________________________________________________________________________________

Application Number Recommendation ________________________________________________________________________________ 09/D51850 Refuse Permission 19, CHAMBER HOUSE DRIVE, ROCHDALE, OL11 3LS 09/D51960 Refuse Permission 52, MERE STREET, ROCHDALE, OL11 3SP 09/D52014 Grant Permission subject to conditions TACK LEA WORKS, BURY & ROCHDALE OLD ROAD, HEYWOOD 09/D52039 Grant Permission subject to conditions 649, BURY ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL11 4AU 09/D52134 Grant Permission subject to conditions STONEY HEYS FARM, ROAD LANE, ROCHDALE, OL12 0TJ 09/D52144 Grant Permission subject to conditions 806-810 MANCHESTER ROAD, ROCHDALE 09/D52151 Grant Permission subject to conditions 1, ROUGH HEY WALK, ROCHDALE, OL16 5SU 09/D52167 Grant Permission subject to conditions INSTORE, CENTRAL RETAIL PARK, RICHARD STREET, ROCHDALE

PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE DATE: 28 JULY 2009

Page - 1 -

Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D51850 Householder Application Castleton

TWO STOREY SIDE/FRONT AND SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSIONS TO DWELLING INCORPORATING TWO FRONT BALCONIES - RESUBMISSION D51537 19, CHAMBER HOUSE DRIVE, ROCHDALE, OL11 3LS For:- MR M ALAM Received 17-Mar-2009

RECOMMENDATION Refuse Permission

Reasons: 1. The application proposes a two storey side/front extension and a single storey front

extension on a detached dwelling on Chamber House Drive. The application property is set further back than its neighbour at number 17, and owing to this staggered relationship the proposed side extension would result in a two-storey gable wall projecting 7.3m beyond the rear of number 17. The two storey building would be much larger in footprint and height than the previous garage that occupied the site and, notwithstanding the 2m separation between the two houses, the extension would unacceptably overshadow and dominate the rear elevation and garden of the neighbouring house, and would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook and daylight of its occupants. The proposal is contrary to policy H/11 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan by unduly affecting the amenity of adjoining residents, and is contrary to the guidance contained within the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note: Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development.

2. The application proposes a two storey side/front extension and a single storey front extension on a detached dwelling on Chamber House Drive, incorporating two front balconies. The design of the extensions is incompatible with the original dwelling and its neighbours in terms of design, size and scale. The recessed garage doors, covered first floor balcony, brick arches and brick piers are all out-of-character with the house and street scene. The design of the two front balconies would be incompatible with the design of the original dwelling and owing to the forwards projection of the two storey extension including front balcony, the extension would appear overly large and prominent. The proposal is contrary to policies H/11 and BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary, which seek to retain and enhance the character of the property and the street scene within the vicinity of any development. The proposal is also contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, which states that ‘Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted’.

_________________________________________ Report Councillor Ted Flynn has requested that this application be determined by the committee. This application was deferred by Members at the meeting of the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee on 30th June, in order that they could view the site.

Page - 2 -

Site: The property is a detached dwelling fronting Chamber House Drive, set directly opposite the junction with the small cul-de-sac of Loisine Close. The property includes a long private driveway of 14m with the gable elevation of the adjacent house, number 17, adjoining one side. This gable elevation contains one obscurely glazed window at the first floor level. The application property is set further back then number 17, with its front elevation being approximately aligned with the rear elevation of the neighbour. Until recently, the application property had a detached double garage adjacent to the boundary with number 17, but this has now been demolished. The boundary treatment between these two properties is made of a hedge, approximately 1.7m in height, although part of the hedge has died, leaving a gap of around 5m where there is no physical barrier separating the two properties. Proposal: The application is for a two storey side and front extension, single storey front extension, and two front balconies. The two storey extension would be set 1m away from the shared boundary with number 17, would measure 10m in length, 6.2m in width and project 5m forward of the existing front elevation of the property, with recessed garage doors at the ground floor level and a covered balcony at the first floor level. The rear elevation of the extension would be flush with the rear elevation of the house. The extension would have a front-facing gable detail on a dual-pitched roof. The single storey front extension would be 6.5m wide and would extend between the existing front door of the house and the proposed side extension. This extension would comprise open archways at the ground floor level with a balcony above, projecting 1.2m out from the front of the house. Policy Background: Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (adopted 15th June 2006) – G/D/1 Defined Urban Area H/11 Residential Extensions BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development. National Guidance – PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Site History:

• September 1995 – Application 95/D32277 – Single storey rear extension to dwelling – Approved.

• July 2003 – Application 03/D41367 – Two storey front/side extension to dwelling including construction of front balcony – Withdrawn.

• November 2003 – Application 03/D42252 – Two storey front/side extension to dwelling including construction of front balcony – Approved.

• January 2009 – Application 08/D51537 – Two storey side/front and single storey front extensions to dwelling incorporating two front balconies – Refused.

Publicity Responses: The application has been publicised by neighbour letters and one objection has been received, from 21 Chamber House Drive. The grounds for the objection are summarised as follows:

Page - 3 -

1. The extension is too large, and the scale of the house would be disproportionate to the original building. The objector is concerned that it is a second dwelling being constructed.

2. The applicant already has two cars and a van. Further people living at the house could have cars and there is insufficient parking. Extra cars would have to park illegally on the pavement as Chamber House Drive is narrow. This would be dangerous.

3. The design is not in-keeping with the other houses on the estate. 4. Concerns about privacy.

Consultation Responses: Highways Service – no objections. Views of Officer: This application is a resubmission of D51537, which was refused in January this year for the following reason. “The proposal is for the erection of a two storey side/front and single storey front extensions to a detached house, incorporating two front balconies. The design of the two front balconies including the proposed artificial stone columns and brick piers is incompatible with the design of the existing dwelling and would create an unbalanced aesthetic and be incongruous to the row of houses and the immediate area. This would be exacerbated by the balcony fronting the proposed two storey front/side extension which projects over 5m further forward than the existing front elevation of the property. The balcony itself would project a further 1.2m and as such, would be an unduly prominent feature within the street scene. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies BE/2 and H/11, which seeks to retain and enhance the character of the property and street scene within the vicinity of any development, and contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, which states that ‘Design which is inappropriate in it’s context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted’.” The amendments that have now been made are summarised as follows.

• Decorative artificial stone pillars to the front elevation have been replaced by squared brick columns.

• Decorative artificial stone balusters have been replaced by timber balusters.

• Forwards projection of the two storey side extension has been reduced from 6.2 to 5m.

• The first floor of the two storey side extension has been extended for the full depth of the house and would be flush with the rear elevation.

Planning permission was granted at this property in 2003 for a two storey front and side extension including the construction of a front balcony (D42252). This application had a reduced depth of side extension compared to that now being applied for, did not include a balcony to the front of the extension, and the approved balcony above the entrance projected 0.4m less than that now being applied for. The application property is staggered in relation to its two neighbours and fronts the junction of Chamber House Drive with Loisine Close. Owing to this setting, any loss of privacy from the two to the neighbouring dwellings would not be significant. As windows to the side extension would be obscurely glazed, and as sufficient separation distance to properties at the rear on Buttercup Drive would be maintained, there would be no significant loss of privacy for neighbours resulting from the extension.

Page - 4 -

Due to the staggered setting of the application property in relation to number 17, the proposed side extension would result in a two-storey gable wall projecting 7.3m beyond the rear of the neighbouring house. Whilst a ground floor extension of this projection could be justified by the previous garage that occupied the site, the two storey building would be much larger and would unacceptably overshadow and dominate the rear elevation and garden of number 17. In this situation, due to the large rearwards projection and height of the extension, the 2m separation between the two houses would not be sufficient to prevent the amenities of neighbouring occupants from being harmed. The extension exceeds the council’s projection standards as specified in the SPG on residential development- these standards having been adopted to protect the privacy and amenities of neighbouring occupants of development sites. The design of the extensions is incompatible with the original dwelling and its neighbours. The recessed garage doors, covered first floor balcony, brick arches and brick piers are all out-of-character with the property and estate. When refusing the previous planning application, the case officer stated “The design and appearance of the two balconies is incompatible with the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties within the surrounding area. The design of the previously approved balcony is much more understated and because it would project from the existing front elevation, would result in a balcony which would be much less prominent and on balance, have an acceptable visual impact on the appearance of the street scene.” In officers’ view, the proposal has not been sufficiently amended to overcome this concern.

The proposed balconies would make the property appear incongruous within the street in terms of their design, and notwithstanding the amendments that have been made to the scheme, due to the forwards projection the position of the balcony on the front extension would be unduly prominent. In the opinion of officers, the amendments made to the proposal since the previous refused application are insufficient to overcome the reason for refusal of D51537. In addition, the further extension of the first floor of the side extension would have an unacceptable impact on number 17 Chamber House Drive. It is recommended that this application be refused. Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds. _________________________________________________

Page - 5 -

Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D51960 Householder Application Milkstone and Deeplish

TWO STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSIONS TO DWELLING (INCORPORATING GARAGE) 52, MERE STREET, ROCHDALE, OL11 3SP For:- MR T ABBAS Received 17-Apr-2009

RECOMMENDATION Refuse Permission

Reason: 1. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note: Guidelines and Standards

for Residential Development, stipulates that two and single storey extensions which adjoin the boundary with a neighbouring dwelling may only project to a maximum depth of 2.4 metres and 3 metres respectively. The proposed two and single storey rear extensions would project beyond the existing two-storey outrigger by a depth of 3 metres and 8.6 metres respectively, thus breaching this guideline by 2.3 metres and 8 metres in respect of the adjoining property to the north (50 Mere Street) which has ground and first floor windows to habitable rooms set close to the shared boundary with number 52. The proposed extensions, by virtue of their projection and proximity to the shared boundary, would have an oppressive and detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining residents at 50 Mere Street through overshadowing and loss of outlook. The proposal fails to improve the character and quality of the surrounding area and is therefore contrary to the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies H/11 (Residential Extensions), BE/2 (Design Criteria for Development), and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note: Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development.

_________________________________________ Report: This application was deferred by Members at the meeting of the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee on 30th June, in order that they could view the site. Site: The application relates to two-storey mid-terrace dwelling in a row of six fronting Mere Street, Rochdale. Dwellings in the terrace are characterised by adjoining two-storey outriggers which form gable-fronted projections and corresponding recessed indentations throughout the row. With the exception of the existing two-storey outrigger, no additional extensions have been erected at the property. Both end-terrace dwellings the row (numbers 54 and 44) have benefited from front and rear dormer extensions. In addition, number 44 Mere Street has a large single-storey rear extension accommodating an attached garage. The rear yard of the property is presently used for off-street parking with boundary treatments formed by a combination of timber fencing, a brick-built wall and access gates to a maximum height of approximately 1.5 metres. The property backs onto an open alleyway to the west which is used as a means of vehicle access for houses in the row. Dwellings in the adjacent terraces to the north and south fronting Tweedale Street

Page - 6 -

and King Street East respectively are orientated at right angles to the application property and located a minimum of 14 metres away. Proposal: The application seeks permission for the following extensions to the rear of the dwellinghouse:

• A two-storey extension measuring 2.5 metres in width and 3 metres in depth and projecting to the rear of the existing two-storey outrigger.

• A single-storey extension located alongside and attached to the proposed two-storey extension measuring 1.8 metres in width and 2.9 metres in depth with a monopitch roof.

• A single storey extension measuring 4.7 metres in width and 5.6 metres in depth with a pitched roof. The extension would accommodate an attached garage and incorporates a roller shutter door to the rear elevation.

Policy Background: Unitary Development Plan: G/D/1 – Defined Urban Area BE/2 – Design Criteria for New Development H/11 – Residential Extensions SPG Note “Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development” Site History: None relevant Publicity Responses: Direct Publicity: - the appropriate neighbouring properties were notified of the application. One letter of objection has been received from 18 King Street East. The points of objection are summarised as follows:

1. The extension would block sunlight to the rear elevation windows and yard area of 18 King Street East. Very little sunlight presently falls on the rear of the property and the extension would exacerbate this. In addition, the alleyway to the rear of the property is also very dark and acts as a focal point for illegal activities. Darkening this alleyway would intensify these activities.

2. There is enough space to the rear of 52 Mere Avenue in order for the extension to be accommodated without causing detriment to neighbouring residents.

Consultation Responses: Assistant Director (Engineering): - no objections. Views of Officer: In respect of the points raised by the objector:

1. Number 18 King Street East is located some 15 metres to the south of 52 Mere Street. Whilst it is considered that the extensions would have an oppressive impact on the adjacent property (50 Mere Street), the proposed development would be adequately separated from properties on King Street East in order to ensure that their amenities would not be unduly affected. Moreover, as the rear elevation of 18 King Street East is north facing, the extension would not directly block sunlight to the rear of the property. Given the separation of the two-storey extension with the adjacent alleyway, it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant overshadowing of the access. Any illegal activities taking

Page - 7 -

place within this passage are matters for the police and do not form material planning considerations.

2. Each application is determined on its individual merit and must be considered in accordance with the details submitted and the not the potential suitability of a different scheme.

Criterion (c) of Unitary Development Plan Policy H/11 (Residential Extensions) stipulates that extensions to residential properties will only be permitted where they would not unduly affect the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents through overlooking, overshadowing, loss of outlook or daylight. In addition, criterion (a) of Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development) requires development proposals to ensure that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, massing and layout. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note “Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development” stipulates that two and single storey extensions which adjoin the boundary with a neighbouring dwelling may only project to a maximum depth of 2.4 metres and 3 metres respectively. The proposed two and single storey rear extensions would project beyond the existing two-storey outrigger by a depth of 3 metres and 8.6 metres respectively, thus breaching this guideline by 2.3 metres and 8 metres in respect of the adjoining property to the north (50 Mere Street) which has ground and first floor windows to habitable rooms set close to the shared boundary with number 52. The proposed extensions, by virtue of their projection and proximity to the shared boundary, would have an oppressive and detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining residents at 50 Mere Street through overshadowing and loss of outlook. The proposal fails to improve the character and quality of the surrounding area and is therefore contrary to the requirements of criterion (c) of Unitary Development Plan Policy H/11 (Residential Extensions), criterion (a) of Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2 (Design Criteria for Development), and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note: Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development. Delegation Scheme: The application has been called in for a committee decision by Councillors Lambert, Williams and McCarthy. The Committee has delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds. ____________________________________________

Page - 8 -

Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D52014 Outline Planning

Application Norden

OUTLINE APPLICATION (INCLUDING MEANS OF ACCESS, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE) FOR ERECTION OF 70 BED CARE HOME WITH DAY CENTRE AND 8 CLOSE CARE APARTMENTS, AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING TACK LEA WORKS, BURY & ROCHDALE OLD ROAD, HEYWOOD For:- AAS LAND AND PROPERTY LTD Received 05-May-2009

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the

expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (a)The expiration of three years from the date of this permission; or (b)The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be required with respect of the following matter before the development is commenced:- the appearance of the buildings. Reason: The application is granted in outline only under the provision of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning Order (General Permitted Development Procedure) Order 1995 and details of the matters referred to in the condition have not been submitted for consideration

3. Within six months of the commencement of development, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted or the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of the type, species, siting, planting distances and the programme of planting of trees and shrubs. The scheme of planting, as approved, shall be carried out during the first planting season after the development is substantially completed and the areas which are landscaped shall be retained as landscaped areas thereafter. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within three years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally requires to be planted. Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory level of landscaping in the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies BE/2 and NE/6 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Page - 9 -

4. No development shall take place until all the existing trees within the site, (except those shown to be removed on the approved plans), have been enclosed with temporary protective fencing in accordance with BS:5837 – 2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations’. The fencing shall be retained during the period of construction and no work, excavation, tipping, or stacking/storage of materials shall take place within such protective fencing during the construction period. Reason: In order to protect the existing trees on the site in the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Policies BE/2 and NE/8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

5. Within six months of the commencement of development, a scheme for the post construction ‘hard’ landscaping treatment of the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of the proposed surface treatment of the parking areas, paths or other hard-surfaced areas and any street furniture, (including any benches, bollards, walls, fencing and gates etc).The overall agreed scheme of works shall be carried out in accordance within a timescale that shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority but in any event, the works shall be carried out within 12 months of the date that that the building(s) are first brought into use. Reason: To secure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with Policies BE/2, BE/7, BE/8, A/3, A/4, A/9 of the Council’s Unitary Plan and because insufficient details were submitted of these matters as part of the application.

6. Prior to commencement of the development an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced and shall have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The report of the findings must include: i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: • human health, • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archeological sites and ancient monuments; iii) where unacceptable risks are identified, an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s) The development shall thereafter be completed in full accordance with the approved recommendations. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policies EM/8 and BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Page - 10 -

7. No development shall take place until a survey has been conducted by a person, the identity of whom has previously been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority to investigate whether the site is or has been utilised by bats and the survey results passed to the Local Planning Authority. If such a use is established, a scheme for the protection of the wildlife habitat shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To safeguard any protected species which may be present within the building in accordance with Policy NE/4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

8. Following demolition and clearance of the upstanding buildings no further development should be undertaken until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which is to be submitted in advance for approval by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Reason: to make a record of any buried archaeological remains for archive and research purposes in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy BE/10.

9. The dwelling(s) shall achieve a minimum of Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such measure of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved, and details of the energy supply technology installed within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials in accordance with Policy EM/13 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s: Energy and New Development Supplementary Planning Document.

10. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the development hereby approved shall make at least a 10% reduction in the CO2 emissions predicted to result from the energy demand of the development through the provision of on site renewable or low carbon energy generation or through connection to a decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply if available. No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate how a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions would be achieved. The development shall thereafter be completed in full accordance with these approved details and confirmation submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy demand in accordance with Policy EM/13 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Energy and New Development Supplementary Planning Document.

11. Before the development is first brought into use, secure locking facilities for the proposed motorcycle parking shall be provided in accordance with a scheme which has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure adequate provision or motorcycle parking facilities and to encourage the proper use of the parking areas to prevent obstruction in accordance with UDP policies BE/2, A/3, A/9 and A/10.

Page - 11 -

12. Before the development is first brought into use, the footway on Bury and Rochdale Old Road adjacent to the site access shall be provided with dropped crossing points in accordance with a scheme and specification which has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies BE/2 and A/3.

13. Before the development is first brought into use the eastbound and westbound bus stops on Bury and Rochdale Old Road which are adjacent to the site shall be upgraded to Quality Bus Corridor standards in accordance with a scheme and specification which has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to encourage travel to and from the site by means other than the private motor car in the interests of sustainability and the requirements of UDP policies BE/2 and A/5.

14. Before the development is first brought into use bollards shall be introduced on the footway in front of 65 to 71 Bury & Rochdale Old Road in accordance with a design and positions which have first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bollards shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure adequate visibility at the site access in the interests of road safety and in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies BE/2, A/9 and A/10.

15. Concurrently with the implementation of the development six additional communal parking spaces shall be provided within the site in accordance with details which shall first have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The spaces shall be marked out and retained thereafter for the exclusive use of the residents of 65-71 Bury and Rochdale Reason: In order to ensure adequate visibility at the site access in the interests of road safety and in accordance with the requirements of UDP policies BE/2, A/9 and A/10.

16. Before the development is first brought into use a signalised crossing point shall be provided on Bury & Rochdale Old Road adjacent to the site in accordance with a scheme which has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure safe and satisfactory access and to encourage travel to the site by means other than the private motor car in accordance with UDP policies BE/2, H/10, A/3 and A/5.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. The application demonstrates very special circumstances for departing from Unitary

Development Plan policies which control development in the Green Belt. The proposed development would by virtue of its scale, siting access and landscaping result in improvements to the site to the benefit of visual and residential amenity in the locality as well as access arrangements. The proposed buildings will meet at least Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. Development of the site also provides the opportunity to remediate any contamination on the site from previous industrial activity. In addition none of the buildings are worthy of retention and the development will allow their recording in the interests of archive and research. None of the protected trees on the site would be affected by the development.

Page - 12 -

The development proposed is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and its associated Supplementary Planning Guidance or Documents: G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in the Green Belt – General D/5 Infilling at Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt G/EC/1 Employment Land Supply EC/4 Change of Use of Employment Land Outside Allocated Areas G/H/1 Housing H/10 Residential Homes, Group Homes and Sheltered Housing G/A/1 Accessibility A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People A/5 New Development – Access for Bus Services A/7 New Development – Access for Service Vehicles A/8 New Development – Capacity of the Highway Network A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development G/BE/9 Conservation and the Built Environment BE/10 Development Affection Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/4 Contamination EM/7 Development and Flood Risk EM/10 Derelict Land and Building G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/2 Designated Sites of Ecological and Geological / Geomorphological Importance NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species G/NE/5 Landscape and Woodlands NE/7 Tree Preservation Orders Energy and New Development - Supplementary Planning Guidance In addition the proposal has been assessed against regional planning policy – North West of England Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021) and national planning policy PPS1 (Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development), PPG2 (Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 – Green Belts) and PPG 16 (Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 – Archaeology and Planning). In summary, the reason for granting the permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council is of the opinion that the development is in accordance the relevant national and local planning policies and guidance and that there are no material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached. The planning conditions proposed would ensure that any material harm that may result from the development can be reasonably mitigated.

Page - 13 -

Report Site: The application relates to the Tack Lea Works site which is to the north of Bury and Rochdale Old Road. On the site is a group of vacant buildings which were last occupied by Melba Products. The buildings front a large area of hard standing which was previously used for HGV parking and manoeuvring, loading and unloading and open storage areas. Between the hard standing and Bury and Rochdale Old Road is a wooded embankment which narrows from the west of the site towards the access at the eastern end of the site. Behind the buildings to the north is a lodge which has largely silted up, beyond which are fields. To the east is a terrace of four dwellings and to the west is a wooded valley within which Tack Lea brook runs. Proposal: The application seeks outline planning permission for the access, landscaping, layout and scale for a 70 bed care home and 8 ‘close-care’ apartments with ancillary day centre. All of the existing buildings would be demolished. The 70 bed care home and day centre would be in one building and the close care unit would be in a separate building. The majority of the care home building would be two storeys in height though there would be two single storey sections where the day centre is proposed. The close care unit would be two storeys in height. The footprint of the care home and day centre would in part come forward of the line of the existing buildings. The close care unit would be located within part of the footprint of the existing buildings. Car parking and serving areas are proposed on the areas of existing hard standing. It is proposed to create garden areas around the building, including in part on areas which are currently hard standing. Policy Background: Adopted UDP G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in the Green Belt –

General D/5 Infilling at Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt

G/EC/1 Employment Land Supply EC/4 Change of Use of Employment Land Outside Allocated Areas G/H/1 Housing H/10 Residential Homes, Group Homes and

Sheltered Housing G/A/1 Accessibility A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians

and Disabled People A/5 New Development – Access for Bus Services

A/7 New Development – Access for Service Vehicles

A/8 New Development – Capacity of the Highway Network

A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic

Page - 14 -

A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development G/BE/9 Conservation and the Built Environment BE/10 Development Affection Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution

Control EM/4 Contamination EM/7 Development and Flood Risk

EM/10 Derelict Land and Building

G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/2 Designated Sites of Ecological and Geological /

Geomorphological Importance NE/3 Biodiversity and Development NE/4 Protected Species

G/NE/5 Landscape and Woodlands NE/7 Tree Preservation Orders Energy and New Development Supplementary Planning Document Regional policy: North West of England Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 National policy: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 – Green Belts Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 – Archaeology and Planning Site History: Two applications for residential development in 1990 and 1991 refused and various applications approved for extensions and alterations to the business premises and its accesses. Publicity Responses: The appropriate neighbouring properties have been notified, a site notice posted and the application advertised in the local newspaper. Letters of representation have been received from the residents of 67and 69 Bury and Rochdale Old Road. These are summarised below with Officers’ comments on this following: § There is a right of access for residents of 65-71 Bury and Rochdale Old Road to the

side of number 65. This access must be retained for residents.

o The submitted plans show the access to the side of number 65 Bury and Rochdale Old Road would not be affected by the proposed development.

Page - 15 -

Consultation Responses: Strategic Planning: - This proposal seeks the demolition of the existing works buildings and then redevelopment of the site to provide 70 bed care home, day centre and close care apartments and associated car parking. The site is in the Green Belt as defined in the adopted UDP. The site is has been identified under policy D/5 ‘Infilling at Major Existing Developed Sites in the Green Belt’. This policy only allows for limited infilling within the existing major developed sites within the Green Belt and it must be related to the continuing use of the current site. Therefore, even though this site is identified as a major existing developed site in the Green Belt the proposal being put forward would represent a departure from the adopted UDP. Therefore the main consideration in relation to the proposal is whether it is considered that very special circumstances exist to justify a departure from Green Belt policy. In order to do this it is necessary to take account of the supporting evidence put forward and the details of the proposal. In terms of supporting evidence, a key point is the future of the site for continuing employment use and to assess whether a change of use is justified when considered against the criteria of policy EC/4 that seeks to control change/loss from B1-B8 employment uses. The supporting evidence includes a view on the marketability and potential for refurbishment by Sedgwick and Co. This study concludes that the site is unlikely to attract interest given the current market and condition of the premises and that refurbishment would be likely to produce less that 30 % of the return necessary to support the financial outlay and effort. It therefore recommends that higher value uses are sought given that refurbishment and re-use for industrial purposes is unrealistic. It is the view of Officers, that given the state of the buildings and the location, it is unlikely that significant investment for continued employment use would be forthcoming and therefore retention for B1-B8 employment use may result in low grade end uses with very few jobs created. In addition the proposed use, whilst not B1-B8, does create employment and could therefore be regarded as economic development based on guidance in consultation draft PPS4: Planning for Prosperous Economies. The Council is seeking to provide appropriate employment in the northern part of the borough. In light of these issues, there is agreement that there is little demand from, and the site is not suited for, B1-B8 uses and so change of use can be supported based on meeting the requirements of criteria (a) and (b) of policy EC/4. There is an issue that allowing redevelopment could lead to a precedent being set which could be replicated at similar sites within the Borough. However a key issue here is the fact that the proposal is for a residential care home. It is likely that other sites within the Green Belt, which may claim to be unsuitable for long term industrial use, would be inappropriate for such a facility because of their peripheral location and local topography. Whilst services such as shops (other than a petrol station) are not within walking distance of this site, it has good access to public transport with a frequent bus service along Bury and Rochdale Old Road serving Bury, Rochdale and Heywood. The site is also relatively close to Fairfield General Hospital, which has some relevance when considering a scheme for elderly residents. It would be interesting to know what other support facilities would be available to improve accessibility e.g. group transport for residents of the scheme. However, given these issues the location would appear to potentially satisfy policy H/10 whilst the other criteria in the policy relate to more detailed matters of design.

Page - 16 -

A second issue in relation to supporting evidence is the overall improvement to the site the redevelopment could achieve. It would appear that the new development covers no more than the existing footprint of the mill buildings. In addition the creation of additional communal garden space and landscaping offers the potential to ‘soften’ the impact of the development and increase its attractiveness. Providing that the new buildings are well designed, there are obvious benefits in terms of visual amenity to be gained from replacing the existing buildings. The potential improvements gained from the redevelopment of the site means that exceptional circumstances may exist to justify departure from the plan. However, although in principle support could be given to the proposal there are some points which need addressing. The main issue is the adjacent Tack Lee and Gristlehurst Woods Grade A Site of Biological Importance. It is acknowledged that the new development does not go beyond the existing hardstanding. The SBI boundary does actually include some of the hardstanding area although this seems to be as a result of following the line of the culverted brook and is therefore more of a practical drafting issue. Therefore provided that the new development remains on the built part of the site and care is taken during construction there are no objections in principle. It is understood the views of GMEU are being sought and therefore any comments they make should be taken into account. The proposals do include reference to the future management of the adjacent woodland which is in the same land ownership. This is positive and would be supported along with agreed monitoring by the Council (e.g. Countryside Team). There is no reference in the report of a bat survey. Given the nature of the buildings and the adjacent woodland and a bat survey is essential and should be required through an appropriate condition prior to commencement. Therefore in conclusion the case for the redevelopment of this site to achieve local regeneration, improve the visual amenity of the site and provide employment may justify a departure from the UDP. Continued use of the site for single employment use is unlikely and the division of the site for less desirable uses could have a detrimental impact on the local area. Therefore providing that the above issues regarding the SBI and bats are taken into account the proposal is supported in principle. Head of Highways and Engineering: - comments as follows: § The required visibility splay can be achieved in principle at the site entrance however

in practice cars parked outside dwellings at 65-71 Bury and Rochdale Old Road restrict visibility. As such a condition of approval should be that 6 parking bays are provided within the application site for residents’ parking, along with bollards in front of the houses to prevent parking at the front;

§ The applicant should fund the introduction of a signalised pedestrian crossing point

adjacent to the front of the development to directly serve residents of the care home by providing safe access to two existing bus stops;

§ The applicant should fund the upgrading of the existing bus stops to Quality Bus

Corridor and DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) standard; § The proposed motorcycle parking bays must have secure locking facilities to

encourage their use, rather than being parked on the adjacent footway; § The access junction must have DDA compliant dropped crossing points installed on

the footway.

Page - 17 -

Environmental Health: - no objections. Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit: - an archaeological survey has been submitted with the application and GMAU recommend that there is no need for further recording of the standing buildings. However a condition should be attached to any approval requiring a further programme of archaeological works to be undertaken following demolition and clearance of the buildings to make a record of any buried archaeological remains for archive and research purposes. Environment Agency: - no comments at time of writing the report. Greater Manchester Ecology Unity:- no comments at time of writing the report. Property Services – Landscape Unit:- the landscape proposals and arboricultural statement are acceptable as part of an outline application however further detailed landscape proposals will be required at full application stage including landscape specifications and work to existing trees/woodland. Views of Officer: The application relates to a previously developed site within the Green Belt and some undeveloped land surrounding this. The developed part of the site is allocated as an existing major developed site within the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan under Policy D/5 (Infilling at Existing Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt). This Policy relates to proposals for the continued use of the site for its existing use. Policy D/4 (Control of Development in the Green Belt – General) sets out the types of development that are acceptable in principle in the Green Belt. These are proposals for: § Agriculture and forestry; § Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation; § Residential extensions or replacement of dwellings; § Proposals in accordance with Policy D/5. The proposal does not relate to an infilling proposal for the continued industrial use of the site and does not accord with the forms of acceptable development identified under Policy D/4. Therefore the current application is to be treated as a departure application since it does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force for the area (the Rochdale UDP).

Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Such development is not normally approved, except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Annex C of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belt) provides further guidance on the redevelopment of major developed sites within the Green Belt. This states that:

“Whether they are redundant or in continuing use, the complete or partial redevelopment of major developed sites may offer the opportunity for environmental improvement without adding to their impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. The character and dispersal of proposed redevelopment will need to be considered as well as its footprint. The location of the new buildings should be decided having regard to the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts, the main features of the landscape, and

Page - 18 -

the need to integrate the new development with its surroundings. For instance it may be more appropriate to site new development closer to existing buildings. Proposals should be considered in the light of all material considerations, including for example visual amenity and the traffic and travel implications of redevelopment.”

There is no doubt that the site is currently detrimental to visual amenity with buildings in a generally dilapidated state as a result of being vacant and subject to theft and attack. Therefore in principle bringing the site back into productive use has the potential to bring significant benefits in terms of visual amenity. In terms of the impact of the development proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, the proposed buildings would be no higher than the highest part of the existing buildings. The existing buildings vary in height whereas the proposed building would maintain a consistent two storey roof line, with two single storey projections on the 70 bed care home element. The proposed buildings would also occupy a smaller footprint than the existing buildings. The previous use was less than ideal in terms of access arrangements with HGVs regularly blocking Bury and Rochdale Old Road when entering and leaving the site. The proposed development would be serviced by small vehicles and in this regard would be an improvement to the previous situation. In addition, it is recommended that any approval requires improvements in terms of access to bus services and general site access arrangements. This would not only benefit users of the new development but existing residents near the site and others travelling through the area. The proposed development would also remove what could be considered an incompatible use from next to neighbouring residential properties. Whilst some parts of the proposed building would be higher than some parts of the existing buildings it is considered that the overall benefits to the area in terms of removing dereliction, improving access arrangements and removing a use which is incompatible with adjacent residential properties would outweigh any harm that this may cause. It is therefore considered that the proposal is harmonious with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy which is to protect openness. In terms of the specifics of the proposed use UDP policy H/10 (Residential Homes, Group Homes and Sheltered Housing) sets out criteria for assessing proposals for such provision. This states that proposals: a) Should not have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area or

residential amenity; b) Should provide adequate areas of private garden/amenity space; c) Make safe and convenient arrangements of access, parking and servicing. In terms of the first criterion, the proposed use is residential. Surrounding land uses are agricultural and residential, with uses being predominantly residential further to the west beyond Elbut Lane. It is considered that the proposed use is compatible with its surroundings. In addition, it would, as stated above, remove a use which was incompatible with its surroundings and which caused harm to the amenity of adjacent residents. Criterion a) is therefore complied with. In terms of criterion b) it is considered that the proposal would provide adequate garden areas. These would be provided on existing undeveloped areas as well as on areas currently occupied by buildings and hardstanding. Criterion b) is therefore complied with. In terms of criterion c) the Head of Highways and Engineering raises no objections to the proposal subjection to the following:

Page - 19 -

§ Six parking bays being provided within the application site for residents’ parking,

along with bollards in front of the houses to prevent parking at the front; § The introduction of a signalised pedestrian crossing point adjacent to the front of the

development to directly serve residents of the care home by providing safe access to two existing bus stops;

§ The upgrading of the existing bus stops to Quality Bus Corridor and DDA (Disability

Discrimination Act) standard; § The proposed motorcycle parking bays having secure locking facilities to encourage

their use, rather than being parked on the adjacent footway; § The access junction having DDA compliant dropped crossing points installed on the

footway. Subject to these matters being implemented before the development is brought into use it can be concluded that the proposal provides for safe and convenient access and parking arrangements. Criterion c) is therefore complied, subject to appropriate conditions requiring the implementation of these matters. Whilst it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle in terms of impact on Green Belt, compatibility with the surrounding area and neighbouring residents and access and parking arrangements there are several other matters which need to be considered. These are: § Employment land supply; § Conservation; § Contamination; § Design quality; § Nature conservation; and § Landscape and woodlands. Each of these is addressed below: Employment land supply Unitary Development Plan policy EC/4 (Change of Use of Employment Land Outside) states that change of use or development of land and premises currently or last in use as employment land outside employment areas will only be permitted where one of several criteria are met. Consultation with the Council’s Strategic Planning Service confirms that two criteria of policy EC/4 are complied with. These are criterion a) which states that there is no future demand for the premises for employment use and a change of use will not result in a shortage of employment land/premises and c) which states that a change from employment use will remove or remediate a substantial environmental problem. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with UDP policy EC/4. Conservation Unitary Development Plan policy BE/10 (Development Affection Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments) states that in all cases there should be a full and appropriate prior evaluation of the archaeological resource detailing its value, the likely impact of the proposal and mitigation as required and that a programme of recording may be required. In the case of the current application, the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit (GMAU) have been consulted on the proposal and have assessed the submitted

Page - 20 -

archaeological survey. GMAU recommend that there is no need for further recording of the standing buildings. However a condition should be attached to any approval requiring a further programme of archaeological works to be undertaken following demolition and clearance of the buildings to make a record of any buried archaeological remains for archive and research purposes. It is therefore considered that policy BE/10 has been complied with. Contamination Previous industrial uses on the site means that there is contamination on the site. The development proposal offers the opportunity to remediate this and it is recommended that a condition is attached to any approval to ensure this happens if the development goes ahead in the interests of compliance with UDP policy EM/4. Design Quality The issues of scale, access and compatibility with existing dwellings has already been addressed. In terms of siting of the proposed building this would be set in approximately the same line as the existing buildings, though would be set forward of the line of the existing buildings in order to provide more usable amenity space to the rear where the level of the land slopes upwards. It is considered that this siting is acceptable. The layout of the site will also provide adequate space to create a pleasant external environment with space for gardens and landscaping. Design quality also relates to the external appearance of the buildings and how they will appear in terms of fenestration and portals, detailing and materials. The appearance of the buildings has been reserved for subsequent approval and so this element of the proposal cannot be assessed at this stage. Nature conservation Part of the site is identified on the UDP Proposals Map as a Designated Site of Ecological and Geological / Geomorphological Importance however this allocation covers part of the area of existing hardstanding within the site. The application does not propose to extend any development beyond the existing developed area therefore it appears that this area would not be affected by the proposal. The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have been consulted on the proposal to ensure that there the proposal does not adversely affect the allocated area. At the time of writing the report their comments had not been received and Committee will be updated verbally of these. Landscape and woodlands Trees to the southern and western boundary of the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. As detailed above it is not proposed to extend any of development beyond the existing developed area and so the proposal would not affect any protected trees. The proposal therefore accords with the requirements of UDP policy NE/7. In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development will provide aesthetic improvements to the area by removing the dereliction that currently blights the site as well as providing a development which is more compatible with its surroundings, particularly in terms of residential amenity and access arrangements. The proposal does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area though having regard to the aforementioned factors the Officers are satisfied that very special circumstances exist to permit a departure from development plan policies and to allow a development that will enhance the site. Delegation Scheme: This application proposes development which would be a departure from adopted UDP policy. Members may refuse planning permission but if they are minded to approve then the application must be referred to Regulatory Committee for decision and Members

Page - 21 -

views will be reported to that Committee. In addition, if Regulatory Committee is minded to approve the application then it must then be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure application for a Direction on whether the application can be dealt with by the Council or called in for her decision. __________________________________________________ Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D52039 Householder Application Bamford

ERECTION OF 1.1 METRE HIGH BOUNDARY WALL INCLUDING WROUGHT IRON RAILINGS, BRICK PIERS AND ACCESS GATES TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 2 METRES AND REMOVAL OF A PROTECTED TREE 649, BURY ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL11 4AU For:- MR VASIR BEG Received 14-May-2009

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no development shall be commenced until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

3. Other than the horse chestnut tree (T5 of Tree Preservation Order 080) indicated in a red outline on drawing number 9.0481.SC3.4D, no trees shall be lopped, topped or felled without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the existing trees on the site in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies NE/7 and NE/8.

4. Excavation shall be limited to that which is necessary in order to construct the foundations relating to the boundary wall and fencing (detailed on plan reference ‘9.0481.SC3.4D’) which shall be constructed in strict accordance with the details shown. Reason: In order to protect the existing trees on the site in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies NE/7 and NE/8.

Page - 22 -

5. No mechanical excavation of the land shall be undertaken beneath the canopies of any trees within or overhanging the site. All excavation for the approved foundations shall only be carried out by hand. Reason: In order to protect the existing trees on the site in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies NE/7 and NE/8.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. The proposed development would be compatible with the property in terms of size,

scale, design and materials, and would be inkeeping with the height and profile of existing boundary treatments on Bury Road. The proposal would result in an acceptable relationship with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and makes adequate provisions for the safe and convenient access and circulation of vehicular traffic to and from the site. The protected horse chestnut tree is diseased and is therefore considered to be unworthy of retention. The proposal would not harm the health or appearance of any other protected trees on the site. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies G/D/1 (Defined Urban Area), H/11 (Residential Extensions), BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development), A/9 (New Development – Access for General Traffic), NE/7 (Tree Preservation Orders) and NE/8 (Development Affecting Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows).

_________________________________________ Report Site: The application relates to a detached two-storey dwelling occupying a central location within a substantial curtilage fronting the B6222 (Bury Road), Rochdale. The dwellinghouse occupies a relatively inconspicuous position set back from and at a significantly lower level than Bury Road. Several protected trees are located within the curtilage of the property, including a linear row running parallel to the Bury Road frontage located behind a 2metre high wooden panel fence which forms the northern boundary. Properties on Bury Road comprise a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellinghouses which benefit from a variety of front boundary treatments resulting in a diverse street scene. Dwellings set back from Bury Road typically have taller boundary treatments than those closer to the frontage. For example, the northern boundary to the adjacent dwellinghouse (647a) is defined by a 2 metre high stone wall whereas those at the junction with Broadhalgh Road are formed by low-level brick walls topped by coping stones and backed by hedging. Proposal: The application is for a replacement boundary treatment to Bury Road comprising a 1.1 metre high boundary wall including wrought iron railings, brick piers and access gates to a maximum height of 2 metres. Owing to the required set back of the gates, a supporting 1.8 metre high internal post and panel timber fence is also proposed. The application also includes the removal of a protected horse chestnut tree (T5 of TPO 080) located adjacent to the existing vehicle access to the northwest corner of the site. Policy Background: Unitary Development Plan: G/D/1 – Defined Urban Area G/BE/1 – Design Quality G/H/1 – Housing

Page - 23 -

G/A/1 – Accessibility G/NE/1 – Nature Conservation BE/2 – Design Criteria for New Development H/11 – Residential Extensions A/9 – New Development – Access for General Traffic NE/7 – Tree Preservation Orders NE/8 – Development Affecting Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows SPG Note “Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development”. Site History:

• 07/D50235 – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of four detached dwellings including improved access – Approved.

• 09/D51732 – Two/single storey front extensions, single storey side extension and rear conservatory – Approved.

Consultation Responses: Assistant Director (Engineering): - comments as follows:

• Any vehicle access gates to Bury Road should be set back a minimum of 5.5 metres from the rear of the footway in order to ensure a vehicle can enter and exit the site without obstructing the highway.

Arboricultural Officer:

• The foundation method of ‘pillar and beam’ detailed on the plans is acceptable in principle and should ensure that no damage is caused to protected trees along the Bury Road frontage during the course of construction.

• The horse chestnut located adjacent to the existing vehicle access is diseased and in the early stages of deterioration. The tree is therefore unworthy of retention and, on this basis, may be removed.

Publicity Responses: Direct Publicity: - the appropriate neighbouring properties were notified of the application. No objections have been received. Views of Officer: The site lies within the defined urban area and complies with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policy G/D/1. The proposed boundary wall would replace an existing 2 metre high timber fence to the frontage with Bury Road. Boundary treatments to Bury Road comprise a range of profiles, heights and materials. The proposed means of enclosure would be compatible with the property and surrounding area by virtue of its scale, height, layout, materials and architectural style, and would not detract from the character and appearance of the street scene. Although the wall would be located in close proximity to protected trees which run parallel to the northern boundary of the curtilage, the Council’s arboricultural officer is satisfied that the proposed foundation detail would offer sufficient protection for trees on the site in order to ensure their health would not be harmed by the development. Conditions have been attached requiring these foundations to be dug by hand and laid in strict accordance with the details indicated on the submitted plans. The proposed access gates would be set back 8.2 metres from the access point with Bury Road. This recess provides adequate space in order to ensure that vehicles would not cause an obstruction on Bury Road while accessing the site. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policy A/9. The lightweight internal timber fence to be constructed in order to support the gates would not require any excavation. All supporting posts would be ‘pinned’ into the surface

Page - 24 -

and located a sufficient distance from protected trees in order to ensure their health and appearance would not be affected. The horse chestnut located adjacent to the existing vehicle access is diseased and in the early stages of deterioration. The tree is therefore unworthy of retention and may be removed. Given the condition of the tree, its removal would not conflict with the objectives of Unitary Development Plan Policy NE/7. The proposed development would be compatible with the property in terms of size, scale, design and materials, and would be in-keeping with the height and profile of existing boundary treatments on Bury Road. The proposal would result in an acceptable relationship with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and makes adequate provisions for the safe and convenient access and circulation of vehicular traffic to and from the site. The protected horse chestnut tree is diseased and is therefore considered to be unworthy of retention. The proposal would not harm the health or appearance of any other protected trees on the site. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies H/11 (Residential Extensions), BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development), A/9 (New Development – Access for General Traffic), NE/7 (Tree Preservation Orders) and NE/8 (Development Affecting Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows). Delegation Scheme: The application has been referred to the committee as the proposal involves the removal of a protected tree. The Committee has delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds. _________________________________________________

Page - 25 -

Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D52134 Full Planning Application Healey

ERECTION OF 1.5M HIGH BOUNDARY WALL, CONSTRUCTION OF CAR PARKING AREA AND SURFACING OF ACCESS ROAD STONEY HEYS FARM, ROAD LANE, ROCHDALE, OL12 0TJ For:- PREL LTD Received 08-Jun-2009

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years

beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing the alterations to the access track and the formation of car parking spaces hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with the approved details (drawing no. G203/004), prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings at Stoney Heys Farm. Reason. In order to ensure a satisfactory development that does not harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt, in accordance with Policy D/9 – Re-Use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas of the Rochdale UDP.

3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing no development shall take place until full details of the design of the stone steps which will serve RocDFp13 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The steps shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings at Stoney Heys Farm unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. In order to secure the protection of this right of way in accordance with Policy RE/6 (Recreational Rights of Way) of the Rochdale UDP.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. The proposed erection of a 1.8m high boundary wall, the construction of a car

parking area and the surfacing of an access track would not harm the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt or discourage the usability of the rights of way which extend through the site. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies G/D/2 Green Belt, D/9 – Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas and RE/6 - Recreational Rights of Way of the Rochdale UDP and the advice contained within PPG2 – Green Belts. In summary, the reasons for granting this permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council is of the opinion that the development is in accordance with the relevant national and local planning policies and that there are no other material planning considerations that indicate that an alterative decision should be reached.

_________________________________________

Page - 26 -

Report Site: The proposal relates to Stoney Heys Farm which is set in open countryside to the north of Waingap Rise. Stoney Heys Farm has recently been converted into 3 dwellings and they are currently vacant. Access to the site is along an access track which extends from Whitworth Road to the west. Proposal: The application is for the erection of 1.8m high boundary wall, the construction of a car parking area and the surfacing of access road. The application is partly retrospective as the boundary walls have been erected. Around the boundary to each of the dwellings it is proposed to erect a stone wall. This wall comprises random natural stone with vertical stone cappings. Located in front of the three dwellings is an access track which extends between Whitworth Road and Syke Lane. It is proposed that this section of the access track is rolled with road plannings. Adjoining the northern boundary of this access road it is proposed to create 8 car parking spaces which would be finished using block paving. Adjoining these car parking spaces would be a retaining wall which is some 60m long. Policy Background: Adopted UDP - G/D/2 – Green Belt Policy D/4 - Control of Development Within the Green Belt Policy BE/2 - Design Criteria for New Development EM/8 – Protection of Surface and Ground Water RE/6 – Recreational Rights of Way PPG2 – Green Belts Site History: 2000/D38276 – Change of use and conversion of disused barn to dwelling. Approved. 2003/D41766 – First floor rear extension and single storey side extension. Approved. 2004/D44210 – Refurbishment and rear extension. Approved Publicity Responses: Five letters of objection have been received from the residents of Whitworth Road and Chadwick Terrace. It is commented that: -

1. Stoney Heys Farm has always been accessed from Syke Lane.

The Ordnance Survey map of 1893 shows an access to Stoney Heys Farm from Syke Lane to the east and Road Lane to the west ( ie off Whitworth Road). However, by 1909 the access from Syke Lane had been reduced to a footpath and the current Ordnance Survey plan shows it as such. At the time of the first planning application (D38276) in 2000 it was proposed that a new access would be created from Highcroft Way. However, during the course of the application the proposed new access was deleted and the applicant reverted to “the existing access from Whitworth Road”. Aerial photographs of that time indicate that the main access to Stoney Heys Farm was from the Whitworth Road.

Page - 27 -

2. The access to the farm passes through land which is in the ownership of Mr.

Wood (Lower Healey Farm). Mr. Wood’s livestock graze the fields which lie between Stoney Heys Farm and Whitworth Road. The proposal will endanger the livestock.

The proposal does not seek to alter the access which leads from Whitworth Road to the site. The Planning Officer does not consider that the proposal would endanger livestock.

3. Within this area there is an underground water system. What will happen to this

water system when heavy goods vehicles are accessing the site?

Any heavy goods vehicles accessing the site are doing so as part of the ongoing building work. Once this is complete there would be normal domestic vehicles using the access. The Planning Officer considers that the expected comings and goings associated with the development would not pose an unacceptable risk to the local water system.

4. The original applications for the site stated that access would be sought from

Syke Lane. Why is access now sought from Whitworth Road? This is incorrect. As stated above the first planning application (D38276) in 2000 proposed that a new access would be created from Highcroft Way but during the course of the application the proposed new access was deleted and the applicant reverted to “the existing access from Whitworth Road”.

5. There is a restricted covenant on these properties which states that only 1 vehicle

and horse and cart can use the access track.

This is not a planning matter.

6. A hard surfaced road would look out of place within the Green Belt.

This matter is discussed elsewhere within the report.

7. Planning permission has previously been refused because of the inadequate access at the junction of Whitworth Road and Road Lane.

No applications associated with Stoney Heys Farm have been refused on the grounds that the access at the junction of Whitworth Road and Road Lane would be inadequate.

8. Why is the access to the farm being altered?

The proposal seeks to resurface the access track which fronts Stoney Heys Farm.

9. The proposal will exacerbate congestion within the area.

The Planning Officer considers that the proposal would not exacerbate congestion which may exist within the area.

Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering – raises no objections to the proposal.

Page - 28 -

Rights of Way Officer – comments that the proposal would not discourage the usability of the Rights of Way which extend through the site. Views of Officer: The site lies within the Green Belt and PPG2 (Green Belts) states that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and it’s most important attribute is its openness. In order to maintain the openness of the Green Belt, there is a need for strict controls over new development. The application is subject to Policy D/9 (Re-Use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas) and the relevant criteria to which this proposal is to be assessed against states: -

The building can be capable of being provided with satisfactory means of access, services and ancillary facilities, such as hardstandings, gardens, fences walls etc., without a significant impact on the landscape character, the setting of the building or, where it falls within the Green belt, the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.

Stoney Heys Farm formerly comprised a farmhouse, cottage and barn. Work has been going on for some time to renovate the buildings and convert the barn into a dwelling, making 3 dwellings in total, in accordance with the planning permissions listed above. The proposed boundary walls would enclose the front and rear/side gardens. The gardens are modest in size and the walls are constructed using natural stone. The boundary walls are around 1m high and the Planning Officer is of the opinion that by reason of their position, design and height they have a marginal impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to find this type of wall around rural buildings. To the north of Stoney Heys Farm is an open field. This field is higher than Stoney Heys Farm and part of it is to be excavated to create eight car parking spaces to serve the 3 dwellings at Stoney Heys Farm. The land would be retained by a 1.8 metre high dry stone wall. As the field is higher than the retaining wall its visual impact is reduced. The Planning Officer is satisfied that the retaining wall would have marginal impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt This access track to the front (north) of Stoney Heys Farm extends for around 60m and would be surfaced in compacted road planings. The proposed retaining wall, the car parking spaces and alterations to the access track would be screened by the adjacent hillside and Stoney Heys Farm; the Planning Officer is satisfied that they would have marginal impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. The intersection of two rights of way (RocDFp12 & 13) lies within the application site. These paths link Waingap Rise and Healey Stones and Syke Lane and Whitworth Road. Following discussions between the Council’s Rights of Way Officer and the applicants agent the plans have been amended to indicate that the proposed tarmacadam surface to be used along the access track is to be replaced with compacted road planings. The Council’s Rights of Way Officer is satisfied that the proposed finishes to the rights of way which cross this site would ensure their protection and usability. The proposal is in accordance with the advise as stated in Policy RE/6 – Recreational Rights of Way of the Rochdale UDP. The Planning Officer is satisfied that the proposal would have a minimal impact on the landscape character of the area and the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. Furthermore the alterations to the rights of way which extend across the site would be protected. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies G/D/2 Green Belt, D/9 – Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings In Rural Areas and RE/6 - Recreational Rights of Way of the Rochdale UDP and the advise as contained within PPG2 – Green Belts.

Page - 29 -

Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way on reasonable planning grounds. _______________________________________________ Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D52144 Full Planning Application Castleton

ERECTION OF NEW THREE STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING 4 RETAIL UNITS AT GROUND FLOOR LEVEL AND 8 APARTMENTS ABOVE 806-810 MANCHESTER ROAD, ROCHDALE For:- MR NOEL SALLY Received 15-Jun-2009

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years

beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no development shall be commenced until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

3. Window heads on the front elevation at the first floor level shall be stone with angled edges as shown on the approved plans. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

4. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the construction and design of a refuse recycling/bin store(s) shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved facility shall be provided and made available for use before the first occupation of any of the shop or dwelling units hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory and secure facilities for storage of refuse and in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with policy BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

Page - 30 -

5. All entrance doors to the elevation of the building fronting Manchester Road shall have a flush threshold which is level with the area of ground adjacent to the door. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory means of access into the building for people with mobility difficulties in accordance with policy BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

6. Details of the window frames to be utilised in the development hereby permitted, including samples if so required, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any such window frames are installed in the development. Such details shall indicate, at a scale of not less than 1:20, the longitudinal and cross-sectional detailing, cill and lintel detailing, and means of opening together with any finished treatment. The window frames shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter so maintained. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, none of the residential units hereby approved shall be occupied until a Building Research Establishment issued Final Code Certificate confirming that each residential unit built has achieved a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of Code level 3 has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials in accordance with Policy EM/13 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s “Energy and New Development Supplementary Planning Document”.

8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the development hereby approved shall make at least a 10% reduction in the CO2 emissions predicted to result from the energy demand of the development through the provision of on site renewable or low carbon energy generation or through connection to a decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply if available. No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate how a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions would be achieved. The development shall thereafter be completed in full accordance with these approved details and confirmation submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy demand in accordance with Policy EM/13 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Energy and New Development Supplementary Planning Document.

9. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the shutters and shutter housing to be used on the shop fronts shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the method of housing the shutters, their appearance and degree of perforation, materials and colour that they are to be painted or powder coated. Only the approved shutters and shutter housing shall be installed on the building and in accordance with any terms of the approval. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with policies BE/2 and BE/5 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

Page - 31 -

10. Before any development is commenced, a scheme for the design, construction, drainage and marking out of the access to the site and the six parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full before the buildings hereby permitted are first occupied and the area shall be retained thereafter for car parking. Reason: To ensure safe and convenient access and parking arrangements in accordance with policies BE/2, A/7, A/9 and A/10 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

11. No development shall be commenced unless and until a Phase I Report (Preliminary Risk Assessment) has been completed to assess the actual and/or potential contamination risks at the site. The Phase 1 Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and shall include a desk top study, site walk over, conceptual model, basic hazard assessment and recommendation regarding the need or otherwise for further investigation and risk assessment. If the Phase 1 Report identifies potential unacceptable risks, suitable investigation, risk assessment and remedial action shall be carried out in accordance to a process and timescale agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with policies EM/8 and BE/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. The principle of regenerating this degraded site within the Castleton local centre by

replacing the existing building with a new building for retail and residential purposes is acceptable, and the use, layout, external appearance, scale, and access of the proposed development are compatible with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed building would have a scale, design and function that would complement the Castleton local centre. The proposal is in compliance with policies S/6 (District Centre, Local Centres and Linear Commercial Areas), (H/3 (Residential Developments Outside Allocated Areas), H/13 (Residential Uses Above Retail and Commercial Premises), BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development), BE/5 (Shop Fronts), and EM/11 (Other Degraded Land and Buildings) of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan and in accordance with the objectives of PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS3 (Housing) and the council’s SPG – Guidelines for Shop Fronts and Associated Advertisements and SPD – Oldham and Rochdale Urban Design Guide. The proposal demonstrates that the development would be capable of achieving Code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with policy EM/13 (Energy Efficiency and New Development) of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, and with the objectives of the SPD- Energy and New Development and PPS22 (Renewable Energy). The proposal makes appropriately safe and convenient arrangements for access and circulation and provides adequate space for vehicle parking in view of the sustainable nature of the site and its easy access to public transport, in accordance with policies A/3 (New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People), A/7 (New Development – Access for Service Vehicles), A/9 (New Development – Access for General Traffic) and A/10 (New Development – Provision of Parking of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).

_________________________________________

Page - 32 -

Report Councillor Ted Flynn has requested that this application be determined by committee. Site: The application relates to a vacant two-storey brick building on Manchester Road, adjoined to other two storey properties on both sides. The building comprises a former video shop with a rendered frontage at the ground floor level, with a large fascia sign. At the first floor level are large windows with stone headers and sills, and timber sash window frames that have been partially removed. The right-hand-side of the façade has a gable detail, with the ridge of the pitched roof here being stepped higher than the left-hand-side. There is a date stone set within this gable. The building is within the designated Castleton local centre and directly fronts the highway of Manchester Road in close proximity to the train station and bus stops. There is a pedestrian crossing immediately to the front, and various A1-A5 shops, services and food and drink establishments in the vicinity. To the rear is a part-surfaced, part-unmade track that provides access to the rears of Manchester Road and Hanover Street properties. This track leads from Hanover Street and is overgrown at the sides. The track ends at the rear of the application building, where access is currently available to the rears of 814, 816, and the public house at 818 Manchester Road. The building has been vacant for some time and is falling into a state of dereliction. The building is well proportioned and scaled, with the gable providing a feature to the row of properties, but has become unattractive through neglect and primarily due to the inappropriate treatment of the ground floor frontage. Whilst not being prominent, the rear elevation is particularly unattractive, with doors and windows having been bricked-up, patched brickwork and security grills. Proposal: This is a full planning application for the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with a new two-storey building with further accommodation within the roof space. At the ground floor level would be four shop units, each with a shop front flanked by pilasters, with a fascia above and central door with glazing either side above a stallriser. Roller shutters would be concealed behind the fascias. To the first floor level would be eight flats, each with a single bedroom within the roof space. The flats would be primarily accessed by a communal stairwell from a door central to the building’s façade, though an additional entrance would be provided at the rear of the building. Whilst the existing building is L-shaped at the rear and has a depth varying from 8.2m to 16.8m, the proposed building would be fully rectangular with a depth of 12m. The building would have a dual-pitched roof with skylight windows to the front and rear facing roof planes, and a front facing gable detail to the right-hand-side. First floor windows to the front elevation would have a vertical emphasis with stone headers and sills. Externally at the rear, there would be six car parking spaces, with steps providing access from the shops and from the flats’ communal hallway to a bin storage area and to the car parking area. The building would be ‘stepped in’ adjacent to 814 Manchester Road to allow clearance to an external vent on that property. Policy Background: Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (adopted 15th June 2006) G/D/1 Defined Urban Area H/3 Residential Developments Outside Allocated Areas H/13 Residential Uses Above Retail and Commercial Premises S/6 District Centre, Local Centres and Linear Commercial Areas A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People

Page - 33 -

A/7 New Development – Access for Service Vehicles A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic A/10 New Development – Provision of Parking BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development BE/5 Shop Fronts EM/8 Protection of Surface and Ground Water EM/11 Other Degraded Land and Buildings EM/13 Energy Efficiency and New Development SPG – Guidelines for Shop Fronts and Associated Advertisements SPD – Oldham and Rochdale Urban Design Guide SPD – Energy and New Development National policy and guidance PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing PPS22 – Renewable Energy Site History:

• 1991 – Application D26908 – Change of use from video shop to restaurant – Refused.

• 2000 – Application D37664 – Change of use from ground floor retail (class A1) to storage (class B8) – Approved.

• 2002 – Application D40714 – Change of use from video shop to restaurant/wine bar – Refused.

• 2006 – Application D47119 – Demolition of existing building and erection of new 3 storey building to form retail unit at ground floor level and six residential units at first and second floor levels – Refused.

• 2006 – Application D47822 – Demolition of existing building and erection of new 2 storey building to form retail unit at ground floor level and four apartments at first floor level (resubmission D47119) – Approved.

Publicity Responses: The application has been publicised by site notice and neighbour letters. At the time of writing this report three responses had been received, these being letters of objection from occupants of flats and businesses at 814-816 Manchester Road. The grounds for the objections are summarised as follows:

• Access to the rear of 814-816 would be blocked off by the proposed parking spaces which are not wholly within the applicant’s land.

• 8 flats would be overdevelopment and there is not sufficient parking provision. Consultation Responses:

• Head of Highways and Engineering – Initially commented that the development would block access to the rear highway for 814 and 816 Manchester Road and that the parking spaces were not the minimum required size. The application has since been amended to remove two of the parking spaces in order to ensure that access to neighbouring properties is maintained, and the remaining six parking spaces have been increased in size to the required dimensions of 2.4 by 4.8m. Comments have been sought on these amendments and will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

• Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) – Request that a preliminary risk assessment be carried out to assess the potential for contamination at the site. To be required by condition, and followed by a site investigation if necessary.

• United Utilities – No response at the time of writing this report.

Page - 34 -

Views of Officer: Principle of development The site is within the designated Castleton local centre on Manchester Road, and the retention of the site for retail purposes is welcomed and in compliance with policy S/6 of the UDP. This policy states that the development of shops, financial and professional services, food and drink outlets, offices, community and cultural facilities, will be permitted in local centres provided that it is of a scale and character appropriate to the size, role and function of the centre, and provided that it is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not harm residential amenity. The properties either side of the application site are in use for commercial purposes at the ground floor level, as are the majority of properties fronting this section of Manchester Road. The nature of the commercial premises in this area is to have flats above, and the proposed four retail units with flats above is therefore compatible with the surrounding area and will compliment the size, role and function of Castleton local centre. The building has the potential to enhance the local retail provision to the benefit of the vitality and viability of the Castleton local centre. The proposed development is acceptable in principle. In addition, it is considered that the redevelopment of the site would have a positive impact on the local centre; the existing building has been vacant for some time and is falling into a state of dereliction. Its demolition and replacement with a new building of similar size, scale and function, but in more efficient use (more retail and residential accommodation than the existing) would improve the appearance and function of Castleton local centre. Siting The site is constrained by existing buildings which form a row of commercial properties leading away from the railway bridge and which can be considered as the ‘backbone’ of Castleton local centre. The building would directly front Manchester Road in order to continue this row and building line, and vehicle access would continue to be from the rear. The siting and strong street frontage would ensure that there was no fragmentation of the row of buildings, and is important for the character of the area and would ensure that the current relationship between the existing building and its neighbours is maintained. At the rear the existing building is fragmented in terms of its projections and heights, whereas the proposed new building would be squared-off. Whilst the rear of the site is not prominent, the proposed flatter and more simplified rear elevation would be a visual improvement. The new building would project further rearwards than the existing where adjacent to 814 and 816 Manchester Road, however this would not result in any significant harm to the privacy or amenity of occupants of that building (which appears to have a business at the ground floor level and flat above). At the rear 814 and 816 Manchester Road only have five window and door openings, all of which are at the basement and ground floor levels and with roller shutters, thus are unlikely to be domestic windows. The proposed building would not project rearwards as far as the existing in relation to 804 Manchester Road, and thus the siting in respect of this property would be improved. There are residential properties to the rear on Hanover Street. A separation of 27m would be maintained between them and the rear elevation of the proposed building, which would contain flats at the first floor level. This separation is in excess of the 21m that the council’s standards normally require between principal windows and therefore Officers consider that residents of Hanover Street will not be unduly affected by the development in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy.

Page - 35 -

External appearance and scale The building would appear as two storeys, with additional accommodation within the roof space, thus three floors internally. The eaves would align with those of 814 and 816 Manchester Road on the southeast side, and would be set above those of 804 Manchester Road on the northwest side. The ridge of the roof would be slightly above both neighbouring buildings. This stepping of eaves and roof lines respects the pattern of building heights in the row of properties and is appropriate for the local character, as is the inclusion of a gable detail to the street façade which prevents an uncharacteristic symmetrical frontage and replaces an important detail of the existing building’s façade. The building would be brick, with traditionally styled shop fronts at the ground floor level, with roller shutters houses behind the shop signage to prevent cluttered and ugly fascias. Windows at the first floor level would have a vertical emphasis and would be well proportioned, with stone heads and sills to reflect the existing building as closely as possible. The roof would be dual-pitched, as existing. The external appearance and scale of the building would be appropriate for this site and is considered by officers to be acceptable. Access and parking The objections received all relate to vehicle access and car parking. Objectors have stated that the proposed access is over land which is not in the ownership of the applicant, however this is a private matter to be resolved by the parties involved, and in any case the applicant has now deleted two of the eight originally proposed parking spaces in order to ensure that sufficient space remains for vehicle and pedestrian access to 814 and 816 Manchester Road at the rear. All six parking spaces now proposed are within the site-edged-red on the application, which the applicant has stated is land entirely within his ownership. The Head of Highways and Engineering was consulted on the planning application prior to amendments being made. His concerns about the size of individual parking spaces have been addressed by amendments submitted by the applicant, with all parking spaces now being the required 2.4 by 4.8m. Concerns about access to the neighbouring properties have also been addressed, by the deletion of two parking spaces; 814 and 816 Manchester Road have a triangular rear yard and storage area, with access restricted by the application site and the public house on the far side. With the inclusion of six rather than eight parking spaces within the proposal, pedestrian and vehicle access would be maintained to these neighbouring buildings. It may transpire that this access is over the applicant’s land, but the access rights would be a private issue to be resolved between the respective land owners. When consulted on the application, the Head of Highways and Engineering’s comments related to a scheme with eight parking spaces for 4 shop units and 8 one-bedroom flats. As the parking provision has now been reduced, the Head of Highways and Engineering has been further consulted and any comments made will be reported verbally to Members. In officers’ opinion, six parking spaces is sufficient provision for a development of this size in a location as sustainable as this (adjacent to a mainline train station and on a major bus route), and officers consider that when assessing whether the parking provision is acceptable, significant weight should be afforded to the desirability of regenerating this degraded site in an efficient way, the likelihood that occupants of the small 1-bedroomed flats will be single persons without access to a private vehicle, the unchanged arrangements for servicing of the retail units, and the ready availability of alternative means of transport other than private vehicles.

Page - 36 -

Use of upper floors for residential accommodation The inclusion of 8 small flats at the upper floors of the building would improve the efficient use of this site, improve affordable housing provision in this location, and would be in line with council and government objectives for housing provision. The site is very sustainable in terms of future occupants’ access to transport, shops and services and is an ideal location for properties of this size and type. Summary Officers consider that this application is acceptable in terms of siting, scale, external appearance and access and parking arrangements, and recommend that it be approved subject to the suggested conditions. Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way on reasonable planning grounds.

_______________________________________________ Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D52151 Householder Application Kingsway

FRONT AND REAR DORMER EXTENSIONS, TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND ADDITIONAL FIRST FLOOR WINDOW IN THE SIDE ELEVATION OF DWELLING 1, ROUGH HEY WALK, ROCHDALE, OL16 5SU For:- MR NADEEM AKRAM Received 17-Jun-2009

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years

beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The materials used shall match those of the existing building in terms of type, colour, texture and scale. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies BE/2 and H/11 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

3. No development shall commence until proposals for gas protection measures, to be incorporated into the proposed building to prevent the ingress of landfill gas or ground gas, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A verification Report confirming the installation of the approved protection measures shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page - 37 -

Reason: The development site may be subject to landfill gas migration and precautionary measures are required at this stage to protect against possible hazard in accordance with Policy EM/5 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modifications), no additional windows shall be installed in the east or west facing elevation of the extensions unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to safeguard the privacy of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy H/11 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. The proposed development would be compatible with the property to be extended in

terms of scale, size and design. The extensions would be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not unduly affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The proposal accords with the Council’s Supplementary Guidance Note “Guidelines and Standards or Residential Development” and complies with policies G/D/1(Defined Urban Area), BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development), and H/11(Residential Extensions) of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

_________________________________________ Report Site: The application relates to a two storey red brick end terraced property which is at the eastern end of a block of 7 properties situated on Rough Hey Walk which is a pedestrian path off Moss Street. The properties appear to front Stuart Street to the North where they have off street parking spaces and the ‘frontage’ to Rough Hey Walk to the south appears to be the rear gardens, being enclosed by a 1.5m fence. The south facing elevation is prominent in the street scene, being adjacent to the junction of Channing Street with Moss Street. Proposal: The application seeks permission to erect a two storey rear extension and front and rear dormers incorporating a kitchen and bathroom and two additional bedrooms with en-suite bathroom. The two storey rear extension would be set flush with the width of the dwelling and it would measure 3m in length at ground floor level and 2.4m at first floor level. The dormer fronting Stuart Street would measure 4.1m in depth, 1.2m in height and 4m in width, and it would be set in from the sides of the dwelling by 0.8m. The dormer fronting Rough Hey Walk would measure 1.6m in depth, 1.5m in height and 4.2m in width, and it would be set in from the sides of the dwelling by 0.6m. An additional window would also be inserted into the existing gable wall at first floor level. Policy Background: Local Unitary Development Plan: G/D/1 – Defined Urban Area BE/2 – Design Criteria for New Development H/11 – Residential Extensions SPG Note “Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development”

Page - 38 -

Site History: 09/D51981 – Front and rear dormer extensions and two storey rear extension to dwelling and additional first floor window in the side elevation of dwelling – Withdrawn. Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering – no comment Contaminated Land Officer – recommended the appropriate informative Publicity Responses: Letters of notification were sent to surrounding neighbours, and no representations were received. Views of Officer: The site is within the Defined Urban Area so the proposal complies with Policy G/D/1 of the Unitary Development Plan. The neighbouring property to the east (No 119 Moss Street) has erected front and rear dormers so it is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a significant effect on the character of the street scene. The two storey rear extension would not exceed the existing width or height of the dwelling and it complies with the standards as set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note “Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development”. It is therefore considered that the proposed extensions would be compatible with the property to be extended in terms of scale, size and design and would not unduly affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties through overlooking or overshadowing. Proposed windows would face south towards the blank gable of No’s 2/4 Millfield Grove, and it has been recommended that no additional windows shall be inserted into the west facing elevation. Moreover, the front dormer would be situated some 17m from the Community Centre to the north so it is therefore considered that the privacy of the neighbouring residents would not be significantly affected. The proposal would have no effect on parking or highway safety and sufficient garden space would remain. Moreover, the proposal would not prejudice the ability of neighbouring properties to build similar extensions. In view of the above the proposal accords with the Council’s Supplementary Guidance Note “Guidelines and Standards or Residential Development” and complies with policies G/D/1 (Defined Urban Area), H/11 (Residential Extensions) and BE/2 (Design Criteria for New Development) of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan. Delegation Scheme: Councillor Christine Akram has declared an interest in this application as the applicant is a family member and for this reason the application must be determined by the planning committee. _____________________________________________

Page - 39 -

Application Number Application Type Ward 09/D52167 Full Planning Application Milkstone and Deeplish

VARIATION OF CONDITION 04 OF D16089 AND 02 OF D17563 TO ALLOW THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRINK FROM ' INSTORE' FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE PREMISES ( USE CLASS A1). INSTORE, CENTRAL RETAIL PARK, RICHARD STREET, ROCHDALE For:- POUNDSTRETCHER LTD Received 19-Jun-2009

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years

beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The variation of condition hereby approved only relates to the Instore Unit as detailed within the red line boundary. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the continued vitality and viability of Rochdale Town Centre, in accordance with Policy G/S/1 – Hierarchy and Role of Centres of the Rochdale UDP.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. The proposed use is of a scale which would not harm the vitality and viability of

Rochdale town centre or the adjacent local centres whilst providing increased choice for the local residents. There are no sequentially preferable sites and the proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy G/S/1 – Hierarchy and Role of Centres of the Rochdale UDP and the advice as contained within PPS 6 - Planning for Town Centres. In summary, the reasons for granting this permission are that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council is of the opinion that the development is in accordance with the relevant national and local planning policies and that there are no other material planning considerations that indicate that an alternative decision should be reached.

_________________________________________ Report Site: This application relates to the Instore Retail unit which lies within Central Retail Park off Oldham Road. The retail park, which measures 3.5 hectares, is currently occupied by Halfords, Matalan, Argos and Instore. The retail park is bounded by Oldham Road to the east, Drake Street to the north west, Milnrow Road to the north, and Richard Street to the south west. The Masonic Hall on Richard Street adjoins the site on its south western boundary. Until recently the site contained two large units which were occupied by MFI and Focus DIY.

Page - 40 -

The surrounding area is mainly commercial in nature, although there is a row of houses on the opposite side of Richard Street. On the Drake Street boundary there is a cleared area which is the site of the proposed Drake Street Metrolink stop. There are accesses into the Central Retail Park from Richard Street and Oldham Road. Proposal: This is a full planning application to vary condition 4 of D16089 and condition 2 of D17563 to allow the sale of food and drink for consumption off the premises. Policy Background: Adopted UDP G/S/1 – Hierarchy and Role of Centres States to ensure the continued vitality and viability of centres, new retail development should be sited in accordance with the principles of the sequential approach.

Planning Policy Guidance Statement 6 – Planning for Town Centres. PPS 6 seeks to secure the vitality and viability of town centres and their long term futures as retail destinations by giving preference to town centre or edge of centre sites and then out of centres. The proposed site is considered out of centre and although PPS6 seeks new retail development, first in town centre sites, followed by edge of centre sites; out of centre sites will be considered providing that new retail development does not undermine the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres.

Site History: Central Retail Park has a long planning history. The most significant applications are listed below. 1981 - Outline application for warehouse units – approved (D11271). 1982 - Building for the sale of flat pack furniture, beds, curtains and light fittings -

approved (D14402). 1985 - Erection of retail warehouse – approved (D16089). 1985 - Single storey warehouse unit – approved (D17563). 1986 - Erection of retail unit with ancillary car parking and servicing facilities - approved

(D19112). 1986 - One single storey retail unit – approved (D19811). 2004 - Demolition of existing retail units and erection of non-food retail units and closure

of vehicular access from Richard Street – withdrawn (D42667). 2005 - Erection of non – food retail units and closure of Richard Street entrance –

granted (D43670). 2006 - Demolition of existing retail units and erection of 8 non food retail units and sub

division of unit 1 (Matalan) to form 3 non food retail units. Approved (D46099). 2007 - Construction of mezzanine floors and external alterations to create 3 retail units. Approved (D49509).

Page - 41 -

2008 – Variation of condition 2 of D46099 to allow additional 1923sqm of floorspace and to vary condition 3 of D46099 by the substitution of a plan. Approved (D50460). 2009 - Extension and alterations to the building to create two units with associated landscaping works. Application undetermined (D52063). Publicity Responses: The adjacent neighbouring businesses and residential dwellings have been notified and 7 letters of objection have been received from residents of Richard Street. All the letters of objection are identical and it is commented that: -

• The use would cause a health hazard and pest problem. Furthermore littering along Richard Street will become commonplace.

In response to this the Planning Officer considers that the use would not result in a health hazard and there is no reason to deduce that it would exacerbate any litter problems which may exist in this area. Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering – no objections. The Council’s Strategic Planning Team – raise no objection and comment that the use would not undermine the vitality or viability of Rochdale Town Centre. Views of Officer: Policy G/S/1 - Hierarchy and Role of Centres states that to ensure the continued vitality and viability of the town, district and local centres, new retail should be sited in accordance with the principles of the sequential approach. It must be demonstrated that no suitable sites or buildings that are sequentially preferable are available or likely to become available within a reasonable period of time. With regard to the issue of compliance with retail policy, the Council’s Strategic Planning Service considers that there is sufficient capacity within Rochdale to accommodate the new use. Provision of the new use would also have the benefits of reducing leakage of expenditure to other parts of the borough, or to outside the borough, and increasing choice for local residents. In addition, the Planning Officer is satisfied that there are no sequentially preferable sites which are available for development within a reasonable period of time. It is therefore concluded that the retail development accords with local and national retail policies. The Planning Officer considers that the comings and goings from the proposed use would be similar to the existing use and there is no reason to suspect that the proposed use would unduly affect the amenities of the adjacent residents along Richard Street. In conclusion the Planning Officer is satisfied that the proposed use would not harm the vitality of viability of Rochdale Town Centre and the adjacent local centres whilst providing increased choice for the local residents. Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way on reasonable planning grounds. ___________________________________________________________