Cheadle Area Committee Agenda 9 Dec 2014

8/10/2019 Cheadle Area Committee Agenda 9 Dec 2014

1/74

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

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE

Meeting: Tuesday, 9 December, 2014Tea: 5.00 pm

Ladybridge Park ResidentsClub,Edenbridge Road,Cheadle Hulme

Business: 6.00 pm

Introductions

1. MINUTES (Pages 8 - 13)

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 November

2014.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

3. URGENT DECISIONS

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

4. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS (Pages 14 - 19)

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.

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

The Area Committee is recommended to note the report.

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

Democratic Services

Town Hall, Stockport SK1 3XEContact: Democratic Services on 0161 474 3216

Email: [email protected]

Area Governance

AGENDA

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


2/74


3/74

(i) DC056291 - Cheadle Heath Sports Club, Norbreck Avenue, Cheadle (Pages21 - 36)

The erection of a 50 seat premier grandstand with a wheelchair cut out.

The Area Committee is recommended to grant planning permission.

(ii) DC056810 - 173 Stanley Road, Heald Green (Pages 37 - 45)

Two storey rear extension, two and single storey rear extensions, first floorextension to side and other alterations including hip to gable change, front gables,porch and boundary wall and gate.

The Area Committee is requested to recommend the Planning and HighwaysRegulation Committee to grant planning permission, subject to the

conditions contained in the report.

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

7. APPEAL DECISIONS AND CURRENT PLANNING APPEALS REPORT (Pages 46 -48)

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive

The report summarises recent appeal decisions, current planning appeals andenforcement 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]

8. REVIEW OF OUTCOMES TOUR 2014/15 (Pages 49 - 52)

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

The details a proposal to hold the Annual Review of Outcomes on 6 March 2015 (2014tour).

The Area Committee is recommended to submit their nomination for a completeddevelopment site within their area to be included on the list of sites to be inspectedby the Tour delegates. In addition the Area Committee are asked to providenominations for delegates to attend.

Officer: Emma Curle on 474 3542 or email: [email protected]

9. MILL LANE - DERELICT LAND

This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Councillor John Pantall
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/74

10. PARLIAMENTARY & LOCAL ELECTIONS - MAY 2015 - POLLING STATIONS(Pages 53 - 54)

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The report details a proposal to change the polling place for polling district AA from theCheadle Library Community Room, Ashfield Road, Cheadle to Trinity Methodist/UnitedReformed Church, Massie Street, Cheadle due to the availability of the church again whichis the preferred location for the polling station.

The Area Committee is recommended to comment on the proposed amendment tothe Councils polling arrangements.

Officer contact: Steve Callender on 0161 474 3268 or email:[email protected]

Executive Business

11. SEMMMS ROAD SCHEMES/POYNTON RELIEF ROAD CONSULTATION UPDATEREPORT (Pages 55 - 64)

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

The report provides an update on:-

the progress with delivering the various phases of the SEMMMS (South EastManchester Multi Modal Strategy) Road schemes. The three phases are A6 toManchester Airport Relief Road, Poynton Relief Road and A6 to M60 Relief Road

the Poynton Relief Road consultation on the preferred route option and its future workprogramme including proposals for a section 8 agreement to be drafted to allowCheshire East to lead this scheme development and delivery.

progress with the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road scheme which is progressingthrough the statutory processes stages and subject to satisfactory completiondescribes the steps required to deliver the scheme

the status of the A6 to M60 route.

Further details of the consultation results for the Poynton Relief Road scheme can befound on the Cheshire East Council website athttp://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/highways_and_roads/poynton_relief_road.aspx

The Area Committee is invited to comment on the report and the proposedrecommendations to the Executive as detailed in the report.

Officer Contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or email:[email protected]

12. PERMIT PARKING SCHEME - WARREN AVENUE, CHEADLE (Pages 65 - 70)

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration
mailto:[email protected]://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/highways_and_roads/poynton_relief_road.aspxmailto:[email protected]


5/74


6/74

Town HallStockportMonday, 1 December 2014


7/74

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

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

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

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

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


8/74

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE

Meeting: 4 November 2014 At: 6.00 pm

PRESENT

Councillor June Somekh (Chair) in the chair; Councillor Peter Burns (Vice-Chair);Councillors Keith Holloway, Sylvia Humphreys, Pam King, Adrian Nottingham,John Pantall, Paul Porgess and Iain Roberts.

1. MINUTES

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 23 September2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

The following interest was declared:-

Personal and Prejudicial Interest

Councillor Interest

June Somekh Agenda item 5 (vi) Ward Flexibility Funding Chelwood Foodbank Plus as a Trustee ofChelwood Foodbank Plus (see Minute 5 (vi) below).

Councillor Somekh left the meeting and took nopart in the discussion or vote on the item.

3. URGENT DECISIONS

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager reported that following the item

considered at the last meeting of the Area Committee, approval had been given forCouncillor Paul Porgess to lay a wreath on behalf of the Council at the Remembrance DayService at Cheadle Hulme War Memorial on Sunday, 9 November 2014.

4. PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS

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

RESOLVED That the report be noted.

Page 8

Agenda Item 1.


9/74

Cheadle Area Committee - 4 November 2014

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

(i) Chair's Announcements

The Chair thanked Cheadle Civic Society for the high standard of the improvement work

carried out in Cheadle Green and highlighted a community cohesion workshop aboutlocality working held in Cheadle.

(ii) Public Question Time

No public questions were submitted.

(iii) Public Realm

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

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

Clarification was requested on whether it was permitted for advertising boards to beattached to telegraph poles.The fencing opposite the Tescos store on Church Road, Gatley had been badlydamaged and needed repairing.

RESOLVED (1) That David Wilson be thanked for his attendance.

(2) That an update on progress regarding the reinstatement of the footpath and grassverge on Smithy Croft, off Finney Lane, Heald Green be presented to the next meeting ofthe Area Committee.

(iv) Petitions

No petitions were submitted.

(v) Open Forum

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

Councillor Peter Burns in the Chair

(vi) Ward Flexibility Funding - Chelwood Food Bank Plus

Mr David Prior from Chelwood Foodbank Plus attended the meeting to answer questionsfrom councillors in relation to an application for ward flexibility funding (copies of which hadbeen circulated) toward the cost of making repairs to a minibus.

Page 9


10/74


RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Manager be requested to make a grant of500 to Chelwood Foodbank Plus towards the cost of making repairs to a minibus,comprised as follows:-

- Cheadle and Gatley Ward - 150

- Cheadle Hulme North Ward - 250- Heald Green Ward - 100

Councillor June Somekh in the Chair

(vii) Ward Flexibility Funding - Cheadle Village Partnership

Mr Peter Fraser from the Cheadle Village Partnership attended the meeting to answerquestions from Councillors in relation to an application for ward flexibility funding (copies ofwhich had been circulated) toward the costs of the Cheadle Victorian Christmas MarketDay to be held on 6 December 2014.

RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Manager be requested to make a grant of1,000 to the Cheadle Village Partnership towards the costs of the Cheadle VictorianChristmas Market Day to be held on 6 December 2014, comprised as follows:-

- Cheadle and Gatley Ward - 500- Cheadle Hulme North Ward - 500

6. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

A development application was submitted.

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

payment of the Councils reasonable charges). A representative of the Democratic Services Manager outlined the procedure approved bythe Council for public speaking on planning applications.

(i) 90 Manchester Road, Stockport

In respect of plan no. 56489 for the retention of use of woodland/agricultural land for dogcare day facility including siting of portacabin and timber barn, creation of timber steps anderection of temporary fencing at 90 Manchester Road, Stockport

a representative of the applicant spoke in support of the application.

Page 10


11/74


It was then

RESOLVED (Four for, One against) That the Planning and Highways RegulationCommittee be recommended to undertake a site visit in order to view the sites location inthe Green Belt and assess its conflict with existing planning policy, with a recommendation

that planning permission be granted.

7. APPEAL DECISIONS, CURRENT PLANNING APPEALS AND ENFORCEMENTS

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


8. THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL OF STOCKPORT (CRANSTONGROVE, GATLEY) (PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2014

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a joint report of theCorporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration and Deputy Chief Executive(copies of which had been circulated) summarising an objection received to a proposedTraffic Regulation Order to prohibit waiting at the junction of Cranston Grove and ParkRoad, Gatley.

RESOLVED - That, notwithstanding the objection received, the Order be made asadvertised.

9. THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL OF STOCKPORT (CROSS ROAD,HEALD GREEN) (SCHOOL CLEARWAY) AND (REVOCATION) ORDER 2014

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a joint report of theCorporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration and Deputy Chief Executive(copies of which had been circulated) summarising an objection received to a proposedTraffic Regulation Order at Cross Road, Heald Green to amend the operational times ofthe existing School Keep Clear Traffic Regulation Order.

RESOLVED - That, notwithstanding the objection received, the Order be made asadvertised.

10. PENDLEBURY ROAD, GATLEY - TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the CorporateDirector for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated)regarding the findings of an investigation into the need for a Limited Waiting Parking Bayon Pendlebury Road, Gatley.

RESOLVED That approval be given to the introduction of the following Traffic Regulation

Order at an estimated cost of 700 to be funded the Area Committees Delegated Budget(Cheadle and Gatley Ward allocation):-

Page 11


12/74


Proposed No Waiting at Any Time

Pendlebury Road, Gatley -, south east side, from the north easterly kerb line of Old HallRoad for a distance of 10 metres in a north easterly direction.

Old Hall Road, Gatley - north east side, from the south easterly kerb line of PendleburyRoad for a distance of 10 metres in a south easterly direction.

Proposed Limited Waiting 8.00am 9.00pm for 30mins No Return within 1 Hour

Pendlebury Road, Gatley - south east side, from a point 34 metres north east of the northeasterly kerb line of Old Hall Road for a distance of 10 metres in a north easterlydirection.

11. BULKELEY ROAD, CHEADLE - REVOCATION OF DISABLED PERSONSPARKING PLACE

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report of the CorporateDirector for Place Management and Regeneration (copies of which had been circulated)regarding the findings of an investigation into removing an existing on-street disabledparking bay currently fronting 7 Bulkeley Road, Cheadle.

RESOLVED That approval be given to the following Traffic Regulation Order at anapproximate cost of 700 to be funded from the Area Committees Delegated Budget(Cheadle and Gatley Ward allocation):-

Proposed No Waiting at Any Time

Pendlebury Road, Gatley - south east side, from the north easterly kerb line of Old HallRoad for a distance of 10 metres in a north easterly direction.

Old Hall Road, Gatley - north east side, from the south easterly kerb line of PendleburyRoad for a distance of 10 metres in a south easterly direction.

Proposed Limited Waiting 8.00am 9.00pm for 30mins No Return within 1 Hour

Pendlebury Road, Gatley - south east side, from a point 34 metres north east of the northeasterly kerb line of Old Hall Road for a distance of 10 metres in a north easterlydirection.

12. APPLICATION FOR THE USE OF CHEADLE GREEN FOR A CHRISTMASMARKET - 6 DECEMBER 2014

A representative of the Democratic Services Manger submitted a report (copies of whichhad been circulated) regarding an application from the Cheadle Village Partnership to holda Christmas Makers Market on Cheadle Green on 6 December 2014.

RESOLVED That approval be given to the application from the Cheadle VillagePartnership to hold a Christmas Makers Market on Cheadle Green on 6 December 2014,

Page 12


13/74


subject to temporary fencing being erected to deter people from walking on the grass andno vehicles being permitted on Cheadle Green.

13. NOMINATION OF AUTHORITY SCHOOL GOVERNORS

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of whichhad been circulated) requesting the Area Committee to provide a nomination for the

Authority Governor vacancy at Bolshaw Primary School.


The meeting closed at 7.12 pm

Page 13


14/74

CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE Date: 9 December 2014

PROGRESS ON AREA COMMITTEE DECISIONS

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

WARD FLEXIBILITY FUNDING

The amounts available to be spent in 2014/15, incorporating the monies carried forward and a budget of 3,000 per ward for 2014/15, areas follows:-

Cheadle and Gatley Cheadle Hulme North Heald Green

Funding awarded in2012/13:-

Gatley Shop Local Day

Cheadle and Gatley U3A


Solutions SK cuttingback the tree on thepathway between

Marchbank Drive andKingsway, Cheadle

St Anns Road North Allotment Association

St. Marys Parish Church,on behalf of the Cheadle

300

255

288

333

1000


Oak Meadow Focus Group

Cheadle and Gatley U3A

Cheadle Hulme Garden and Allotment Association


First Steps Orrishmere PreSchool

St. Anns Road North Allotment Association

Manchester Rugby Club

1,000

255

420

1,000

193

100

No funding awarded in2012/13

Funding awarded in 2013/14

St Anns Road North Allotment Association


Chelwood Foodbank Plus

474

100

P

1 4

A en

d aI t em 4

.


15/74

Christmas Planning Group

Manchester Rugby ClubUnder 15s

Gatley Village Partnership

Funding awarded in2014/15


Cheadle VillagePartnership

100

100

150

500

Under 15s



Cheadle Village Partnership

250

500

6,104.25 11,395.30 13,999.60

P

1 5


16/74

Appendix A - Resume Of Issues Progress Report

SCHEME

C A L L E D I N ?

Y / N

W I T H T R A F F I C

S E R V I C E S

W I T H

L E G A L

O N A D V E R T

O B J E C T I O N S ?

Y / N

A W A I T I N G

O P S

. D A T E

O P E R A T I V E

D A T E

COMMENTS

adle Districtlic Realmrovements

07/2013

Service Director (Place Management) submitted a report seeking thecomments of the Area Committee regarding the proposed public realmscheme, 20mph zone, cycle infrastructure and other speed limit changes inCheadle District Centre, following the consultation exercise undertaken inMay/June 2013. Civil works have commenced on site . Current phasecomplete, if funding becomes available next financial year extendscheme to Manchester Rd/High St junction

Proposed Cyclete

09/13

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management andRegeneration submitted a report seeking comments regarding the proposed

A34 cycle route, following the successful bid for funding from theDepartment for Transport. Works continuing on site, funding to be reviewedbefore entering Manchester. Funding has now been reviewed and it hasbeen determined not to enter Manchester. Manchester City Council to seekfunding for the continuation of the scheme. Directional signs to be put onhold. Directional signs are in design

nchester Road,adle

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted areport seeking the comments of the Area Committee regarding the proposedManchester Road cycle route following the successful bid for funding from

P

1 6


17/74

MJ

11/03/2014

the Department for Transport, via the Cycle City Ambition Grant. The cost ofthe scheme was approximately 450,000 which would be included in the2014/15 Highways Capital Programme. Scheme on site est 12 weekconstruction programme. Civil works substantially complete by end ofOctober, works over M60 bridge delayed due to Highways Agency requestfor additional info

Cross Road, HealdGreen

AV

8/07/2014

Corporate Director for Place Management and regarding an investigationinto a timing change of an existing Traffic Regulation Order adjacent toBolshaw Primary School regarding the need for children to board buses forschool journeys close to the school entrance. Scheme operative from28/01/2015

Park Road/CranstonGrove, Gatley

AV

05/08/2014

Corporate Director for Place Management and setting out the findings of aconsultation exercise following concerns with regard to vehicles on ParkRoad, Gatley, close to its junction with Cranston Grove. Scheme on advert .Scheme to be operative from 05/01/2015

Cycle Links toGatley Station

MJ

23/09/14

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

Councillor Lane,Road SafetyImprovements

GK & NE23/09/14

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regenerationsubmitted a report setting out proposals to improve the levels of safety and reducethe potential risk for road traffic incidents in the vicinity of the puffin crossing on Councillor Lane.

East Avenue, HealdGreen

AV

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regenerationsubmitted a report in connection with the findings of a consultation exercisefollowing concerns expressed regarding parked vehicles causingsafety issues on roads in the vicinity of Etchells Primary School, Heald Green.Scheme operative from 05/01/2015P

1 7


18/74

09/14

Road, Gatley

09/14

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a reportregarding the findings of a consultation exercise following concerns regardingtraffic issues in the vicinity of Gatley United Reformed Church on Elm Road,Gatley. Scheme to be operative from 10/01/2015

combe Road,ld Green

09/14

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a reportregarding the outcome of an investigation into concerns regarding the passagewayentrance to Rose Vale Park, Heald Green. A-FRAME now installed

dlebury Road,ey

11/2014

Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration reported thefindings of an investigation into the need for a Limited Waiting Parking Bay onPendlebury Road, Gatley.

keley Road,adle

11/2014

Corporate Director for Place Management reported the findings of aninvestigation into removing an existing on-street disabled parking baycurrently fronting 7 Bulkeley Road, Cheadle.

P

1 8


19/74

Cheadle Delegated Budget

Ward Balance broughtforward from

2013/14)

Budget 2014/15

Total Available

Approved andEstimatedSchemes

Available Balance

Cheadle and

Gatley

17,795 10,750 28,545 2,985 25,560

Cheadle HulmeNorth

-5,140 10,750 5,610 1,170 4,440

Heald Green 54,920 10,750 65,670 34,335 31,335

Total 67,575 32,250 99,825 38,490 61,335

P

1 9


20/74


21/74

Cheadle Area Committee Agenda 09 December 2014

ITEM 1:

Application Reference: DC/056291 Location: CHEADLE HEATH SPORTS CLUB, NORBRECK

AVENUE, CHEADLE, SK8 2ET

Proposal: The erection of a 50 seat premier grandstand with awheelchair cut out.

Type of Application: Full Planning Permission

Registration Date: 14/10/2014Expiry Date: 09/12/2014Case Officer: Jim Seymour

Applicant: Cheadle Heath Sports ClubAgent :

COMMITTEE STATUSCheadle Area Committee

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENTErection of new 50 seat football stand. The facility would actually house 45 seatswith 5 cut away for wheel chair access. The stand dimensions 6.615m wide x2.949m deep and has a height of 2.927m at the rear rising to 3.030m at the front.The stand is of a basic design enclosed to the sides (in part), rear and roof madefrom coated metal sheeting and is intended to improve the spectator facilities forthose watching matches at the football club. The stand would be sited on thewestern side line of the football pitch on a grassed area centrally along the length ofthe pitch close to the western site boundary. The club have specified the stand isneeded to improve current facilities but also would upgrade the site in response withcurrent Football Association advice and promotions to improve local football clubfacilities.

Times of operation of the proposed stand are:

Occasional use Monday to Friday from September to May 6.30pm to 8.30pm.Saturday from August to May 2.00pm to 5pmSunday September to may 11am to 1pm

The football club has submitted a facts sheet to provide information about theapplication and respond to the concerns of objectors. This is appended to the report.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGSThe application relates to Cheadle Heath Sports Centre on Norbreck Avenue. Thesite comprises a club house, changing facilities and sports pitches served by a small

car park and access of Norbeck Avenue. The application site lies towards thewestern site boundary and is located centrally along the length of the existing grass

Page 21

Agenda Item 6.(i)


22/74


pitch. The site boundary to the west adjoins a small brook and the rear gardens ofresidential properties on Emlyn Grove. The proposal is sited directly to the rear ofno.s 8 and 10 Emlyn Grove. The boundary between the rear gardens and the sportsclub does contain several mature trees and other planting. The site is adjoined tothe North by a railway embankment and to the East by residential properties on

Norbeck Avenue. Adjoining the site to the South are residential properties on AberRoad. The Northern, Southern and Western site boundaries are defined by maturetrees. The site is level.

POLICY BACKGROUNDThe adopted development plan for Stockport constitutes the Stockport Core StrategyDPD (Core Strategy) which was adopted in March 2011 and saved policies of theadopted Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (UDP).

The application site is allocated as Local Open Space, within a Green Chain andwithin the Manchester Airport Aircraft Noise Zone, as defined on the UDP ProposalsMap. The following policies are therefore relevant :-

Saved UDP policies

NE3.1 : PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF GREEN CHAINSEP1.10 : AIRCRAFT NOISEUOS1.3 : PROTECTION OF LOCAL OPEN SPACEL1.1 : LAND FOR ACTIVE RECREATION

Core Strategy policies

CS1 : OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGESD-1 : CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIESSD-3 : DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN - NEWDEVELOPMENTSD-6 : ADAPTING TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGECS8 : SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTSIE1 : QUALITY PLACESSIE-3 : PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE ENVIRONMENTCS9 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT

CS10 : AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT NETWORKT-1 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENTT-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTST-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SPDSUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SPDTRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS SPD

National Planning Legislation

Page 22


23/74


24/74


NEIGHBOURS VIEWSThe occupiers of 57 nearby properties were notified in writing of the proposal.

Intotal 24 letters of objection and one petition (containing 35 signatures) against thethe proposal has been received from residents on the following grounds:

1. This is the wrong location for the stand why has it been sited here ?2. Why is it sited closest to the houses ? The facility should be sited away fromhouses.3. The proposal will create noise disturbance for residents nearby and adjoining thesite.4. Why put a disabled access facility as far from the car park as this ?5. The stand will be an of an unsightly design, visually intrusive and interruptexisting sight lines.6. The site is not suitable to for supporting a commercial business.7. The proposal will increase the chances of vandalism at the site and toneighbouring properties.8. The proposal will increase parking demand and overspill parking/congestionproblems as there is not enough car parking at the site already.9. The proposal will increase traffic in surrounding streets and encourage people tospeed too and from the site and around the site.10. Increased traffic will create more noise, dust and disturbance.11. The proposal will increase existing problems of people swearing on site which isoffensive.12. The proposal will increase the current problems of people urinating againstneighbours fences.13. The club as a history of anti-social problems including noise and disturbanceand anti social behaviour associated with events.14. The proposal will generate more noise disturbance from children using the site.15. The structure has an industrial design to it.16. The proposal will increase problems of litter on and around the site.17. The proposal will bring all existing problems closet to houses making thesituation worse for neighbours.18. The proposal will cause a deterioration of our neighbourhood.19. There is no more room for the club to expand on site.20. The proposal will reduce privacy for residents.21. The proposal will spoil the view from neighbouring properties.

22. There are existing problems of damage to neighbouring properties and theproposal will worsen these.23. The proposal will generate demand to have flood lighting.24. The proposal is the thin end of the wedge for larger proposals to follow.25. The club should be made to plant more trees to the screen the proposal and theexisting club.26. The club should pay for higher fences to screen the site and protect neighbours.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer: The only issue when considering the erection of a grandstand at

this location is the potential of additional traffic generated.

Page 24


25/74


Previous planning consents have provided adequate parking facilities for the size ofplaying facility and the erection of this grandstand is improvement to the overallfacilities available and therefore I consider that any additional traffic generated wouldbe minimal. I therefore raise no objection to this application.

Environmental Health Officer (noise): I have assessed the application I do not objectto it in principle, please see comments below;

There will already be noise generated at the site from spectators and footballmatches/training.

I can see why they have chosen the position of the stand as it does not facethe residential properties and it will have an enclosed back and roof which willbe made of steel and should direct the sound away from the properties onEmlyn Grove. The noise produced from the stand should reduce in relation

to distance for residents on Norbeck Avenue and the railway is in betweenNormanton Road, which should act as a barrier.

Condition could be placed upon it so that it is not used at unreasonable times

Nature Development Officer: The site is designated as Green Chain, howeverfollowing the guidance in Policy NE3.1 of the retained UDP, I do not envisage theproposals impacting on the function of this designation, assuming that the tree belt tothe west of the site will not be impacted upon by the proposals.I would therefore recommend that an informative is placed on any permission which

is granted to ensure that the trees on the site are adequately protected from any

adverse impact of the proposed development, in line with British Standards. If forany reason there will be an impact on the trees, work should cease immediately andthe Council Tree Officer should be contacted.

Sport England: Comments awaited.

ANALYSISThe application raises the following issues for consideration:

Landuse: Open Space and Green Chain

Saved UDP policy UOS1.3 states that development will not be permitted within areasof Local Open Space unless :- i) It is clearly needed in connection with the outdoorrecreational use of the land or is otherwise appropriate to the maintenance to theopen nature of the land and it would clearly enhance the overall quality of LocalOpen Space in the area; or ii) It can be demonstrated that there is an adequateprovision of open space in the local area and that the loss of the site would not bedetrimental to the well being of the local community or the amenities of the area; oriii) The open space that would be lost as a result of the proposed development wouldbe replaced by open space of equivalent or better quantity, quality, usefulness andattractiveness, in a location at least as accessible to current and potential users.

Saved UDP policy L1.1 states that development of land currently used as playingfields will not be permitted unless : - i) The proposed development is ancillary to the

Page 25


26/74


use of the site as a playing field (eg new changing rooms) and does not adverselyaffect the quantity and quality of the pitches and their uses; ii) The proposeddevelopment only affects land which is incapable of forming a playing pitch (or partof one) and results in the retention and enhancement of pitched; iii) The playingfields that would be lost would be replaced by a playing field of equivalent or better

quantity, quality, usefulness and attractiveness in a location at least accessible tocurrent and potential users; iv) The proposed development is for an outdoor orindoor sports facility of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh theloss of the playing field.

Sport England have been consulted on the proposal. Sport Englands standardpolicy is to oppose any planning application which will result in the loss of playingfield land unless it is satisfied that the application meets with one or more of fivespecific exceptions.

Exception 1 Excess of provision

Exception 2 Ancillary development

Exception 3 Land incapable of forming part of a pitch

Exception 4 Replacement provision

Exception 5 Sports facilities

It is noted that no existing pitches would be lost as a result of the proposeddevelopment. The proposed development would provide additional ancillary facilitieson the site that would improve the user/visitor experience and improve the quality ofthe existing sports club facility. On this basis the proposal is not considered toconflict with the relevant open space policies outlined above and will fall withinexception 2 of the above 5 Sport England exceptions. As such principle of thedevelopment on Local Open Space/sports field is considered acceptable and theproposal is considered to comply with Saved UDP policies UOS1.3 and L1.1.

The application site is located within a Green Chain and the comments of theCouncil Nature Development Officer are provided above. It is not considered thatthe proposed stand would detract from the function of the designated site, giventhe current nature of the existing habitat (close mown amenity grassland). There

is limited potential for protected species to be impacted upon by the proposeddevelopment. There is no requirement for any further ecological information to besubmitted with the application. As such, in the absence of objections from theCouncil Nature Development Officer, the proposal is considered acceptablewithin the Green Chain, in accordance with Saved UDP policy NE3.1 and CoreStrategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-3.

Impact on residential amenity

The primary consideration is the impact of the proposal on residential amenity.Policies CS8 and SIE-1 of the Core strategy seek to ensure that all new

development is well designed in way that will not be detrimental to existing residents.The proposal has generated a significant level of objection from nearby residents on

Page 26


27/74


a variety of grounds as will be noted above. Committee will note that many of thegrounds put forward are not related this specific proposal but to a wider set of issueslinked to the general operation of the site, behaviour of its users and how, in the viewof objectors, the club impacts on nearby residents. Whilst these concerns are notedit would be unreasonable to levy all the apparent existing problems of compatibility

between the football club and residents against this proposal. Taking this standpoint and noting the concerns of objectors there are therefore considered to be 2 keyissues relating to impact on residential amenity generated by the application. Theseare firstly, the visual impact of the proposal and secondly, the impact of any noiseassociated with the proposal. Both issues have been raised as objections byresidents.

It has been suggested by objectors that to avoid or reduce impact from thedevelopment the stand should be located in a different location away from residentialproperties perhaps on the other side of the football pitch adjacent to the existing, andrelatively recently constructed, changing room facility. This suggestion has been putto the football club however they are not able or prepared to re-position the proposalin this location and have given the following reasons:

1. Building in this location is problematic because of the presence of a sewer. Thisis why the existing changing facility is built off-centre of the sports pitch to remain 5maway for the sewer as required by United Utilities.2. If sited in this location the existing changing views would obscure views of thewhole pitch for people in the stand defeating its purpose.3. Sited in this location the site would look odd and unbalanced and not be asaesthetically pleasing.4. The stand is small scale and will not generated much noise however if located inthis position any noise would be projected towards residents rather than away formthem as per the submitted proposal.5. A stand in this location which did not offer full visibility of the pitch may not meetthe necessary criteria for funding provided by the FA.6. There was originally a stand (larger in size) sited in the same location as the oneproposed here.

Given the above standpoint of the club it is accepted that there are reasonablereasons for siting the proposal in location identified and adequate justification not tosite in the other obvious location. Assessment of the proposals impact therefore

follows.In respect of visual amenity the proposed stand would be sited on the side of theexisting football pitch nearest to residential properties on Emlyn Grove. The twoworst affected properties are numbers 8 and 10 whose rear boundary back onto theimmediate part of the football club site where the stand is proposed. It should benoted that the stand would also be within view of several other properties on Emlyngrove although these would be less affected due to greater separation. In terms ofseparation distance the stand would be sited slightly in excess of 20m from thenearest part of the rear elevations of numbers 8 and 10. It should also be noted thatthe boundary between the site contains a number of mature trees which provide

natural screening along with other rear boundary treatments. The proposedstructure is not excessive in size and but would present a elevation 6m wide x 3m

Page 27


28/74


29/74


proposal raises no issues or concerns and is considered to comply with CoreStrategy DPD policies SD-6, SIE-1, T-1, T-2 and T-3 and the Sustainable TransportSPD and no highway objections are raised.

SUMMARY

Grant

Page 29


30/74


Page 30


31/74


Page 31


32/74


33/74


Cheadle Heath Sports ClubThe Heath, Cheadle, SK8 2ET

(incorporating Linotype Cheadle Heath Nomads FC)

Re:Planning Application No. DC/056291

Facts

The planning application for the erection of a small stand at Cheadle Heath Sports Club SK82ET has been lodged by Cheadle Heath Sports Club.

The stand is small with 4 rows of seats making 50 in total, although 5 would be given overto wheelchair access. The dimensions of the stand are: width 6615mm, depth 2949mm andheight 2927mm (at the rear of the stand) and 3030mm at the front (less than 10 feet). It issomeway from the end of the gardens on Aber Road and is screened by trees.

The stand will provide shelter for those watching a game but is also in response to FAencouragement for clubs to improve facilities.

The club used to have a stand, much bigger than the one proposed . (See council records)

The club was established in 1921 , well before the houses were built with facilities thatincluded football, cricket, ladies hockey and tennis. The activity then was probably greaterthan it is now.

Cheadle Heath Sports Club is not a commercial business. It is registered as aCommunity Amateur Sports Club and all the work is done by volunteers. It is also

registered wit the FA as a Charter Standard Club.Cheadle Heath Sports Clubs first financial objective is to keep its head above water. Anyexcess of income over expenditure is used to improve the clubs facilities (and why not?)

The club has significant overheads (gas, water, electricity, insurances, dustbins, club andground maintenance etc. etc) which tend to increase, quite often at an alarming rate. The clubhas to constantly increase its income to match this.

Although in some serious financial difficulty about 15 years ago, the clubs financial status isnow sound, thanks to hard work and conscientious management by a relatively small numberof volunteers . It has no debts.

The club is an asset to the community, in many ways matching David Camerons imageof the Big Society facilities provided for the community through voluntary effort. Itsupports:

2 B Tech courses under the auspices of Myerscough College. The standard is excellent andthe behaviour of the students is impeccable.

2 Senior football teams in the Cheshire League (Step7 in the FA pyramid)

4 Junior teams in the Stockport Metro Junior Football League.

A series of mini programmes (for Under 8s)

Page 33


34/74


A co-operation with GFDPro football for the development of young talent with promise.

A darts and crib team

Many pubs and clubs in the area have closed or changed to become eateries etc. As a resultthe club has increasingly become the venue in the area for christenings, silver weddings etc.etc. - almost becoming a Community Centre. These events are run professionally and well.

November 2014

Page 34


35/74


Cheadle Heath Sports ClubThe Heath, Cheadle, SK8 2ET

(incorporating Linotype Cheadle Heath Nomads FC)

Re:Planning Application No. DC/056291

Response to the Residents Concerns

Sightline. The position of the proposed stand is well beyond the end of the back gardens behind Aber Road. The height of the stand is less than 10ft. And the stand will be hidden/masked by trees and foliage. It is much smaller than the previous stand.

Vandalism. We do not suffer like Cheadle Town and the comparison is specious

Urination. I am not sure why Patrons of the club would want to fight their way through branches and undergrowth for this purpose. The club does have toilets and the building of thenew changing rooms will add to these. Could pitches under council control boast suchfacilities?

Noise levels during a game. These are probably the same as in 1921 when the club wasopened and in no way in excess of noise from the boroughs facilities, where more than onematch may be being played at the same time.

Noise levels during evening social events. Consideration to our neighbours is given by

ensuring doors are kept shut after 10pm (as the council directs). The building of a new porch(for which planning permission has been granted) will enhance this.

Congested overspill parking. Plans have been approved to increase parking and work willcommence on this once the new changing rooms have been completed. Generally parking isadequate, although if we host a cup final, for example, there is parking on the streets. It is

permitted.

Speeding vehicles. This is nonsense. Speeding in and out of the car park is not an optiongiven the proximity to the club entrance/exit to the bridge. 5mph speed signs are in existence

Swearing. It is a general problem in our society, encouraged by television etc. Football isattempting to stop it via stronger refereeing, although those hearing it would have to be on theground to hear it.

Under age drinking and anti-social behaviour. We have no issues with under age drinking oranti-social behaviour. This can be confirmed with the police with whom we have an excellentrelationship.

Much of the anti-social behaviour in the area tends to emanate from the park at the end ofEmlyn Grove.

We had a minor issue with an e invite party (unbeknown to us) in 2010 which was resolved ina meeting with Emma Dickson, Paul Porges and Mark Hunter. The event was posted onfacebook and too many people turned up. The club was closed immediately but it took sometime for the people to disperse. There have been no issues since.

Page 35


36/74


The quote the clubs aim .... etc. is unrecognisable and not put on any website by themanagement of the club. Our capacity is limited by the size of our land / number of pitches.We do aim to improve our facilities (and why not?). What does a dynamic sporting hubmean?

November 2014

Page 36


37/74


ITEM 2:

Application Reference: DC/056810 Location: 173 STANLEY ROAD, HEALD GREEN, CHEADLE, SK8

6RF

Proposal: Two storey rear extension, two and single storey rearextensions, first floor extension to side and otheralterations including hip to gable change, front gables,porch and boundary wall and gate

Type of Application: Householder

Registration Date: 14/10/2014Expiry Date: 09/12/2014Case Officer: Anthony Smith

Applicant: Dr SamiAgent : Inspire Planning Solutions

COMMITTEE STATUS

Should the Cheadle Area Committee be minded to grant permission under theDelegation Agreement the application should be referred to the Planning & HighwaysRegulations Committee as the application relates to a Departure from the StatutoryDevelopment Plan.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

The application is seeking planning permission for a two storey rear extension, twostorey side extension, first floor side extension, single storey rear extension andother alterations including front gables, porch and front boundary treatmentalterations.

The proposed two storey rear extension would project 1.2m from the existingrecessed rear elevation and have a width of 3.5m. This would fill in an existing gap.The eaves would measure 5.2m and the overall height would be 7.8m.

It is also proposed to have another two storey rear extension in the centre of thedwelling. It would project out 1.2m from the principal rear wall and have a width of3m. The overall height would be 6.7m and it would be subservient to the maindwelling.

The proposed two storey side extension would project out 3.3m from the sideelevation and be sited 1.22m from the common boundary with No.171 Stanley Road.The extension would begin level with the front elevation and have a length of 6.7m.The eaves and overall height would match the existing dwelling.

Page 37

Agenda Item 6.(ii)


38/74


A first floor side extension is proposed. It would project out 1.2m from the westernside elevation and have a length of 3.6m. The eaves and overall height would matchthe existing dwelling.

Two front gables features are also proposed. They would be sited centrally on the

property and project out 1m with a width of 3.1m. The eaves would be higher therest of the dwelling at 6.5m but the overall height of 7.2m would be subservient to themain dwelling. The two projecting gables would create a recessed area in the middlewhich would be filled by the proposed porch.

The proposed single storey rear extension would project a maximum of 4.3m fromthe existing rear elevation and have a width of 16.5m across the complete rearelevation of the property. It would be sited 1.22m from the common boundary withNo.171 Stanley Road and 2.37m to the common boundary with No.175 StanleyRoad. The overall height would be 3.7m with a flat roof.

The final part of the proposed scheme is a 1m high front boundary wall and 2m highgate to the front boundary.

The materials of construction include white render and Marley Modern concrete rooftiles.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The applicants property is a reasonably substantial detached dwelling located in aspacious plot. It is located on the southern part of Stanley Road. The property is alsolocated within the green belt. Access is gained from Stanley Road and there isadequate parking for at least three cars away from the highway. The site is fairlylevel with no significant change in the gradient in any direction. The propertycurrently comprises of red brickwork and concrete tiles for the roof. However, a smallsection on the rear elevation is rendered. The property has been extended in thepast with single storey extensions but these will be demolished to make way for thenew proposed single storey rear extension.

To the north of the site is Stanley Road and across the road are open fieldsbelonging to the Seashell Trust. To the east of the site is No.171 Stanley Road which

is a detached dwelling with a hipped roof. The front elevation is rendered white. Tothe south of the site is open farmland and is Cheshire Easts remit. To the west ofthe site is No.175 Stanley Road which has just completed a previously approvedplanning permission that transformed the dwelling from a typical inter-war dwelling toa contemporary dwelling, similar to what is proposed in this application. Furtheralong on Stanley Road reveal a wider mix of properties, including gable roofs andsome which have been extended in the past. As can be concluded, the streetsceneis varied with a mix of housing designs, roof styles and property ages.

POLICY BACKGROUND

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires

Page 38


39/74


applications/appeals to be determined in accordance with the Statutory DevelopmentPlan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Statutory Development Plan includes:-

Policies set out in the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review May 2006(SUDP) which have been saved by direction under paragraph 1(3) ofSchedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: &

Policies set out in the Stockport Local Development Framework Core StrategyDevelopment Plan Document (CS) adopted 17th March 2011.

Saved policies of the SUDP Review

GBA1.2: CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN BELT

GBA1.5: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN BELT

CDH1.8: RESIDENTIAL EXTENSIONS

LDF Core Strategy/Development Management policies

SD-2: MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING DWELLINGS

SIE-1: QUALITY PLACES

Supplementary Planning GuidanceSupplementary Planning Document 'Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings'adopted February 2011 following public consultation.

Supplementary Planning Guidance (Saved SPGs & SPDs) does not form part of theStatutory Development Plan; nevertheless it provides non-statutory Councilapproved guidance that is a material consideration when determining planningapplications.

National Planning Policy Framework issued by DCLG on 27 March 2012 withimmediate effect (NPPF).

Paragraph 196 states that: The planning system is plan-led. Planning law requiresthat applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan,unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This Framework is a materialconsideration in planning decisions.

NPPF Conformity

The Planning Advisory Services National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Compatibility Self-Assessment Checklist has been undertaken on Stockportsadopted Core Strategy. This document assesses the conformity of Stockports

Page 39


40/74


adopted Core Strategy with the NPPF and takes account of saved policies from theUnitary Development Plan where applicable. No significant differences wereidentified therefore the development plan is in conformity with the NPPF.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/056307- Proposed single storey rear and side extensions and front porch. Lawfuldevelopment certificate granted on 04/09/2014.

NEIGHBOURS VIEWS

The owners/occupiers of four surrounding properties were notified in writing of theapplication. The neighbour notification period expired on the 16 th November 2014.To date, no representations regarding the application have been received.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer- Due to the spacious nature of the site, there is more than enoughspace for parking, even with the loss of an existing garage. The location of theproposed gate and boundary treatment is acceptable. No objections subject toconditions.

Design Officer- To be updated at committee

ANALYSISResidential Amenity

The two properties either side of the applicants dwelling do not look to be adverselyaffected by the proposed works. For example, the side elevation of No.171 StanleyRoad does not appear to contain any principal habitable room windows and theextensions to the rear comply when a 45 degree test is taken from the closestwindow on the rear elevation.

No.175 has erected a single storey rear extension in the past and also has a

swimming pool outbuilding in close proximity to their main dwelling. No originalprincipal habitable rooms would suffer an unacceptable loss of light or outlook. Theproposed works are well separated from all other surrounding properties and wouldhave an acceptable impact.

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not unduly impact onthe residential amenity of the surrounding properties in accordance with UDP policyCDH1.8 and Core strategy policy SIE-1.

Design

It is considered that the proposal would respect the design, scale, materials,character, appearance and proportions of the existing dwelling and would not result

Page 40


41/74


in harm to the character of the street scene, the visual amenity of the area or the inaccordance with UDP policy CDH1.8 and Core Strategy policy SIE-1. Committee willbe updated with the views of the Design Officer at the meeting

Energy Efficiency

Policy SD 2 from the adopted Core Strategy requires people undertaking extensionsto residential properties should take reasonable steps, where possible and practical,to improve the energy performance of the existing dwelling. An energy efficiencychecklist has been submitted with the application, highlighting the potential forenergy efficiency measures to be undertaken.

In view of the above, it is considered that the application has complied with CoreStrategy policy SD-2

Green Belt

Saved UDP Policy GBA1.2 states that there is a presumption against theconstruction of new buildings within the Green Belt unless it is for certain purposes,including limited extension and alterations to existing dwellings. Saved UDP policyGBA1.5 states that proposals relating to existing residential uses may be permittedin certain cases, including alterations and extensions where the scale, character andappearance of the property would not be significantly changed. The interpretation ofsignificant change will vary according to the character of the property but as ageneral guideline, extensions which increase the volume of the original dwelling bymore than about one third are unlikely to be acceptable.

The material test to the acceptability of proposals within the Green Belt is the impactof the siting, size and scale of the proposal on the character and appearance of thedwelling and on the overall openness of the Green Belt.

The volume of the original dwelling as it stood on 1 st July 1948 has been calculatedas 699m 3 and the volume of the resulting dwelling has been calculated as 1150m 3.

As such the volume of the proposed extensions at 451m 3 would represent a 64.5%increase on the volume of the original dwelling.

In this respect, the volume of the proposed extensions would clearly exceed the one-third increase in volume referenced in policy GBA1.5 and, as such, the proposalwould represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt by virtue of adisproportionate addition.

Where development is considered inappropriate, it should only be granted wherespecial circumstances exist. The material test to the acceptability of proposals withinthe Green Belt is the impact of the siting, size and scale of the proposal on thecharacter and appearance of the dwelling and on the overall openness of the GreenBelt. The agent for the application has submitted very special circumstances to

justify the scheme, the conclusions of which are provided below;

The property has permitted development rights and provides a realistic fallbackposition for development. A Lawful Development Certificate has previously beenapproved.

Page 41


42/74


The property is located in ribbon development and has little effect on thesurrounding properties. The proposed extensions are adequately separated fromthe other surrounding properties and the properties themselves are setback fromthe highway.

Much of the proposed works are sited to the rear of the property in aconcentrated form.

The proposed extension does not harm the openness of the green belt due to theabove factors.

It is acknowledged that the property is located within ribbon development on StanleyRoad comprising of other properties, some of which have been significantlyextended in the past and some very recently like 175 Stanley Road next door.

The property benefits from full permitted development rights for the erection ofextensions/outbuildings. Therefore sizeable extensions could be constructed withoutany control from the Local Planning Authority, to both the side and/or rear, as anextension or detached outbuilding, which could significantly reduce the openness ofthe green belt. The applicant has strengthened their permitted development fallbackposition with the submission and subsequent approval of a Lawful DevelopmentCertificate for a single storey rear extension and single storey side extension.

However, the applicant does not have to implement their approved application.Instead they could erect a two storey rear extension, single storey side extension(potentially with a flat roof) and alter the roof without planning permission. Thispotential scheme would not demonstrate good design and would appear as awkwardadditions to the dwelling. The proposed scheme in this planning application is thepreferred option as it does demonstrate acceptable design and would not be anincongruous addition to the streetscene

It should also be noted that the applicant does have a spacious plot and could erecta significantly sized outbuilding in the rear garden that would potentially harm theopenness of the green belt to a significant degree.

Larger extensions albeit of a concentrated form can sometimes be accommodatedwhilst avoiding harm to the overall openness of the Green Belt. In this instance the

resulting development is of a relatively concentrated form which overall, would besympathetic to the character of the area.

Summary

The proposal would not unduly impact on the residential amenity of the surroundingproperties or prejudice a similar development by a neighbour, in accordance withUDP policy CDH1.8 and Core Strategy policy SIE-1.

The general design of the proposed development is considered acceptable in termsof its relationship to the existing dwelling, the character of the street scene and the

visual amenity of the area in accordance with UDP policy CDH1.8 and Core Strategypolicy SIE-1.

Page 42


43/74


Other material considerations such as the Extensions and Alterations to DwellingsSPD and the NPPF have also been considered and it is judged the proposal alsocomplies with the content of these documents.

Whilst the proposal constitutes inappropriate development it would have only limitedharm to the openness of the Green Belt and the case for very special circumstancesis sufficient to outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness. On balance theproposal amounts to Sustainable Development, consequently it is recommended thatpermission be granted subject to appropriate planning conditions.

Recommendation

Grant- with conditions

Page 43


44/74


Page 44


45/74


Page 45


46/74


47/74

Planning AppealsArea Committee: Cheadle

Application No. Appeal Received Case OfficerDC/056355 18/11/2014 Jim Seymour

Location 4 GRANGE PARK ROAD, CHEADLE, SK8 1HQ

Proposal New 3 bedroom Coach House

Appeal Decision Pending

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Enforcement Appeals

There are no pending enforcement appeals

Enforcement NoticesArea Committee: Cheadle

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Enforcement No. CA/010342

Action Serve Enforcement Notice

Location 2 MASSIE STREET, CHEADLE SK8 1BW

Description unauthorised replacement windows

Case Officer Amanda Hopkins

Received Date 06/11/2013

Notice Served Date 15/08/2014P

4 7


48/74

Compliance Da te 13/03/2015

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Enforcement No. CA/010825

Action Serve High Hedge Remedial Notice

Location 208 OUTWOOD ROAD, HEALD GREEN, CHEADLE, SK8 3JL

Description high hedge complaint.

Case Officer Dave Westhead

Received Date 05/09/2014

Notice Served Date 10/10/2014

Compliance Da te 10/02/2015 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

P

4 8


49/74

A

G E N D

A I T E M

ALL AREA COMMITTEES w/c 8 December 2014

ANNUAL REVIEW OF OUTCOMES TOUR

Report of the Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration

1. MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION

1.1 This report announces the intention to hold the Annual Review of Outcomes on6 th March 2015 (2014 tour). The Area Committee is requested to submit theirrecommendation for a completed development site within their area to beincluded on the list of sites to be inspected by the Tour delegates. In additionthe Area Committee are asked to provide nominations for delegates to attend.

1.2 Appended to this report is a list of completed developments for each Committee Area which is provided as an initial suggestion to aid Members in consideringsites to visit. It is acknowledged that for some of the Area Committees,suggestions put forward may not cover all wards. This list has been formedfollowing discussion with Planning, Design and Conservation officers and isbased on knowledge of developments which have either been completed or willbe nearing completion by March 2015.

1.3 Members are further advised that Members of Planning and HighwaysRegulation agreed at the meeting of 20 th November 2014 that the Annual tourshould return to an October date and as such it is proposed to hold a furtherReview of Outcomes Tour on 16 th October 2015. Members will be requested to

make further recommendations for the October Tour during the next municipalyear.

2. INFORMATION

2.1 Each year the Committee selects recently completed developments for review,one for each of the Area Committees. These sites are then inspected to reviewthe effectiveness of the development management process, to identify goodpractice, areas for improvement and lessons for the future.

2.2 The sites selected attempt to broadly reflect the nature of development within

the borough. Each of the sites are visited and inspected by a team of Members,Officers and guests. In previous years guests have included the GreaterManchester Police: Architectural Liaison Office, the Stockport DevelopersForum, Disability Stockport, the Director of Public Health for Stockport, theCommission for Architecture/ the Built Environment, representatives from otherlocal planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate.

2.3 For each site a written report on the planning issues is distributed beforehandand an Officer gives a brief oral presentation and answers any questions on theday. The participants view the site and complete a questionnaire concerning themerits of the development.

2.4 Following the completion of the Tour the findings and any recommendations arereported to the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee.

Page 49

Agenda Item 8.


50/74


51/74

SUGGESTED SITE VISITS MARCH 2015

Bramhall and Cheadle Hulme South Area Committee1. Hulme Hall residential conversion of listed building and new buildresidential development

2. Infill dwelling Swann Lane - Contemporary dwelling in Conservation Area

3. Cheadle Hulme High School New 6 th Form building

Central Area Committee1. S:Park, Tiviot Way commercial mixed use development2. Former Peaches Nightclub, Clarkes Building and the Institute,

Wellington Street/High Street/Fletcher Street - conservation led

residential development3. Former Acton Court Hotel, Great Moor - Day Nursery / Residential

Development

Cheadle Area Committee1. Former Mallard Court, Finney Lane, Heald Green Extra Care Home2. Extension to Sainsburys Cheadle Royal, Cheadle3. Cheadle Green - Regeneration and improvement works to Cheadle

Green

Heatons Reddish Area Committee1. Former Four Heatons Public House, Didsbury Road Local

Foodstore / apartment scheme2. Housing Development, Broomfield Road Residential Development in

conservation area siting.3. Former North Heatons College Buckingham Road, Heaton Moor

Marple Area Committee1. Cataract Mill, Mellor Residential development, Green Belt location2. Former Strines Works, Station Road, Strines - Housing development

Werneth Area Committee1. 2 Sandy Lane Residential development2. Otterspool Weir - Hydro electric power scheme3. Cherry Tree Hotel, Compstall Road, Romiley - Redevelopment of site

to provide 8 new houses and 6 new flats.

Stepping Hill Area Committee1. Aldi, Offerton Precinct2. Former Council Depot, Torkington - Partial demolition of former Depot

Buildings, construction of new two storey 48 bed Care Home with Day

Centre.3. 83 The Crescent, Davenport - Formation of separate dwelling and

erection of pitched roof.

Page 51


52/74Page 52


53/74

A

G E N D A I T E M

Cheadle Area Committee Meeting: Tuesday, 9December 2014

PARLIAMENTARY & LOCAL ELECTIONS - MAY 2015 - POLLING STATIONS

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To seek Area Committee views on a proposal to amend the current pollingarrangements within the area for future elections

2. INFORMATION

2.1 A Council wide review of polling districts, polling places and polling stations was

undertaken between 1 October 2013 and 31 January 2015 as required by theElectoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. The polling arrangements forStockport were agreed by the Council at its meeting on 23 January 2014.

2.2 The next statutory review of polling districts and polling places will be undertaken in2018 in accordance with the statutory timetable.

2.3 In order to respond to issues affecting the availability or suitability of premises foruse as polling stations, a small number of changes need to be considered andconsulted upon and a recommendation made to the Council meeting on 22 January2015.

2.4 Details of potential changes to polling places situated within the Area Committee areset out in the table below. The views of the Area Committee are sought prior to areport being submitted to the Council Meeting in January 2015.

2.5 In designating polling places, the Council must:

a) Seek to ensure that all the electors in the constituency have such reasonablefacilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances;

b) Seek to ensure that so far as is reasonable and practicable, the polling places

they are responsible for are accessible to all electors, including those who aredisabled, and when considering the designation of a polling place, must haveregard to the accessibility needs of disabled persons.

Page 53

Agenda Item 10.


54/74

PollingDistrict

Current pollingPlace

ProposedPolling Place

Reason for change

AA CheadleLibraryCommunityRoom,

Ashfield Road,CheadleSK8 IBB

Trinity Methodist/UnitedReformedChurch, MassieStreet, Cheadle,CheshireSK8 1DU

The polling stationwas previously at TheMethodist Church until2014 when theReturning Officer wasadvised the buildingwas no longeravailable due to otherregular Thursdayactivities. The churchis now available againand is a preferredlocation to the Library.

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 The views of the Area Committee are sought on the proposed amendment to theCouncils polling arrangements. Any comments will be considered and arecommendation submitted to the Council meeting on 22 January 2015.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

There are none

Anyone wishing to inspect the above background papers or requiring further information

should contact Steve Callender on 0161 474 3268 or alternatively [email protected]

Page 54
mailto:[email protected]


55/74


56/74

2.3. The scheme has been identified as a priority for delivery by Cheshire East andfunding towards the scheme has been identified in their Local Growth Fund.

2.4. The proposed scheme corridor was originally identified when Woodford Aerodromewas active and therefore the route avoided the runway. As the runway is no longerrequired alternative route options could be considered.

2.5. Initial work on route options identified two alternatives a green and a blue option andthese were the subject of the preferred route consultation. The green and blue routeoptions both cross the old runway providing a straighter alignment than the originalprotected route however the green route is a more westerly route and thereforecloser to Woodford.

2.6. The Public Consultation for the Poynton Relief Road preferred route option was heldover an eight week period from the 2nd June to the 28th July 2014.

2.7. The Public Consultation consisted of the following:

Six public exhibitions held in the towns and villages in the vicinity of the schemeincluding Poynton and Woodford.

A consultation leaflet and questionnaire distribution to residential properties,based on geographical proximity to the scheme.

A consultation leaflet and cover letter sent out to stakeholders (i.e. localbusinesses, schools, vulnerable user groups) and statutory consultees (i.e.public bodies, local authorities, parish councils).

Consultation material uploaded on to the Cheshire East Council (CEC) website

providing details about the scheme and the consultation, including an onlineversion of the questionnaire and copies of technical reports. There was a linkfrom the Stockport Council website.

Consultation leaflets and questionnaires deposited in Poynton Civic Centre,Poynton Library, Macclesfield Library and Stockport Town Hall.

A scheme article in the Poynton Post newsletter distributed to approximately10,000 properties within Poynton, Adlington and the Fiveways area of HazelGrove.

A scheme article on the Poynton Update News website.

Meetings with the Poynton in Business members, local landowners andbusinesses.

Meetings with key business on Adlington Industrial Estate.

Cheshire East Council Twitter feeds

2.8. In Stockport a report on the consultation proposals was considered by the relevantarea committees, an Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee and theExecutive.

.2.9. The consultation asked people to consider whether they supported a relief road and to

express a preference for one of the two options suggested for the route. Questions also asked

Page 56


57/74

people to identify priorities for the scheme development and whether short termimprovements were required to the A523 south of Poynton. A plan of the options is attachedin appendix 1.

3. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

3.1. During the Public Consultation period, a total of 1,653 questionnaires were receivedin response to the Poynton Relief Road scheme. The full analysis is contained in

Appendix 2. Every item of incoming correspondence which had a return addressreceived a response, whether this was to directly address comments and questionswhich had been raised or alternatively to provide an acknowledgement of receipt.

3.2. The results illustrate that there is widespread support for the link road with 89.1% ofrespondents indicating that they support the scheme and therefore at least one ofthe proposed options. In contrast, opposition to the link road was relatively low with5.6% of respondents against the scheme.

3.3. Analysis of postcode data (where provided) shows that there was broad support forthe proposals across the area. In terms of a route preference the overall responsewas strongly in favour of the Green Route:

3.4.

3.5. Spatial analysis of the responses indicated a similar pattern in the Woodford andBramhall and Hazel Grove areas.In both areas there was strong support for thescheme and a preference for the green option, however, Woodford and Bramhallwas also the area which indicated the strongest support for the blue option.

4. STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES

4.1. Poynton Town Council

4.2. Poynton Town Council is fully supportive of the relief road proposals and their

preferred option is the Green Route. The Town Council does however recognise theimportance of mitigation for areas potentially affected by the proposals, including thecountry lanes within both Poynton and Adlington .

4.3. Adlington Parish Council

4.4. Adlington Parish Council is supportive of the relief road proposals in principle;however they are concerned about the expected increase of traffic on country laneswithin the Parish.

4.5. Prestbury Parish Council

Preferred Route Option Response Response %Green Route Option 1152 73.0%Blue Route Option 93 5.9%

No Preference 332 21.1%Total 1577 100%

Page 57


58/74

4.6. Prestbury Parish Council did not state whether they were supportive of the reliefroad proposals. They raised concerns about the timing of the consultation andrequested further information.

4.7. Trafford Council

4.8. Trafford Council welcomes the proposed relief road and recognises the importance

of bringing economic, social and physical regeneration to the village of Poynton, andthe importance of the scheme to the local economy.

4.9. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

4.10. The consultation response indicated general support for the scheme but a desire tounderstand potential impacts on the highway network in Stockport including the A6High Lane, A34 and A523 especially the proposed new junction with the A555 atMacclesfield Road and roads around Woodford and Bramhall .

4.11. There is an expectation that any negative impacts will be mitigated appropriatelyand that appropriate environmental and traffic mitigation will be developed.

4.12. Concern was expressed regarding the potential impact on residents in Woodfordand the view expressed that the blue route would reduce that impact however if thegreen route was chosen then there should be no greater impact than the originalproposed red route.

4.13. Peak District National Park Authority

4.14. The Peak District National Park (PDNP) Authority did not state whether they weresupportive of the relief road proposals. The PDNP Authority was particularlyinterested in the traffic and visual impacts of the proposals on the national park andrequested further information as the scheme is developed.

4.15. Natural EnglandNatural England did not consider that the proposals posed any likely or significantrisk to those features of the natural environment for which they would otherwiseprovide a more detailed consultation response and so they did not wish to makespecific comment on the details of the consultation.

4.16. Campaign to Protect Rural England

The Campaign to Protect Rural England Cheshire Branch objected to bothPoynton Relief Road and the potential A523 Improvements. They also stated thatthey were a longstanding objector to the SEMMMS roads.

4.17. Detailed responses to all of the issues raised and suggestions for improvements areincluded in the Public Consultation Report (Appendix 2) and will be considered /incorporated where possible into the next stage of design.

5. PREFERRED ROUTE REPORT

Page 58


59/74

5.1. The report documents the methodology used to define the Preferred Route. Itprovides the reasoning and justification for the decisions made in establishing thePreferred Route, and explains the scoring/weighting system used to rank the optionsthat were taken to Public Consultation. The full report is contained at Appendix 3.

5.2. Following feedback received from members of the public, modifications to thealignments taken to Public Consultation were developed. These alignment

modifications are presented in the Public Consultation Report. An assessment of theproposed alignment modifications and full justification / assessment of any of theproposed alignment modifications are contained in the Preferred Route report.

5.3. Based on the results of the assessment the Blue Route Option has been discountedwith the Green Route Option taken forward. As several potential amendments to therelief road route had been suggested during the Public Consultation, these wereassessed against the Green Route Option. This assessment has concluded that thealternatives suggested performed less well than the Green Route.

5.4. The detailed appraisals of all alternative alignments which were prepared areincluded within the Preferred Route Report for completeness and also to illustratethe effort and time that was taken in an attempt to improve the link road designfollowing requests made throughout the consultation period.

5.5. A number of locations on the A523 were identified for short term schemes and a

commitment was made to undertake a multi modal study. This Study will identifymedium and long term improvement options and will examine all modes of transport.

5.6. The main objective of the study is to identify a strategy for reducing demand fortravel by car on the A523 London Road. The implementation of this strategy wouldbe complementary to the delivery of the relief road.

6. FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME

6.1. Cheshire East Council is identifying a future works programme to develop thescheme details. Issues that will need to be considered include access arrangements,mitigation measures, drainage, environmental impacts and off-site trafficmanagement. This will also allow the refinement of the scheme estimate.

6.2. As part of the scheme development towards a planning application another round offormal public consultation will take place next summer.

6.3. Stockport Council commented on the proposed route options stating their preferencewas the blue option but that the green would be acceptable if the mitigation of theimpacts of the scheme reduced the level of predicted impact to that of the originalscheme. The responses from residents in Stockport to the scheme options indicatedthat whilst the green option was supported by the majority of residents those livingclosest to the proposed green route were in favour of the blue route. Council officerswill need to work closely with Cheshire East council to ensure any impacts from theproposed scheme are mitigated to an appropriate level.

6.4. Key activities and dates include::

Activity Indicative Dates (end date) by

Preliminary Design September 2015

Page 59


60/74

Environmental Surveys September 2015Environmental Statement October 2015Ground Investigation & reports May 2015Pre planning Consultation July 2015Planning Application February 2016Statutory Orders June 2017Detailed Design January 2018Road Open January 2019

7. SECTION 8 AGREMENT

7.1. The rou

Cheadle Area Committee Agenda 9 Dec 2014

Documents

Transcript of Cheadle Area Committee Agenda 9 Dec 2014