nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
Application Reference:
August 2012
DC/049842
Proposal:
Construction of a playground/multi use games area with
associated fencing, floodlighting and access paths
Type of Application:
Full Planning Permission
Registration Date:
Expiry Date:
Responsible Officer:
08/05/2012
03/07/2012
Mark Burgess
Applicant:
Agent :
The Sea Shell Trust
Thomas Worthington Design
Location: 166 STANLEY ROAD, CHEADLE HULME, STOCKPORT, SK8 6RQ
COMMITTEE STATUS
Planning and Highways Regulation Committee - Departure.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
Permission is sought for the provision of a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) to be
located to the West of the site on an unused grassed area. The proposed MUGA
would have a maximum width of 18.4 metres and a maximum length of 24.0 metres
and would include a porous tarmac footpath to the Western side. The sides of the
MUGA would be enclosed by a 1.0 metre high fence and the ends of the MUGA
would be enclosed by a 3.6 metres high fence. Four flood lighting poles would be
provided at each corner of the proposed MUGA, with a height of 6.0 metres. A small
brick building, used as a temporary maintenance store, would be demolished to
accommodate the proposal.
The proposed pitch would operate between the hours of 09:00 to 21:00 Monday to
Friday, 08:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays and 08:00 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank
Holidays. The facility would be used solely by existing students at the school.
The application is supported by the following submitted documentation :•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement (including Flood lighting Data)
Arboricultural Implications Assessment
Transport Statement
Bat Survey
Amphibian Mitigation Strategy
Details of the design and siting of the proposed development are attached to the
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
report
SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The Seashell Trust operates as a school, college and children's/adults residential
home. It specialises in providing education and care to children and young people
with complex needs and disabilities, including a combination of deafness, blindness
and autism, attendant with profound physical and multiple learning
disabilities/difficulties. The Seashell Trust has capacity for 100 children and young
adults, aged from 2 to 25 years, many of whom live on-site and require 24 hour care
for 52 weeks of the year.
The Trust's developed 30-acre site is located to the North of and is accessed from
Stanley Road. The site has an open, low-density character with two and three storey
buildings generally located towards the South and is located within a landscaped
setting. There are 6 principle buildings; 2 educational buildings with attached
recreational facilities, 2 residential blocks and separate medical and assessment
buildings, which are predominantly of brick construction, with a variety of pitched and
flat roofs. Vehicular access to various parking areas and pedestrian access to the
buildings are located within the site
The proposed MUGA would be located to the West of the site, between the existing
college buildings to the East and the Western boundary. The site of the proposed
MUGA is bounded to the South and East by the Trust's developed campus site, to
the West by a wooded area and to the North by an airport car park.
POLICY BACKGROUND
The adopted development plan for Stockport constitutes the Stockport Core Strategy
DPD (Core Strategy) which was adopted in March 2011 and saved policies of the
adopted Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (UDP).
The application site is allocated within a Major Existing Developed Site in the Green
Belt (MEDS) and Landscape Character Area (Heald Green Fringe), as defined on
the UDP Proposals Map. The following policies are therefore relevant :Saved UDP policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
LCR1 : LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS
LCR1.1A : THE URBAN FRINGE INCLUDING THE RIVER VALLEYS
EP1.9 : SAFEGUARDING OF AERODROMES AND AIR NAVIGATION
FACILITIES
GBA1.2 : CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN BELT
GBA1.7 : MAJOR EXISTING DEVELOPED SITES IN THE GREEN BELT
L1.1 : LAND FOR ACTIVE RECREATION
Core Strategy DPD policies
•
CS8 : SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
August 2012
SIE-1 : QUALITY PLACES
SIE-3 : PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE
ENVIRONMENT
SIE-5 : AVIATION FACILITIES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST
INFORMATION
CS9 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
CS10 : AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT NETWORK
T-1 : TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
T-2 : PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS
T-3 : SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK
National Planning Legislation
THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)
PLANNING HISTORY
•
DC049828 : Construction of a synthetic sports pitch with associated flood lighting,
fencing, viewing area and footpath : To be determined
•
DC049833 : Demolition of existing training centre building and erection of 17 no.
residential units (Class C2), garden pavilion, electrical distribution panel and
associated works, hard and soft landscaping, area of play and parking facilities :
To be determined
•
DC040297 : Proposed illuminated double sided monolith advertisement panel :
Refused - 16/10/08
•
DC040179 : Erection of single storey extension to be used as student common
room with toilets, kitchen, store room and entrance foyer : Granted - 02/10/08
•
DC028238 : Construction of 6 bed residential unit : Refused - 04/02/08
•
DC028181 : Photovoltaic solar panels on existing swimming pool flat roof :
Granted - 11/12/07
•
DC025700 : Erection of single storey teaching block with covered link to existing
building : Granted - 04/04/07
•
DC024261 : Erection of three special needs residential units with total of 24 bed
spaces : Withdrawn - 11/12/06
•
DC024050 : Over roofing of existing flat roofed college building : Granted 18/10/06
•
DC022133 : Variation of condition 3 of consent DC020664 to allow extensions to
remain after 10 years time limit : Granted - 05/04/06
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
•
DC022080 : Erection of 4 temporary classrooms : Granted - 04/04/06
•
DC020664 : Single storey front and rear extensions to post 16 college : Granted 03/01/06
•
DC019319 : Re-cladding of external walls and refurbishment of existing roof to
sports hall : Granted - 02/06/05
•
DC013287 : Single storey extension to existing leisure hall to provide additional
recreation space, storage and changing facilities : Granted - 26/01/04
•
DC006322 : Refurbishment/extension of existing swimming pool building :
Granted - 25/01/02
•
DC001761 : Refurbishment and extension of existing swimming pool together
with reorganisation of car parking and associated external works : Granted 04/09/00
•
J.72398 : Erection of two storey residential and assessment centre and extension
to main building to form indoor sports hall and extended swimming pool surround
with cycle track and additional car parking : Granted - 20/10/99
•
J.70310 : Single storey extension to Wainwright House to form hydrotherapy pool
: Granted - 27/01/99
•
J.64523 : Erection of single storey residential unit for 12 autistic adults (C2) to be
used in connection with the Deaf School with construction of vehicular access on
to Wilmslow Road (reserved matters) : Granted - 22/07/96
•
J.63779 : Installation of lift shaft : Granted - 08/01/96
•
J.60717 : Erection of single storey residential unit for 12 autistic adults (C2) to be
used in conjunction with the Deaf School with construction of new vehicular
access on to Wilmslow Road (outline) : Granted - 10/11/94
•
J.60174 : Erection of gas metre kiosk : Granted - 15/06/94
•
J.47933 : Two storey and single storey extensions : Granted - 02/05/90
•
J.47680 : First floor extension to admin block : Granted - 02/05/90
•
J.46651 : Two storey side extension and new garage : Granted - 09/11/89
•
J.38097 : Class 14 residential accommodation with staff and ancillary
accommodation (Outline) : Granted 10/02/87
•
J.31333 : Proposed single storey extension to medical centre : Granted 19/07/84
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
•
J.27334 : Retention of temporary residential student accommodation : Granted 08/08/83
•
J.6996 : Single-storey extension to secretaries office : Granted - 15/09/76
•
J.6675 : Single storey extension to house : Granted - 10/08/76
•
J.6573 : Single storey extensions : Granted - 21/07/76
•
J.4215 : Extension : Granted - 22/10/75
•
J.4214 : Extension : Granted - 22/10/75
•
J.4204 : Extension : Granted - 22/10/75
NEIGHBOURS VIEWS
The owners/occupiers of neighbouring properties on Stanley Road, Wilmslow Road
and Griffin Farm Drive were notified in writing of the application. The neighbour
notification period expired on the 16th June 2012. No letters of representation have
been received to the application.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Arboricultural Officer
The site is located within landscaped school grounds which stands adjacent to open
fields. The site location for the MUGA is an open space amongst some pretty
ordinary trees. None of these trees should be affected by what is proposed so I have
no objections to this application.
Cheshire East Council
No comments made.
Environment Team (Land)
No objections to the proposed development provided that the following informative
notes are added to the decision notice :1) Any investigation or risk assessment which seeks to establish the presence or
otherwise of contamination on or close to the site of a proposed development should
be carried out in accordance with current legislation and guidance. QA/QC
procedures should be applied at all stages of the investigation. The procedures
applied should be capable of confirming the reliability and robustness of the
investigation and the data produced.
The Local Planning Authority should be fully informed as information is produced, to
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
confirm that the information is sufficient for the purpose intended. Consultation with
the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer and, when applicable, the
Environment Agency (EA) should cover methods of ground investigation. It is vital to
consult the (EA) to ensure that potential risks to controlled waters and underlying
aquifers, caused by the creation of migration routes during site investigation
measures such as boreholes, are avoided.
2) Should contamination be suspected, found or be caused at any time when
carrying out the development that was not previously identified, the local planning
authority should be notified immediately and development affected or potentially
affected by the contamination should stop and an investigation and/or risk
assessment and/or remediation carried out to establish the most appropriate course
of action. Failure to stop and notify may render the Developer/Owner liable for the
costs of any investigation and remedial works under Part IIA of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.
Environment Team (Pollution)
No objections or comments to make regarding the proposed flood lighting scheme
due to the proposal and location.
Planning Policy Officer
Playgrounds/MUGA's are normally considered as urban facilities and their provision
within Green Belt is not considered appropriate. Subject to the determination as to
whether the overall proposal will have a greater impact on openness and whether
special circumstances exist, it will affect the view on appropriateness or otherwise of
this proposal.
The critical matter is whether or not it accords with the NPPF with regards to having
no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. I really cannot agree with the
case put forward in the Planning Statement that it is not detrimental to openness
because it is located between existing buildings/proposed landscaping - whilst this is
the case, it is of equal (if not greater) significance that it has open, undeveloped land
to much of its boundary. It cannot be said that if you were to stand and look across
the site there are not currently views into the open land beyond (even with current
planting) and those views would be substantially lost were the development to go
ahead. With that being the case it really is not possible to conclude that there would
be no greater impact on openness and, therefore, that the scheme constitutes
infilling (and, therefore, would be consistent with GBA1.7 and not a departure).
The proposal should, therefore, be considered a departure from the development
plan (GBA1.7). In such circumstances the NPPF allows for the demonstration of
‘very special circumstances which outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt'.
The case set out in ‘STEP TWO’ of the Planning Statement is, however, utterly
compelling and provides absolute justification for the proposal to be approved as a
departure.
Whilst there is incredibly good justification to allow this scheme to go ahead
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
regardless of the harm caused to the Green Belt, the only way in which that can be
enabled by a planning consent is for it to be as a departure; to do otherwise (i.e.
permit it as appropriate, infill development without the acceptance of a case for very
special circumstances) would set a precedent allowing potentially harmful
development at other Green Belt sites where there is no such justification.
Highway Engineer
The application is for the provision of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), for use by
the current population of students and residents at the School. There is no
suggestion that the facility would be used by third parties or the Community in
general, which negates any additional traffic generation. In effect there is no material
change in traffic or parking demand as the facility is intended to serve the existing
School.
I note some improvements to pedestrian linkage across the site will be provide and
this is welcomed. In conclusion I raise no highway objections to the proposal.
Recommendation - No objections.
Sport England
It is understood that the site forms part of, or constitutes a playing field as defined in
The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England)
Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No.2184).
Sport England therefore regards this consultation as statutory, and has considered
the application in the light of its playing fields policy. The aim of this policy is to
ensure that there is an adequate supply of quality pitches to satisfy the current and
estimated future demand for pitch sports within the area. The policy seeks to protect
all parts of the playing field from development and not just those which, for the time
being, are laid out as pitches. The Policy states that:
“Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development
which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a
playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field
in an adopted or draft deposit local plan, unless, in the judgement of Sport England,
one of the Specific circumstances applies.”
Reason: Development which would lead to the loss of all or part of a playing field, or
which would prejudice its use, should not normally be permitted because it would
permanently reduce the opportunities for participation in sporting activities.
Government planning policy and the policies of Sport England have recognised the
importance of such activities to the social an economic well-being of the country.
The Seashell Trust is a charity that operates as a school, college and child/adult
residential home. Seashell specialises in providing education and care to children
and young people with complex needs and disabilities including a combination of
deafness, blindness and autism, attendant with profound physical and multiple
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
learning disabilities and/or difficulties. Many of the children and young adults live
onside and require twenty-four hour care for 52 weeks of the year.
In brief, the planning application seeks consent for a Multi Use Games Area
(MUGA). Information supporting the application states that the MUGA is to be used
for educational and recreational purposes by the students.
The 450 square metre MUGA would be located at the West of the site, to be used
solely be existing students at the school. This part of the site is an unused area of
grass, enclosed by trees. The site was formerly the location for an outdoor miniature
railway circuit which was removed in 2007. The MUGA would take the form of a
fenced and floodlit ‘adiZone MUGA’.
In terms of impact on existing sports facilities, new sports facilities are proposed in
the creation of the MUGA. There would appear to be a clear need for the MUGA.
The existing external sports provision takes place on grass, but according to
supporting information a high percentage of the students and residents must use
wheelchairs or gait trainers and find these grassed areas inaccessible, particularly in
bad weather. This limits the opportunities for participation in sport. The MUGA has
been identified following testing of existing sports facilities to find ones which would
be suitable for students.
The Seashell Trust actively promotes sports for young people and has won awards
for work in relation to CADS (Children's Able and Disabled Sport). CADS is a series
of unique sport, health and leisure activities which aims to make sport fully inclusive.
The MUGA has been identified to further develop this programme.
Taking all the above into account, whilst some existing areas of the site used for
sport would be lost to development, new sports facilities would be created. Indeed
the range of sports facilities on the site would increase, as would both the number of
pitches and the area of the site covered by formal pitches. The facilities have been
identified to ensure that the sporting needs of students are better satisfied. They
have the potential to allow the existing CADS initiative to be further developed, and
both through this and the intended community use, represent an opportunity to
increase participation is sport.
At this point, it is pertinent to note that flood lighting is generally considered essential
for MUGA's to ensure that their ability to allow for intensive use is realised. Flood
lighting clearly allows use of facilities into the evening. However, it would also allow
use during the school/college day during winter in poor light (eg in poor weather or in
the early morning late afternoon). Ball retention fencing is also considered essential
to MUGAs and AGPs in order to ensure a reasonable quality of play.
In conclusion, the application is considered to represent the specific circumstances
set out in Sport England's playing field policy in which we will not object to an
application affecting a playing field, namely E4 and E5 which are set out below:
E4 The playing field or playing fields, which would be lost as a result of the proposed
development, would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and
subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the
commencement of development.
E5 The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the
provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to
outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields.
This being the case, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to the
application, subject to the following condition :•
Prior to the commencement of development details for the phasing of
development, including the provision of the sports facilities and playing pitches,
and any temporary replacement pitch provision needed to protect and ensure the
continuity of the existing use (including any community use) during the
construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. The scheme shall
ensure that any temporary replacement pitches remain at least as accessible and
at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality and
include a timetable for implementation. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Manchester Airport
Comments not received at the time of report preparation - To be reported verbally to
committee when received.
Nature Development Officer
Comments not received at the time of report preparation - To be reported verbally to
committee when received.
United Utilities
No objections, provided that the following conditions are met :•
No run off from this proposal should be allowed to discharge to the public sewer
network.
ANALYSIS
Policy principle
The application site for the proposed MUGA falls within the boundaries of a Major
Existing Developed Site within the Green Belt (MEDS).
Saved UDP Policy GBA1.2 indicates that there is a general presumption against the
construction of new buildings within the Green Belt unless it is for a number of
specified purposes, including (iv) limited infilling or redevelopment of Major Existing
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
Developed Sites identified on the Proposals Map, in accordance with policy GBA1.7.
Saved UDP Policy GBA1.7 expands on Saved UDP policy GBA1.2, indicating that
'limited infilling' will be permitted provided that it accords with a series of criteria and
NPPF (paragraph 89 bullet point 6) states that Local Planning Authorities should
regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt with
exceptions including 'limited infilling' or the partial or complete redevelopment of
previously developed sites (brownfield land), which would not have a greater impact
on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than
the existing development.
The Council Planning Policy Officer considers that playgrounds/MUGA's are
normally considered as urban facilities and their provision within Green Belt is not
considered appropriate. Subject to the determination as to whether the overall
proposal will have a greater impact on openness and whether special circumstances
exist, it will affect the view on appropriateness or otherwise of this proposal. The
Planning Policy Officer considers that it is not possible to conclude that there would
be no greater impact on openness (in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 89 bullet
point 6)), so the proposal does not constitute limited 'infilling' and the application is
not consistent with policy GBA1.7.
In such circumstances paragraph 88 of the NPPF allows for the demonstration of
‘very special circumstances' that outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt.
‘STEP TWO’ of the submitted Planning Statement sets out the 'very special
circumstances' that exist in this case, and these can be summarised as :- Seashell
Trust is a nationally important facility; there is an increase in the need for Seashell
Trust facilities; the 'do nothing' approach would jeopardise the Trust's future; the
need to replace the current accommodation; the accommodation can only be
delivered at the site; and the scale of the development is necessary to meet the
needs of the students.
The above 'very special circumstances' are considered, in the opinion of the
Planning Policy Officer, to be utterly compelling and provide absolute justification for
the proposal to be approved as a departure from the development plan.
Design, siting, impact on Landscape Character Area and impact on amenity
The application site falls within the boundaries of the 'Heald Green Fringe'
Landscape Character Area. Saved UDP policy LCR1.1 requires that development in
the Landscape Character Areas be sensitively sited, designed and constructed of
materials appropriate to the landscape character area in which it is located and be
accommodated without adverse effect on the landscape quality of the particular
character area. Saved UDP policy LCR1.1a states that proposal for development in
the urban fringe should protect, conserve and improve the landscape quality and
natural history of the locality and encourage the development of a variety of
attractive landscape types.
Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-1 requires that development be designed
and landscaped to the highest standard, paying high regards to the environment in
which it will be sited and to residential amenity. Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-3 aims
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
to ensure that development protects the natural environment and does not result in
pollution.
The proposed development would be sensitively sited to the Western portion of the
site, in proximity to the Western site boundary which is adjoined by a wooded area
and an airport car park. The height of the proposed flood lighting at 6.0 metres and
the proposed perimeter fencing at a maximum height of 3.6 metres is noted.
However, these proposed structures would be of slender scale and would be
capable of being painted in a visually appropriate colour. Limited public vantage of
the proposed development would be available from Stanley Road to the South,
Wilmslow Road to the West and the A34 to the North and East and the proposed
development would be viewed against the backdrop of existing school buildings to
the East and would be screened by existing mature trees to the North and West. The
application has been accompanied by Flood lighting data, in which it has been
attempted to minimise unacceptable light pollution. The proposed flood lighting
scheme has been assessed by the Council Environment Team, who raise no
objections to the proposed scheme or its location. As such, in view of the sensitive
siting and design of the proposed flood lighting and the separation from the nearest
residential properties to the South and screening to the North, East and West, it is
considered that residential amenity would not be unduly harmed by reason of noise,
disturbance or light pollution. A condition is recommended to limit the hours of use to
those applied for.
In view of the above, the visual appearance and impact of the proposed
development is considered to be minimal and it is considered that the proposal can
be accommodated without causing undue harm to the character of the Landscape
Character Area, the overall visual amenity of the area or on the amenity of residential
properties. As such, the design and siting of the proposed development is
considered to comply with Saved UDP policies LCR1.1 and LCR1.1a. and Core
Strategy DPD policies CS8, SIE-1 and SIE-3.
Impact on existing sports facilities/pitches
The detailed comments of Sport England can be found in the consultee responses
section above.
Information supporting the application states that the MUGA is to be used for
educational and recreational purposes by the students. The 450 square metre
MUGA would be located at the West of the site, to be used solely be existing
students at the school. This part of the site is an unused area of grass, enclosed by
trees. The site was formerly the location for an outdoor miniature railway circuit
which was removed in 2007. The MUGA would take the form of a fenced and floodlit
‘adiZone MUGA’.
In terms of impact on existing sports facilities, new sports facilities are proposed in
the creation of the MUGA. There would appear to be a clear need for the MUGA.
The existing external sports provision takes place on grass, but according to
supporting information a high percentage of the students and residents must use
wheelchairs or gait trainers and find these grassed areas inaccessible, particularly in
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
bad weather. This limits the opportunities for participation in sport. The MUGA has
been identified following testing of existing sports facilities to find ones which would
be suitable for students.
Whilst some existing areas of the site used for sport would be lost to development,
new sports facilities would be created. Indeed the range of sports facilities on the site
would increase, as would both the number of pitches and the area of the site
covered by formal pitches. The facilities have been identified to ensure that the
sporting needs of students are better satisfied. The proposed flood lighting and ball
retention fencing is considered essential to allow use into the evening, in poor light
and to ensure a reasonable quality of play.
As such, no objections are raised from Sport England as the proposed development
is considered to represent a specific circumstance set out in Sport England's playing
fields policy. It is recommended that a condition is imposed to ensure that details for
the phasing of the development including temporary replacement pitch provisions is
submitted, approved and implemented as agreed. Subject to compliance with this
condition, the proposal is considered to comply with Saved UDP policy L1.1.
Access, highways and parking
A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application. The Council
Highway Engineer notes that the proposal for the provision of a MUGA is for the use
by the current population of students and residents at the school. There is no
suggestion that the facility would be used by third parties or the community in
general, which negates any additional traffic generation. In effect there is no material
change in traffic or parking demand as the facility is intended to serve the existing
school. Some improvements to pedestrian linkages are proposed across the site,
which is encouraged.
In view of the above, no objections are raised to the proposal from the Council
Highway Engineer and the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy DPD
policies CS9, T-1, T-3 and SIE-1.
Land contamination
The detailed comments of the Council Environment Team (Land) can be found in the
consultee responses section above. No objections are raised to the proposal from
the Council Environment Team (Land), subject to the inclusion of informative notes.
As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Saved UDP policy EP1.7 and
Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-3 and the proposed development is not
considered to be at risk from land contamination or at risk of flooding.
Impact on trees
An Arboricultural Implications Assessment have been submitted with the application.
The detailed comments of the Council Arboricultural Officer can be found in the
consultee responses section above. The site is located within landscape school
grounds which stands adjacent to open fields. The site location for the proposed
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
MUGA is an open space amongst trees with little visual amenity merit and none of
these trees should be affected by what is proposed. As such, no objections are
raised and the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on trees, in
accordance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS8, SIE-1 and SIE-3
Ecology issues
The comments of the Council Nature Development Officer have not been received at
the time of report preparation. These comments will be reported verbally to
committee in terms of compliance with Core Strategy DPD policies CS8 and SIE-3.
Airport safeguarding
The comments of Manchester Airport have not been received at the time of report
preparation. These comments will be reported verbally to committee in terms of
compliance with Saved UDP policy EP1.9 and Core Strategy DPD policy SIE-5.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, although the application represents a departure from the development
plan, the justification made for 'very special circumstances' that outweigh the
potential harm to the Green Belt is considered to be compelling, and so no
objections are raised by the Council Planning Policy Officer. It is considered that the
proposed development would be sensitively sited and designed in order to ensure no
adverse impact on the visual amenity of the Landscape Character Area or on the
residential amenity of surrounding properties. Subject to the imposition of conditions,
no objections are raised to the proposal from Sport England in terms of impact on
sports facilities. No objections are raised by the Highway Engineer in terms of impact
on highway safety, the Arboricultural Officer in terms of impact on trees and the
Environment Team with regard to the issues of land contamination and pollution.
Notwithstanding and pending any comments or objections raised from the Nature
Development Officer and Manchester Airport, it is considered that 'very special
circumstances' have been demonstrated to justify a departure from the development
and the application is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant, subject to conditions
CHEADLE AREA COMMITTEE (17TH JULY 2012)
It was agreed with the Chair that all three applications submitted for the site
(DC049828 - Synthetic sports pitch; DC049833 - Residential scheme; DC049842 MUGA) should be presented together.
The Planning Officer introduced that applications and provided an update to
members regarding no objections raised from Manchester Airport and the comments
raised by the Council Nature Development Officer regarding issues relating to
protected species and EC habitats directive. Whilst the siting of the developments
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
within the Green Belt/Major Existing Developed Site in the Green Belt and the
comments of Sport England were noted, it was considered that the very special
circumstances submitted outweighed these issues.
Councillor Roberts accepted the recommendations in the Green Belt as correct and
sought clarification on the overall loss or gain of amenity space. The Planning Officer
stated that, although some grassed areas would be lost from the proposed
developments, additional sports facilities would be provided and the very special
circumstances demonstrated outweighed any loss.
Councillor Burns asked what type of fencing was proposed, which was clarified by
the Planning Officer.
Councillor Pantall recognised the siting with the Major Existing Developed Site within
the Green Belt and asked at what point would there be a limit on development,
noting the extensive planning history at the site. The Planning Officer confirmed that
each application would be determined on its own merits. Whilst the proposals were
not considered to represent limited infilling, the very special circumstances
demonstrated would outweigh any harm.
Councillor Burns recognised and supported protection of the Green Belt. However,
the proposal would result in improvements to existing facilities which are required by
the Seashell Trust.
All members supported all three proposals, and referred the applications to the
Planning and Highways Regulation Committee with a recommendation to grant.
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012
nd
Planning & Highways Regulations Committee – 2
August 2012