in respect of Cheadle Village Green, as shown on the plan attached to the report.



There should be a plaque on the green acknowledging the donor of the green. The Council was grateful to the current commitment of the members of Cheadle

Civic Society, but this could not be guaranteed in the future if its membership changed. The Council was, however, keen to encourage community groups to do as much as possible.

The Cheadle Civic Society could consider appointing a Councillor to it as a means of supporting a strong working relationship between the Society and the Council.

Local traders should be strongly encouraged to engage in the Makers Markets. A Member felt that the Area Committee should retain some involvement in the

organisation of wider community events at Cheadle Green. It was important that the condition of Cheadle Green was retained.

RESOLVED That the Corporate Director for Corporate and Support Services be advised that the Area Committee recommends that a six year lease be offered to Cheadle Civic Society for Cheadle Village Green, with the intention that after two years it is renewed for a further two years.


18. PARK EVENT APPLICATION - HEALD GREEN FESTIVAL AT OUTWOOD ROAD PLAYING FIELDS ON 27 JUNE 2015

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated) regarding a request from the Heald Green Festival to hold the annual festival on Outwood Road Playing Fields on 27 June 2015.

RESOLVED That the application from the Heald Green Festival Committee to hold the annual festival on Outwood Road Playing Fields on 27 June 2015 be approved, subject to the production of the appropriate papers and event plans.

19. AREA COMMITTEE HIGHWAY WARD SPOKESPERSON

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Area Committee to nominate Ward Spokespersons with whom the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration could consult on highway maintenance and traffic management matters, and the expenditure of the Ward Delegated Budget up to 300.

RESOLVED That the following councillors be appointed as Ward Spokespersons for highway and traffic management issues:-

Cheadle and Gatley Ward Councillor Graham GreenhalghCheadle Hulme North Ward Councillor Paul PorgessHeald Green Ward Councillor Sylvia Humphreys

20. NOMINATION OF AUTHORITY GOVERNORS

There were no vacancies to consider.


The meeting closed at 8.23 pm

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE Date: 14 July 2015

PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

WARD FLEXIBILITY FUNDING

The amounts available to be spent in 2015/16, incorporating the monies carried forward and a budget of 3,000 per ward for 2015/16, are as follows:-

Cheadle and Gatley Cheadle Hulme North Heald Green

Funding awarded in 2014/15

Chelwood Foodbank Plus

Cheadle Village Partnership

Manchester Rugby Club

St. Anns Road North Allotment Association

Budget carried forward

Cheadle Golf Club

150

500

250

450

5,404.25

250



Cheadle Village Partnership

Manchester Rugby Club

St Anns Road North Allotment Association


All Hallows Church Youth Group

Cheadle Golf Club

250

500

250

50

11,095.30

452.92

250



St. Anns Road North Allotment Association


Cheadle Golf Club

100

450

13,549.60

200

AGENDA ITEM 3

All Hallows Church Youth Group

500

8,154.25 12, 892.38 16,349.60

Appendix A - Resume Of Issues Progress Report

SCHEME

CA

LLED

IN?

Y/N

WIT

H T

RA

FFIC

SE

RVI

CES

WIT

H L

EGA

L

ON

AD

VER

T

OB

JEC

TIO

NS?

Y/N

AW

AIT

ING

O

PS. D

ATE

OPE

RA

TIVE

D

ATE

COMMENTS

Manchester Road, CheadleMJ11/03/2014

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report seeking the comments of the Area Committee regarding the proposed Manchester Road cycle route following the successful bid for funding from the Department for Transport, via the Cycle City Ambition Grant. The cost of the scheme was approximately 450,000 which would be included in the 2014/15 Highways Capital Programme. Scheme on site est 12 week construction programme. Civil works substantially complete by end of October, works over M60 bridge delayed due to Highways Agency request for additional info.

Cycle Links to Gatley StationMJ23/09/14

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regenerationsubmitted a report seeking the Area Committees comments regarding the proposed cycle links to Gatley Railway Station following the successful bid for funding from the Department for Transport via the Cycle City AmbitionGrant to provide cycle safety improvements on/off the highway within the Borough. Scheme on site.

Waldon Avenue, CheadleAV03/02/2015

A report setting out the results of an investigation with regard to parked vehicles causing access problems on Waldon Avenue, Cheadle. Re-consultation underway with local residents, details will be reported back to the Ward Spokesperson. Report issued to June AC meeting

Outwood Drive, Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration regarding the

Heald GreenAV10/03/2015

findings of an investigation into the proposed extension of the existing No Waiting At Any Time restrictions on Outwood Drive, Heald Green. Operative from 25th June 2015. Lining crew having problems due to vehicle parked blocking access. Traffic Services investigating if vehicle can be removed.

Stanley Road, Heald GreenAV10/03/2015

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration outlining the results of vehicle speed data obtained arising from an investigation into the speed of vehicles using Stanley Road, Heald Green close to the entrance to the Seashell Trust. Exec Cllr has approved, decision to be published. Works order for VAS signs has been issued to contractor

Councillor Lane, CheadleAV04/15

Democratic Services Manager submitted a report regarding the findings of an investigation into concerns regarding parking on residential roads adjacent to a local clinic in the vicinity of Councillor Lane, Cheadle. On advert.

Church Road/Stonepail Road, GatleyAV04/15

Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration regarding the outcome of an investigation into parking at the junction of Church Road and Stonepail Road, Gatley. On advert. Operative from 24th August 2015.

Byron Drive, CheadleAV04/15

Democratic Services Manager submitted a report regarding the findings of an investigation into concerns with regard to on-street parking on Byron Drive, Cheadle. Works order has been issued. Works have been completed.

Argyll Road, CheadleAV

Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration regarding the findings of an investigation into parking concerns at the junction of Argyll Road and Councillor Lane, Cheadle.

06/15

Waldon Avene,CheadleAV06/15

Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration setting out the findings of a consultation exercise and seeking approval to the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order on Waldon Avenue and Wilmslow Road, Cheadle.

Cheadle Delegated Budget

Ward Balance brought forward from

2013/14)

Budget 2014/15

Total Available

Approved and Estimated Schemes

Available Balance

Cheadle and Gatley

20,910 10,750 31,660 700 30,960

Cheadle Hulme North

3,990 10,750 14,740 1,500 13,240

Heald Green 26,260 10,750 37,010 0 37,010

Total 51,160 32,250 83,410 2,200 81,210

Cheadle Committee 14 July 2015

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Report of the Corporate Director Place Item 1: DC/056819 SITE ADDRESS: 9 RODMILL DRIVE, GATLEY, STOCKPORT, SK8 4JX PROPOSAL: Erection of one detached dwelling (Resubmission of application DC053379). Item 2: DC/057948 SITE ADDRESS : 22 CRANSTON GROVE PROPOSAL: Change of use to seperate dwelling. Item 3: DC/058710 SITE ADDRESS: BRUNTWOOD HALL, BRUNTWOOD PARK, CHEADLE PROPOSAL: Refurbishment of Bruntwood Hall to create a 22 room luxury hotel, with associated bars and restaurant areas, external terrace and spa at ground floor and courtyard extension to create additional circulation space. Item 4: DC/058745 SITE ADDRESS: 12 MILL LANE, CHEADLE HULME PROPOSAL: Proposed adaptations and extensions to existing detched dwelling. INFORMATION These applications need to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applicants [and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations] have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments. Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 confer(s) a right of respect for a persons home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Development and Control has concluded that some rights conferred by these Articles on the applicant(s)/objectors/residents and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

This Copyright has been made by or with the authority of SMBC pursuant to section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the Act). Unless the Act provides the prior permission of the copyright owner. (Copyright (Material Open to Public Inspection) (Marking of Copies of Maps) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1099) Application Reference: DC/056819 Location: 9 RODMILL DRIVE, GATLEY, STOCKPORT, SK8 4JX Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling (Resubmission of

application DC053379)

Type of Application: Full Planning Permission

Registration Date: 17/10/2014 Expiry Date: 12/12/2014 Case Officer: Jim Seymour

Applicant: Mr C Yiasoumi Agent : Garner Town Planning Ltd COMMITTEE STATUS Cheadle Area - More than 4 letters of support received. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Full application for the erection of one detached dwelling. The application is a resubmission of previous application DC053379 (see history below). This is also an amended proposal which has been modified in an attempt to deal with a variety of issues raised by officers. The dwelling would be sited adjacent to the existing property at no.9 Rodmill Drive with the existing garage at this property being demolished to part facilitate the development. The dwelling would front onto the existing turning head and have a small area of front garden and be set back slightly from the existing building frontage of no.9. Due to the steep nature of the site, which falls away sharply from the highway in an easterly direction towards a watercourse, the building is built out and elevated above prevailing ground levels culminated in two storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space and a raised decking area on pillars to the rear. The dwelling has a footprint dimensioning 7.7m wide x 8m deep. The design of the property has been amended to reflect the prevailing character of the area and presents a gable elevation to the street frontage with a slightly higher ridge line than the adjacent property. The dwelling is single storey to the frontage but contains accommodation within the roof space and a flat roofed dormer window on the southern roof slope. The dwelling contains two bedrooms in the roof space with the main bedroom served by a large window and Juliet balcony detail on the rear gable. To the rear of the property elevated above ground level lies a level decking area accessed from the ground floor of the premises with a set of steps at its northern end down the intended garden area. The intended garden is of an irregular shape and dimension occupying the remaining sloping valley side immediately below the proposed dwelling and then extending

as a narrow swath of land in a northerly direction to the west of the brook. A single car parking space is proposed to the side of the property accessed via the turning head at Rodmill Drive. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application relates to part of the side garden area on no. 9 Rodmill Drive and lies to the south of the dwelling. No 9 Rodmill Drive is a detached bungalow and garage fronting onto Rodmill Drive within a row of similar properties forming of this small cul-de-sac. The property is sited at the end of the cul-de-sac and has a large irregular shaped garden that occupies a small but steep valley side running down towards a brook. No. 9 has a plateau rear garden above a retaining wall with immediately to its rear at a significantly lower level a flatter elongated area that runs in a northerly direction behind no.s 5 and 7 Rodmill Drive and adjoins the brook. To the south of no. 9 lies the site of the proposed dwelling consisting of a steeper section of valley side and is overgrown with vegetation and contains several mature and semi mature trees and other vegetation. Several mature trees also overhang the site from land adjacent to the south which is a wider wooded area covered by Tree Preservation Order. On the opposite side of the brook to the east lies more woodland on the opposite valley side with a large property beyond on higher ground at no.61 Linksway. POLICY BACKGROUND The application site is allocated as lying within a Predominantly Residential Area, as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. The rear section of the site is also allocated as part of a wider green Chain Designation. The following policies are therefore relevant :- Saved UDP policies EP1.10 : AIRCRAFT NOISE L1.2 : CHILDRENS PLAY NE3.1- PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF GREEN CHAINS Core Strategy DPD policies CS1 : OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING

INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGES SD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES SD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN : NEW DEVELOPMENT SD-6 : ADAPTING TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE CS2 : HOUSING PROVISION CS3 : MIX OF HOUSING CS4 : DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING H-1 : DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT H-2 : HOUSING PHASING CS8 : SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT SIE-1 : QUALITY PLACES SIE-2 : PROVISION OF RECREATION AND AMENITY OPEN SPACE IN NEW

DEVELOPMENTS SIE-3 : PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE ENVIRONMENT

CS9 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT T-1 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT T-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS T-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS SPG DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPD SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SPD National Planning Legislation THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) PLANNING HISTORY No relevant planning history. NEIGHBOURS VIEWS The occupiers of 16 neighbouring properties have been notified in writing of the proposal. In total 9 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds: 1. There have been various sets of drawings submitted many which are different form each other. 2. There is a watercourse within 20m of the site. 3. The steep bank is unstable and a construction management plan should be submitted. 4. The proposed garden size is too small. 5. The site has badgers and bats on it and the impact on these has not been properly assessed. 6. The garden would be too steep and unsafe for children next to a watercourse. 7. How will sewerage be disposed of ? 8. Loss of garage will set a precedent 9. The proposal will impact on the turning circle and service vehicles being able to service other properties. 10. Building in this location would impact on maintenance access for numbers 9, 7 and 5 Rodmill Drive. 11. The proposal will impact negatively on birds, badgers and bats and this has not been considered properly. 12. The proposal will not provide enough separation to the back of footway. 13. The proposal does not provide enough space around it. 14. The proposal does not provide a useable garden area. 15. The proposal does not respect the character of surrounding properties. 16. The dormer in the roof is ugly and out of character. 17. The raised decking is out of character.

18. The proposal will result in reducing no.9 amenity to a below standard level. 19. The proposal will result in another buy-to-let property. 20. The proposal could lead to subsidence. 21. Subsidence has occurred in the area and this proposal will increase the risk to other properties in particular no. 9. 22. The proposal does not provide enough off street parking. 23. The dwelling will not maintain the spacious feel of the area. 24. The proposal is overdevelopment 25. There is not enough space here to slot in another dwelling. 26. The forms are incomplete with various sections not filled in properly. 27. The proposal is "Garden Grabbing" 28. The proposed will be in shade for most of the day 29. The decking will overlook no. 9. 30. The proposal will result in the removal of mature trees and damage those that remain. 31. The tree survey submitted is not adequate 32. The energy statement is not adequate. 33. The proposal contravenes lifetime homes standards. 34. The proposal represents cramming. 35. There is no refuse storage area. 36. The removal of trees will impact on the ecology of the area. 37. The proposal will trespass on adjoining land 38. The site has been partially cleared prior to permission being granted which is underhand practice. 39. No information on materials of construction is used. 40. The applicant has simply ignored the feelings of all other residents/neighbours. 41. The letters of support come form people who do not live near the site or family members of the applicant. This is inappropriate. In addition letters of support from 5 addresses have been received. It should however be noted that one of these addresses relates directly to the applicants own house with letters of support from either the applicant or his family members and these letters therefore do not carry weight. The other letters raise support on the following grounds: 1. Gatley does not have enough houses. 2. There are no houses in Gatley for family members to move into who want to stay in Gatley. 3. There is plenty of space for a house in this location 4. The land isn't used for anything so a new house would be a good use of land 5. The proposal will add value to the site. 6. No wildlife will be lost to the development. 7. This part of the cul-de-sac is dark and gloomy and a new dwelling will brighten it up. 8. The new house will be a small affordable unit and will benefit the area. 9. A house should have been built here in the first place. CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Arboricultural Officer: The building footprints predominantly sits within the existing garden area of the residential property. The development of the residential property shall have a negative impact on many mature trees or high level specimen tree within the property of the development or the neighbouring property. The site design appears to be a high density for the small garden area which will have a high demand/risk for future tree works and actionable nuisances from the trees on the site and neighbouring sites and as such will require the detailed method statement for preventative actions, restrictions on access and ground protection to be conditioned and implemented as only with these restrictions on construction will this development not affect the trees to an unacceptable level, as several trees will either be lost or heavily pruned losing the amenity levels of the trees as such I could not recommend the application without it. The main residential access driveways/roads will also create additional semi major tree loss and open up access into the steep valley for the woodland area. There is clearly a need for a detailed landscaping plan to show the level of off-setting the loss and further more enhancing the site in accordance with council policy, which could be conditioned as long as they acknowledge the need for improving the amenity/biodiversity prior to approval. The site layout plan and application has finally included information in relation to the oak trees situated in the woodland on the south eastern boundary which shows the level of encroachments and the required root protection areas as these trees are within influencing distance and have a major canopy area over the proposed residential property. To this end the issues relate to root zone encroachment as several working areas are located within these zones it will be a condition to work in accordance with the proposed method of protection identified by the arboriculture impact assessment. As such there are arboriculture reasons to refuse this application unless the detailed method statements for construction period, root protection plans conditioning restrictions and landscaping proposals showing the replacement trees and hedges to off-set the tree loss on the site. These will give more detailed assessment on the potential impact on the trees in or neighbouring the site, the following documents will be required to be submitted; method statements for construction, arboriculture impact assessment, additional root protection plans and the landscape proposals. Nature Development Officer: The trees that will need to be removed to accommodate the development will need to be assessed for bat roost potential, as will the building proposed for removal (the garage) with the possibility of a bat survey being required, as per the ecology report. Appropriate mitigation/compensatory planting will also be required. There has also been no reference to the presence of the Green Chain within/directly adjacent to the site, despite this being raised in my previous comments, nor details of a method statement for the construction of the proposed property to demonstrate how the site will be levelled to build the property without impacting on the TPOd woodland/green chain and water course. Highways Engineer: The concept of a new dwelling at this location has been previously reviewed by highways engineers at part of application DC/053379. No highway objections were

raised at that time and I can see no real change from the previous application therefore I raise no objection subject to the previously suggested conditions. Recommendation: No objection subject to conditions (Comments for DC/053379 - The application is for a new dwelling at the end of a cul-de-sac. The site is situated in an accessible location having regard to the Council's assessment criteria and is considered appropriate for residential development. The provision of one additional dwelling in this location raises no concerns.) Recommendation: No objections. Planning Policy (Housing): The proposal is for one no. 2/3-bed detached dwelling on garden land of an existing residential property. On the upper floor plans 2 bedrooms are indicated along with a study. The development is of such a scale that there is no requirement for any affordable housing provision. The site is over 800m from the nearest large local or district centre and therefore does not fall within the first two spatial priority areas for housing location as set out in Policy CS4 (Distribution of Housing) of the Core Strategy. However, the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply with 3.1 years of supply against a requirement in national policy for at least 5 years. In such situations Policy H2 (Housing Phasing) of the Core Strategy allows for housing development on sites which meet the Councils accessibility criteria. In this case the front of the site scores 43.5, which exceeds the current minimum score of 34 for housing. The site appears to be mainly greenfield land currently used as garden land for an adjacent residential property. Policy CS4 sets out a hierarchy for development of urban greenfield sites. The first of these is accessible sites not designated as open space, with the second the use of private residential gardens in accessible urban locations where proposals respond to the character of the area and maintain good standards of amenity and privacy for the occupants of existing housing. Given the Councils continued position of housing under-supply urban greenfield sites need to be considered as potential development sites, subject to the hierarchy and sequential approach described in Policy CS4. There are very few sites in the first level of that hierarchy and therefore garden sites which meet the requirements of policy are currently acceptable sites for housing development. Consequently, subject to assessment against other policies relating to design, amenity and privacy, the proposal meets the requirements of Core Strategy Policies CS4 and H2, as well as adding to the housing numbers and mix in line with Core Policies CS2 and CS3. Environment Egency: No objections Environmental Health (Contaminated land): No objections subject to standard informative. ANALYSIS

1. Landuse The front section of the site application site is located within a Predominantly Residential Area, as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. It is noted that the application site is not located within one of the two main spatial priority areas for residential development, as set out in Core Strategy DPD policy CS4. However, the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply, with 3.1 years worth of supply against a requirement in national policy for 5 years plus. In these circumstances, Core Strategy DPD policy H-2 allows for residential development on sites that meet the relevant accessibility criteria. It is noted that the site achieves an accessibility score of 43.5 which exceeds the current minimum accessibility score of 34 (for housing) required for new housing. In view of the above, as outlined by the policy officer, the general principle of an additional residential dwelling on the site is considered acceptable, in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS2, CS4 and H-2. Matters of detail as required by policy CS-4 are discussed below. The rear section of the site is also located within a Green Chain which forms a link between Gatley Golf Course and Scholes Park. Saved UDP Review policy NE3.1 seeks to protect Green Chains throughout the borough and will not permit development which would detract from their value in this respect. It should be noted that the presence of a Green Chain does not preclude development but proposals should not lessen their value in terms of wildlife potential or impede movement of wildlife through them. The proposed dwelling does not build across the Green Chain in the whole. The majority of the site affected by the designation would remain as garden as shown on the plans and the proposed decking would be elevated above it. The agent has specified that this would mean wildlife would retain the ability to move through the site. The proposal does however alter the appearance of the site, result in the removal of trees and potentially generate conflict for damage too and removal of other trees off site which could affect the quality and value of the Green Chain designation. This is discussed in more detail within the Tree and Ecology section below. 2. Residential amenity The proposal would result in a building almost level with the adjacent property frontage at no.9 and as such continues the straight run of properties along this side of Rodmill Drive. The proposal dwelling is one storey in height with rooms/accommodation within the roof space and gable fronted with a roof height to respect the existing ridge heights of other properties in the street. In terms of existing residents the proposal will introduce a new building to a currently undeveloped plot of land and therefore will clearly alter the outlook for nearby properties. In this respect the main properties affected are those on the opposite side of Rodmill Drive and the adjacent property at no. 9 (which is also in the applicants control). Properties on the opposite side of Rodmill Drive will have a clear view of the proposal however the required 21m separation distance is provided so there is no policy confliction with privacy separation distances in this instance. The side elevation of no. 9 contains no habitable windows and therefore, being in line with this property, the proposal raises no amenity issues in this respect either. The nearest property to the opposite side of the valley (61 linksway) is sited so far away and offset from view that there no issues in respect of overlooking in this direction either to its occupants. The proposal incorporates a dormer window to its side elevation but this faces open woodland and offers no overlooking to any adjoining properties. The proposed deck

would allow some overlooking to the rear garden area of no.9 but this is not unusual of any residential situation and the decking would be approximately at the same level as that garden level rather than elevated above it. In summary the proposed dwelling raises no immediate concerns in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. In terms of intended residents the situation is less straightforward. Given the above situation the proposed dwelling is not considered to be overlooked and will offer adequate privacy in this regard for its occupants. However the proposed dwelling does not offer a particularly good outlook/aspect or amenity space for its intended residents. The site is narrow from front to back tapering quickly in depth as it reaches the southern end of the site. The site also slopes steeply with steepness increasing also towards the southern boundary. The net result is a dwelling built at street level on the frontage but with a rear elevation is elevated significantly above true ground levels (approximately 4m to ground floor/decking level and 6m to first floor level) and therefore would extend outwards into the site almost at canopy level with trees to the rear and side. Three trees would be removed to facilitate the development however other trees are nearby and would be close to the deck and rear elevation of the property offering a potentially very enclosed feel to the rear elevation and deck. This combined with the sloping nature of the land immediately to the rear of the dwelling and long and thin swath of garden area to the north overlooked from both the east and west by existing properties means that other then the decked area the dwelling would have very little private and beneficially useable garden space as required by the Councils policies and design guidance. In this respect it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would offer and acceptable level of amenity for its residents. On this basis the proposal is not considered to comply with policies SIE-1 and H-1 of the Core strategy which seek good quality design with good levels of residential amenity and privacy for intended residents. In addition given that the proposal is considered to fail the basic tests of Policy H-1 the proposal is also consider to conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS4 which will only permit new dwellings on urban greenfield sites where they accord with policy H-1's requirements. The site lies within the noise contour area where aircraft noise is a relevant consideration. However the standard condition to require and provide acceptable sound attenuation could be added to any permission issued and this would adequately deal with this amenity issue. 3. Design. Policies H-1, SIE-1 and the SPD require all new housing development should respond too the local area in terms of layout, scale, and appearance and should employ design measures that follow existing street proportions, plot densities and layouts, building lines, building composition and roofline's and have a general design and appearance that respects the prevailing character of the area. This proposal has been amended and now considered to satisfactorily deal with many of the above requirements in terms of its siting, general appearance and roof type and now sits appropriately within the prevailing character of the area. The addition of the dormer adds a feature to the roof that is not typical of the prevailing house designs. It should however be noted that a similar dormer could be added to many of the adjoining properties as permitted development and therefore it would be unreasonable to resist the design of the proposal based on this element. The proposed rooof also has a slightly higher ridge height than the adajcent

property however this is not considered to be so significant to be a major concern. In respect of impact within the streetscene the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Although the proposal would result in an acceptable street appearance the comments outlined above, regarding the level of amenity that would be offered to intended residents in terms of outlook and beneficial amenity space, and the contrived elevated nature of the design which raises the dwelling significantly above prevailing ground levels to the rear to give enough useable floor space is considered to identify that this is really not a plot that is capable of being satisfactorily developed. The elevated rear nature is uncharacteristic of all adjoining properties which have a similar ground level, at least in part, to front and rear and are not built into such a steep slope with the resultant tall rear elevation. On this basis the proposal is considered to represent poor design and not respect the character of the area contrary to the provisions of policies H-1, SIE-1 and the associated residential design SPD. 4. Trees and Ecology Part of the site is designated as a green chain on the proposal map and the site contains mature trees (some scheduled for removal), is adjoined by mature trees (their canopies and root zones) and has known ecological value (Badger set nearby). There is also potential for bat roosting environment at trees on site and at the detached garage scheduled for demolition. Three trees would be removed and the current undeveloped and partially overgrown nature of the site would be lost to the proposal for development by the dwelling/decking area and more manicured garden. The Councils Arboricultural and nature Development Officers have considered the proposal with both having initial concerns about the impact of the proposal on these ecological interests. Information has been submitted to try and deal with these issues including a revised tree report and method statment however both officers still have concerns over the impact of the proposal and the failure to demonstrate that such impacts could be adequately mitigated against. Relevant development plan policies SIE-3 and NE3.1 seek to ensure there is no detriment to the ecological and nature interests of a sites and green chain designation and will not permit development until it is demonstrated that the ecological value of the site can be maintained. At present the tree officer is not satisfied that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on surrounding trees (their root zones and canopies) nor that the presence of a dwelling in such close proximity will not generate future pressure and damage on these trees. In addition it is not considered that a satisfactory replacement tree planting or landscaping scheme is included as part of the development to mitigate for tree loss proposed. In respect of other nature/ecology issues, whilst a badger survey has satisfactorily dealt with this specific species the Nature Conservation Officer is not satisfied that the proposal has properly considered its position within the green chain designation, the impact it would have on the designation or undertaken the relevant studies for other protected species including bats. On this basis the proposal is not considered to comply with the requirements of policies SIE-3 and NE3.1 of the development plan. 5. Highways The proposal includes a single parking area for the new dwelling accessed via Rodmill Drive turning head. The highways engineer has inspected the proposal and raises no objections to the amended proposal subject to conditions relating to permeable surfacing, visibility for

pedestrians and cycle parking provision. On this basis the application is considered to comply with Core Strategy Policies T-1, T-2 and T-3. 6. Open Space The proposed 2 bed dwelling would increase the population capacity at the site and therefore falls to be considered under Policy SIE-2. The proposal generates a requirement for a commuted sum of 1950.50 to satisfy policy requirements however as a result of the Ministerial Statement of November 2014 and associated amendments to the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) this cannot be collected. 7. Other matters There is no reason to suggest that land contamination would be an issue at the site. Standard conditions/informative's could over come this issue and provide the necessary protection in any case. An energy statement has been submitted which identifies that this is a single plot development and any dwelling would be design to latest building regulations (Part L1A) requirements so therefore there is no reason to suggest the proposal could not comply with Core Strategy DPD policy SD-3. In addition permeable drainage could be secured via planning condition for the proposed parking areas which would adequately deal with the requirements of policy SD-6. There is a brook with in the site however no objections have been received from the Environment Agency and there are not considered to be any flood risk issues given the scale of the development. Neighbours have raised drainage as a concern however it is not considered that the standard conditions relating to drainage would not ensure the site was adequately and satisfactorily drained. Obviously satisfactory drainage would also be necessary to achieve building regulation approval. There are no issues relating to the above matters which would generate refusal reasons sustainable at appeal. SUMMARY The proposal is considered to represent poor design of a substandard plot that is not considered to provide satisfactory levels of amenity for its intended residents. The submission has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding trees and ecological value of the site. On these two grounds the application is recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION Refuse

Application Reference: DC/057948 Location: 22 CRANSTON GROVE, GATLEY, CHEADLE, SK8 4HS Proposal: Change of use to seperate dwelling



Applicant: Mrs N Khalid Agent : COMMITTEE STATUS Cheadle Area Committee - more than 4 letters of objection received. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks to allow the use of an existing section of the property as a separate residential unit. The section concerned is the existing two storey extension located on the south western elevation of the property. The extension was granted permission under DC049407 and until recently was used as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling by a family member of the applicant. The family member has now left the premises and the applicant wishes to rent/let the property as an in dependant entity. The application also seeks to regularise differences between what was approved under DC049407 and what has been built in particular relating to window and door sizes, types and position and the internal room layout of the upper floor. The proposal would permanently break the link between the extension accommodation and the main dwelling and provide the property with its own garden to the rear and car parking space to the front. A bin store is shown to the frontage. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application relates to 22 Cranston grove which is an extended detached property sited at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. The main property has been extended to both sides with two storey extensions. The application relates principally to the extension on the left side (as viewed from Cranston Grove). To the rear of the property the original rear garden has been subdivided to provide two separate garden areas with a solid boundary fence. The rear and side boundaries are enclosed with boundary fences. The property is adjoined to the north west by no. 20 Cranston Grove a detached house and to the south by no. 24 Cranston Grove which is also a detached property. The wider area is residential in character.

POLICY BACKGROUND The application site is allocated within a Predominantly Residential Area, as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. The following policies are therefore relevant:- Saved UDP policies EP1.10 : AIRCRAFT NOISE L1.2 : CHILDRENS PLAY Core Strategy DPD policies CS1 : OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING

INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGES SD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES SD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN : NEW DEVELOPMENT SD-6 : ADAPTING TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE CS2 : HOUSING PROVISION CS3 : MIX OF HOUSING CS4 : DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING H-1 : DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT H-2 : HOUSING PHASING CS8 : SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT SIE-1 : QUALITY PLACES SIE-2 : PROVISION OF RECREATION AND AMENITY OPEN SPACE IN NEW

DEVELOPMENTS SIE-3 : PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE ENVIRONMENT CS9 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT T-1 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT T-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS T-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS SPG DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPD SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SPD National Planning Legislation THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)

PLANNING HISTORY DC026428 - Two storey side / rear extension, single storey rear extension and alterations to roof. Granted 27/6/12. DC049407 - Erection of single and double-storey extensions to the sides.Granted 8/5/12. NEIGHBOURS VIEWS The occupiers of 10 nearby properties have been notified in writing of the proposal. In total 7 objections have been received on the following grounds: 1. The proposal would increase parking problems on the road. 2. The road is already congested with car parking problems. 3. The increased traffic and car parking will be dangerous for children playing on the street. 4. Premises in the street need access for emergency vehicles at all times. 5. The planning officers have been duped into granting an extension which was intended to be a separate dwelling. 6. The drawings are inaccurate. 7. The visual impact of the extension is monstrous and completely ruins what was once a very nice road. 8. There is no space for amenities and bin stores at the property. 9. The proposal will change the peaceful character of the cul-de-sac. CONSULTEE RESPONSES Highways Engineer: Following on to my consultation dated 7 May and further discussion and review I make the following comments: Whilst the submitted layout shows parking to the front of the property the frontage width and available space does not enable provision of three bays (as has been shown on the drawings) which are independently accessible. It is however clearly possible to lay out two spaces which can be used independently and this would afford one space per property. The provision of one space to serve each property accords with Council Parking Standards and would be reflective of a number of properties along the street, however I do need to be satisfied that any over spill parking can take place in a safe manner. In order to ascertain the impact of increased parking demand I have undertaken observations on the street during the evening and weekend periods. This has shown that there is kerbspace and capacity down the street for overspill parking to occur without causing highway operational and safety concerns. Whilst I acknowledge parking outside another persons property may be perceived to be inconsiderate and an inconvenience for other residents, this would be an amenity issue and would not provide justification for refusal on highway grounds. Putting into perspective the potential over spill from the development site would be one, perhaps two spaces.

There is a risk that over spill parking could occur within the turning area at the end of the cul-de-sac as this would clearly inhibit the ability of vehicles to turn and cause unacceptable highway operational and safety issues. I do however acknowledge the risk is low given the availability of kerbspace further down the street, the provision of parking within the site and the presence of signage to discourage parking in the turning area and as such I feel that this may prove sufficient to discourage parking in the turning area. Having discussed the proposal with the Planning Case Officer I am advised that the issuing of a temporary permission would be reasonable under the circumstances as this would enable the impact of the development to be monitored over a short period of time. This I consider would be appropriate noting the development does actually accord with Council Standards and there is scope for parking further down the street, this being balanced against the risk of residents parking in the turning area for reason of convenience. The alternative to a temporary permission would be to implement Traffic Regulation Orders with prompt effect and on a preventative basis. Should the Committee deem it appropriate for a TRO or access protection markings early stage then this would cost 1500 and needs to be secured at the applicants expense under either the terms of an appropriate legal mechanism or one off payment. In conclusion I think it is more reasonable to be reactive in this case, issue a temporary permission and enable review over time. Should over spill parking prove to be an issue then this can be considered as part of a subsequent application and I note there is potential to implement TRO's at a later stage as part of any permanent permission. In the event that permission is to be granted an informative should be included on the decision notice: The applicants attention is drawn to the need to seek approval under the Highways Act 1980 from the Highways Maintenance Section (telephone 0161 217 6111) regarding the widening of the dropped crossing prior to works commencing on site. Recommendation: No objections to a temporary permission for a period of 12 months. Planning Policy (Housing): The proposal is for a the conversion of one detached dwelling house into two dwellings. The existing dwelling appears to have 5 or 6 bedrooms with the proposed break down being 1 house of 4 bedrooms and 1 house of 2 bedrooms. The site is within 800m of Gatley large local centre and therefore complies with the spatial priorities set out in Core Strategy Policy CS4 as well as adding to the housing numbers and housing mix as set out in Policies C2 and CS3. The proposal is not of sufficient scale to require any affordable housing provision. The proposal represents an unusual arrangement and the Council will need to be satisfied that, amongst other things, provision can be made to ensure good standards of amenity and privacy

for the occupants of both the existing and proposed properties, as required by Core Strategy Development Management Policy H1 (Design of Residential Development). ANALYSIS The application seeks to effectively sub-divide the existing property and create a new dwelling. The proposal therefore requires assessment in respect of the following relevant matters: 1. Landuse The application site is located within a Predominantly Residential Area as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. The application site is also allocated within one of the two main spatial priority areas for residential development, as set out in Core Strategy DPD policy CS4, being within 800m of Gatley Large Local Centre. The accommodation concerned is already in existence. The site is therefore is acceptable in principle for housing development and complies with Core Strategy Policy CS4. The proposal would also add to the housing numbers and mix in the borough in line with the aims and aspirations of Core Policies CS2 and CS3. (It should be noted that the Council is currently in a position of housing under-supply, with 3.1 years worth of supply against a requirement in national policy for 5 years plus a 5% buffer.) 2. Residential amenity In terms of existing residents it should be noted that the structure concerned is already on site having previously been assessed as acceptable as and extension under permission DC049407. This established that the principle of a block of residential accommodation in this location, albeit as an extension rather than as a separate dwelling, is acceptable. Residential extensions are subject to the same scrutiny has new dwellings under the Councils standards and the fact that the proposal complied with relevant privacy and separation distances as an extension means that logically the proposal will also comply as an independent dwelling. It should be noted that the extension that has been built did not follow the approved plans under DC049407. Whilst the extensions size and dimensions are correct several windows/doors were not built out as approved. This application also seeks to regularise these differences. It should be noted that although different from those originally approved the windows and openings in the extension element in question do not raise any concerns or conflictions in respect of the Councils adopted policy or guidance and therefore, although giving this section of building a slightly different appearance, there is no additional or worse impact on neighbours in respect of overlooking or privacy. The main consideration in respect of nearby properties is therefore whether the use of the premises as a separate dwelling will have an impact on neighbours that is greater than that if it was continued to be used as an annex or ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling. In this respect the difference is considered to be marginal. It is reasonable to assume use as a separate dwelling may increase movements too and from the house slightly as these are more likely to happen independently from each other and usage, noise and disturbance may therefore also be slightly greater as a pair of properties rather than a sole dwelling. However, given the unit proposed is small in size with only two small bedrooms its occupancy level is likely to be very low, perhaps a single person or couple at most, rather than a family. As an annex or ancillary accommodation the element of the building concerned could house a similar number of people and therefore impact of the proposal should not be great or excessive on

neighbouring residents. Highways concerns in respect of parking is potentially more of a concern and these matters are discussed below within the highways section of the report. In terms of intended residents, given the above situation, the proposed dwelling is not considered to be overlooked by existing properties and will offer adequate privacy in this regard for its occupants from the front, side and rear. The proposal includes a rear garden area to serve the property which is small (approx 49m2) but is capable of beneficial use. The Council does not have specified standard for this type of development. The nearest comparison would be the Councils standard for a terraced house (50m2) or as a 2 no. bedroom flat (18m2). The 49m2 provided is therefore within an acceptable tolerance of the councils recommended amounts for this type of development. In summary there are no residential amenity issues for either existing or proposed residents that immediately fail to meet the councils policies and guidelines. Neighbouring occupiers have raised concern about the proposed subdivision and the impact this could have on the character of the area and residential amenities. It is acknowledged that this is an unusual situation and residents concerns are acknowledged. As the proposal is unusual and untested it is therefore considered that a temporary 1 year permission should be considered to allow for monitoring and assessment (or trial run) to take place and offer some protection to residents. This is particularly relevant in respect of highways matters as outlined below. 3. Design. As outlined above the structure concerned is already in place. The design of the proposal is relatively traditional in form and scale and incorporates a design style and features that are in keeping with the surrounding properties which are a mixture of ages and designs. Materials of construction are also acceptable. The fenestration changes sought for regularisation under this application also raise no objections as outlined above. The proposal is considered to comply with all the development plan design related policy and guidance listed above in accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies H-1 and SIE-1 and the Design of Residential Development SPD. Given that there would be partially limited remaining space for extensions at the site it is considered appropriate to remove permitted development rights from the resultant subdivided property to allow the Council to consider/limit any subsequent extensions. 4. Access, highway safety and parking The comments of the highways engineer are enclosed above. Clearly the proposed 3 car layout shown on the submitted plan is not workable however there is enough space for two cars to be parked in front of the premises and this would meet the Councils standards i.e. 1 space per dwelling. It is also clear that some parking problems have been experienced in the cul-de-sac over the years as evidenced by residents comments and signage within the turning head outside the application property. The engineer has indicated that despite the provision of one space per dwelling there needs to be satisfaction that any overspill car parking would take place in a safe manner. Consideration has been give to the imposition of TRO's within the turning head to prevent overspill parking in this area. At this stage however this may be excessive and it is considered that a temporary consent of 12 months would give the chance to monitor the situation from a highways point of view. Should parking issues prove to be a

problem over this period then proper use of TRO should be considered as part any more permanent consent. On this basis no highways are objections are raised. 5. Developer contributions As a result of the Ministerial Statement of November 2014 and the associated amendments to Government policy in the form of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), due to the fact that the proposal is for development of ten or less units, the Council can no longer require this application to make a contribution towards open space. SUMMARY Grant - temporary 1 year permission.

Application Reference: DC/058710 Location: BRUNTWOOD HALL, BRUNTWOOD PARK, CHEADLE Proposal: Refurbishment of Bruntwood Hall to create a 22 room

luxury hotel, with associated bars and restaurant areas, external terrace and spa at ground floor and courtyard extension to create additional circulation space



Applicant: Oddfellows Holdings Ltd Agent : Formroom Architects COMMITTEE STATUS Committee Item - Cheadle Area Committee - more than 4 letters of objection received against the proposal contrary to officer recommendation. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Re-submission of previous application DC057581. Change of use and refurbishment of existing premises from offices to a 22 bedroom hotel and with associated bars, restaurant areas and spar. The proposal includes physical alterations including the creation of a terrace and courtyard extension. The proposed hotel would be operated by "Oddfellows Hotels" who operate a boutique style hotel currently in Chester town centre and intend to bring their brand to the parkland setting of Bruntwood Park. The submission outlines that Bruntwood Hall and the wider park setting will offer a significant opportunity for Oddfellow's to develop their existing brand within a different setting and redevelop the site into a luxury venue as a hotel, bar, restaurant spa treatment room and event space. The use would employ 20-30 full time members of staff and would be open as follows: Hotel: 11am to 11pm Bar:12pm to 11pm Restaurant: Lunch 12pm to 2.30pm, Dinner 6pm to 10pm Spa: 10am to 6pm

The proposed use has 14 dedicated parking spaces to the building frontage within a small triangular hardstanding. The use would share the existing communal park car parking facilities with other users at the main car park to the south east. The application includes the provision of a financial contribution of 40,000 towards the surfacing and marking out of the existing unsurfaced car park area. The proposal also includes a financial contribution of 20,000 towards the provision of improvements to the exciting footway that runs to the east of the driveway to the site from the gated entrance at Schools Hill. The proposed terrace would be located on the northern elevation and extend a short distance into the open grassed area to the front of the building. The existing footway around the building would remain and be unrestricted running through the centre of the terrace. The creation of the terrace requires some minor re-profiling and re-grading of land to create a level area. The plans show 15 sets of tables/chairs. The extension would take wholly within the confines of the existing Courtyard on the eastern elevation of the building and provide additional floorspace within a predominantly glazed flat roof structure. The extension would provide additional space for spar facilities. The application has been accompanied by the following supporting documents. 1. Transport Statement 2. Heritage Statement 3. Planning Policy Statement 4. Noise Assessment 5. Design and Access Statement 6. Energy Statement SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application relates to Bruntwood Hall which is a large detached traditional stone built hall set within the extensive grounds of Bruntwood Park. The application relates to the main southern section of Hall building (formerly in use as offices) and land immediately around it. This part of the building is two and a half storey with a distinctive tower to the front elevation. The existing northern single storey wing section of the building, in use as The Vinery, does not form apart of the application. The application site also includes a small triangular section of car park to the south of the building and as small area of external space to the north currently laid to grass with a path running through it. The wider park lies beyond this boundary with the ponds and play areas and car parks lying to the east. The hall is accessed via two existing access points along The driveway from Schools Hill and along Bruntwood Lane. POLICY BACKGROUND The application site is allocated as lying within an allocation of Strategic open Space and a Green Chain on the UDP Review proposals map. The site also lies close to a SBI and the access roads through the park that serve the site form part of a Strategic Recreation Route again identified on the UDP Review proposals map. The following saved policies of the UDP Review and Core Strategy DPD are relevant:

UDP Review Saved Policy UOS1.3 - Protection of local Open Space HP1.3 - Avoidance of loss of dwellings MW1.5 - Control of Waste fro

cheadle area committee papers, 14th july 2015

Documents

area committee decisions

area governanceagenda5

committee meetings

cheadle area committeemeeting

area committees deliberations

ward flexibility funding

local public realm officer

development applications