To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Head of Planning and Development submitted a report concerning an application for planning permission for residential development of up to 400 dwellings, including the creation of new points of access, provision of formal and informal open space, ancillary landscaping, car parking and highway and drainage works.

(A)           RESOLVED:  That had Members been able to determine the planning application they would be minded to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

(1)             The impacts of the proposed development on designated and non-designated heritage assets have not been adequately accounted for within the application submission. The proposed development – in principle and without adequate pre-determination evaluation – could result in the total loss of potential assets of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments and to other non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which would equate to substantial harm in NPPF terms., The proposed development – by reason of its scale, layout and distribution – would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of other built designated and non-designated heritage assets. This harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the development. The proposal fails to satisfy the tests at paragraphs 195 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework and is contrary to Policy R1, Policy R2 and Policy R3 of the Trafford Core Strategy.

(2)In reviewing this outline application it is apparent that a parameters plan and indicative drawings are not sufficient in seeking to establish the acceptability of the scheme as a whole, in particular the amount, nature and location of on-site mitigation required and potential necessary new infrastructure, and the effect this might have on the quantum of development the site can reasonably deliver. The proposal is contrary to Policy L3, Policy L4, Policy L7, Policy R2 and Policy R3 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(3)The proposed development is in an unsuitable location by virtue of being other protected, open or safeguarded land, in an area of poor accessibility to public transport, jobs and amenities, and with a heavily congested road network. The proposal does not support necessary new infrastructure and facilities, and has not been planned to enable sensitive integration with the existing settlement and a potential new settlement, and to support wider regeneration. As a result, the development would function as an isolated community and a sustainable pattern of growth would not be achieved. Sustainable development would not be delivered and the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, and to Policy L1, Policy L3, Policy L4 and Policy L7 and Policy R4 of the Core Strategy.

(4)No allowance has been made for affordable housing provision within the development and the submitted financial viability appraisal has not adequately demonstrated that the development could not otherwise be delivered. The development would not contribute to affordable housing needs and would not support the creation of mixed and balanced communities. The proposal is contrary to Policy L2 and Policy L8 of the Core Strategy, SPD1: Planning Obligations and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(5)The proposed development – by reasons of its scale, distribution and lack of landscape buffers - would be inappropriate to the site’s rural context and would cause significant harm to landscape character and to the appreciation of rural views. The proposal is contrary to Policy R2 of the Core Strategy, SPG30: Landscape Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(6)The proposed development, by reason of its scale, distribution, layout and absence of off-site linkages, fails to respond to the site’s context and character, and it would not deliver an accessible, integrated, outwardlooking and inclusive residential development. The proposal is contrary to Policy L7 of the Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guide.

(B)         That should the appellants not accept the Council’s proposed mitigation via condition / S106 contribution in respect of highways, accessibility and education matters, and sustainable future growth, that the following additional reasons for refusal are also put to the Inquiry:

(7)In the absence of an agreed off-site mitigation scheme, the proposed development would have severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network, specifically at the following junctions [delete as appropriate]: Central Road/A6144 mini-roundabout, Moss Lane/Manchester Road/A6144 mini-roundabout, Isherwood Road (B5158)/A6144. The proposal fails to satisfy the test at paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework and it is also contrary to Policy L4 of the Core Strategy.

(8)The application site is located in an area where public transport provision is inadequate and there are limited alternative means of transport to the private car. Insufficient allowance has been made for the development to contribute towards an improved public transport network, and prospective residents of the development would become heavily reliant on the private car. The proposal is contrary to Policy L4 and Policy L7 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(9)There are insufficient primary school places in the local area to accommodate the needs arising from this proposed development. No allowance has been made for the development to contribute towards new/expanded primary school provision and the development would have an unacceptable impact by creating a shortfall in school places. The proposal is contrary to Policy L8 of the Core Strategy, SPD1: Planning Obligations and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(10)    The proposed development does not allow for potential additional infrastructure to be incorporated into the site to enable wider integration and to facilitate future sustainable growth.  The proposal is contrary to Policy L3, Policy L4, Policy L7 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.  

(C)            That should further information / submissions come forward before the Public Inquiry is held with the result that any of the matters above are considered capable of resolution via planning condition / S106 that the adjustment of the Council’s case accordingly is delegated to the Head of Planning and Development. 

Under the discretion of Item C above, officers request that this includes the ability to amend the wording of the recommended Reasons for Refusal, if necessary, as the appeal process continues.