Post on 30-Jan-2021
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
1
Appeal Ref. No: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388
Cheshire East Application No: 14/0114M
Hybrid planning proposal by Argonaught Holdings Ltd c/o LPC Living Ltd
for mixed-use redevelopment seeking:
A Full planning permission for alterations to existing employment
buildings, construction of new employment buildings and installation of
new over ground services, piping and ducting.
B Full planning permission for demolition of remaining redundant
employment buildings and removal of redundant over ground services,
piping and ducting.
C Outline planning permission for construction of dwellings, associated
infrastructure, landscaping and other associated works (means of
access) at Harman Technology Site and adj land, Ilford Way, Town Lane,
Mobberley.
PLANNING PROOF OF EVIDENCE
J Stuart Nixon BSc(Hons) DipTE CEng MICE MRTPI MCIHT
Inquiry 4 May 2016
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
2
1. Personal details
1.1 My name is John Stuart Nixon and I have on degree in Civil Engineering
with Honours and a post graduate Diploma in Traffic Engineering. I am a
Chartered Engineer, a Member of the Institute of Civil Engineering, the
Royal Town Planning Institute and Chartered Institute of Highways and
Transportation.
1.2 I have been employed in the public sector for over 45 years, holding
senior posts in local and central government. The roles have been in town
and landuse planning, highways and traffic and the full range of
engineering and environmental disciplines. I retired from full time
employment some 10 years ago and have been working as a consultant
and on a part time basis since then.
1.3 I have been a resident of Mobberley for more than 20-years and have
chaired the Parish Council and the Steering Group that prepared the
Mobberley Parish Plan.
1.4 The evidence that I shall provide for this appeal, Ref.No:
APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 has been prepared and is given in accordance
with the guidance of my professional institutions. I confirm that the
opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. In providing
expert evidence to the inquiry I am fully aware that my duty is to the
inquiry and to provide my honestly held professional view, irrespective of
by whom I am employed.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
3
2. Overview
2.1 This proof covers the material planning issues and other considerations
raised by the appeal scheme. With regard to specialist knowledge, other
witnesses have covered highways/traffic, noise, design, employment,
education and local matters. The conclusions from these witnesses have
been incorporated into my evidence when undertaking the planning
balance and reaching an overall conclusion. In preparing this proof, I have
had regard to the Appeal Statement prepared by Argonaught Holdings Ltd
c/o LPC Living Ltd (the Appellants) and the Statement of Case submitted
by Cheshire East Council (the Council).
2.2 Unfortunately and contrary to the Inquiry Procedure Rules, no Statement
of Common Ground had been prepared before the closing date for
evidence, placing an unreasonable burden on the Rule 6 Party. Where
references to documents are made, these documents are assumed to be
included in the Core Documents, again yet to be provided by the main
parties. A Summary Proof is appended at the end.
2.3 The application was recommended for approval by the Council’s Officers
against a background that a 5-year supply of readily available housing
land (HLS) could not be identified. As such, the Officers would have been
aware that the development plan (DP) policies controlling the supply of
housing cannot be considered up-to-date and that housing developments
should be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of
sustainable development.
2.4 Notwithstanding, the application was refused by the Council Members for
three reasons pertaining to noise, the harmful effect on the character of
the Village of Mobberley and the level of affordable housing on offer.
There were some 230 individual letters of objection, with one or two in
support.
2.5 Although it is appreciated that the Council’s position on the 5-year HLS
have vacillated over the past few years between being confident of being
able to identify a 5-year HLS and not being able to do so, it is not part of
the Rule 6 party’s case to argue that there is a 5-year supply. Thus, it
accepts that paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) is triggered, and this explains that under such circumstances,
planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of a
particular scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies evinced by the Framework,
taken as a whole.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
4
2.6 Put briefly, the Rule 6 party commends the Members for concluding that
the harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of
this scheme. This evidence will show that the Members were correct, after
applying the planning balance.
2.7 On the other hand, the Rule 6 party believes that, when drafting the
Report, the Council’s Officers were unduly influenced by the lack of a 5-
year HLS and did not pursue all the negative considerations. They did not
bottom out a significant number of environmental issues, which still
remain unresolved, and did not, therefore, undertake a meaningful
planning balance. It seems the Officers clearly believed that a lack of a 5-
year housing land supply trumps all other objections and concerns.
2.8 This could not have been helped by the Officers understanding that they
are only able to assess the scheme based on the information submitted by
the Applicant. Once again, the Rule 6 party disagrees and firmly believes
that the Officers should not merely accept the submitted information, but
are required to apply their professional knowledge/judgement in their
critique to test the reasonableness of the submissions.
2.9 Crucially in our view, this was not assisted by having judged the proposal
not to be EIA development, which would have drawn out the
environmental harm in a unified Environmental Statement (ES) as
opposed to a large number of disparate and uncoordinated reports (20
reports). It would also have drawn together the consultation responses on
environmental matters (19 responses, some multiple), a further
requirement of the EIA Regulations.
2.10 In any event, this appeal should be decided in accordance with the
provisions of the development plan (DP), unless the material
considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the relevant section of the
DP comprises the saved policies from the Macclesfield Local Plan 2004
(LP). As this was adopted prior to publication of the Framework, the saved
policies can only attract weight commensurate with their conformity with
the Framework policies.
2.11 There is an emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (LPS) and, in
accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework, decision-takers may
give weight to the relevant policies in the emerging plan according to its
stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections
and the degree of consistency with the Framework. An early draft has
been submitted to and commented on by the Local Plan Inspector, who
made several suggestions in relation to housing and employment
provision and policy. These have been responded to by the Council, and
the final draft has been approved by Members and issued for public
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
5
consultation, with a closing date in mid-April. The examination is expected
in late summer and Plan adoption early in 2017.
2.12 Although the Council would wish the policies of the LPS to attract
significant weight, and has resolved that it should be adopted for
development control purposes, the stage it is at means that it can only
attract moderate weight, though where research and consultation has
been conducted, the Inspector’s ‘guidance’ may be taken as an indication
of the direction of travel.
2.13 In terms of non-statutory policy guidance, there is a Mobberley Parish
Plan 2010, which has been accepted by the Council, though not mentioned
in the Officer’s Report or by the Appellants. A Neighbourhood Plan is in the
very early stages, but is inhibited by the lack of progress on the LPS.
Finally, the Council relies on its Supplementary Planning Guidance on
s.106 Agreements.
3. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
3.1 The Appellants sought a screening opinion from the Council. The Council
responded by saying that the proposed development falls under Schedule
2 development as described in Column 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011
and under paragraph 10 of Column 1 and meets the criteria under Column
2. After consideration, the Council accepted that it is EIA development,
but concluded that it does not raise any material environmental concerns
that justify it being classed as EIA development requiring the preparation
of an Environmental Statement (ES). The Rule 6 Party agrees that it falls
under the head of Schedule 2 development, which does not require a
mandatory ES.
3.2 On consideration of the facts, however, the Rule 6 Party questions the
Council’s conclusion that no ES was necessary in this case, and believes
that it failed to acknowledge the impact of a number of environmental
matters. In those cases where it did believe that investigation should take
place the Council asked for a report to be produced. The outcome was
that a large number of reports were produced (20), which should have
been drawn together in an ES and not left as individual, disparate reports,
with little or no cross reference or consideration of cumulative effects.
3.3 More worrying for the Rule 6 party, it is difficult to know which are the
latest versions or where agreements outside the published or formal
process have been taken by the Council and Appellants. Some of these
reports for an early 2014 application were produced as late as March
2016.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
6
3.4 In support of the Rule 6 Party’s stance on EIA, there would be a physical
change to the locality. Although part of the site is developed, the total
extent of the new development would extend into existing open
countryside, a part of the Green Belt and land within and contributing to
the setting of the Mobberley Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. At
the very least, this needs an assessment of alternatives that would
minimise the impact on these interests of acknowledged importance. As it
stands, the heritage consideration is covered by a separate statement and
under-values the adverse effect on the heritage assets and the raison
d’etre for their designation. As will be demonstrated later, because of the
physical impact, the Rule 6 Party believes the cumulative detrimental
effect would be substantial.
3.5 As for traffic related impacts, it is now acknowledged by the Council, as
local highway authority (LHA), that there would be a severe residual
adverse effect on the movement of traffic through Knutsford and that a
scheme would be required to accommodate this. One week before this
proof of evidence was due to be submitted, an interim scheme was tabled
costing towards £1.2m at 2014 costs. However, there is no assessment of
the benefits it would deliver. At the time the screening opinion was
requested, it seems that the Council relied on the Applicants’ input, which
one could have expected to put the most favourable gloss on the
outcome.
3.6 There is no objective assessment of the impact of traffic in other
directions, even though it is known that there are junction capacity
problems at a number of locations and that additional development on
preferred sites will add to this. In particular, the routes to Wilmslow at the
Kings Arms Roundabout, Alderley Edge at the Brook Lane junction and
with Wilmslow – Altrincham Road (A538) at the M56 and access to MIA
are already severely congested. It is also worth noting the impact from
the 3,000 vehicle movements a day on Mobberley and specifically the
village centre, along Town Lane.
3.7 Moving to noise, there is acceptance that a Noise Assessment should be
prepared and this should be part of a comprehensive Environmental
Statement (ES) and cover and assess the cumulative effect of aircraft
noise, traffic noise and any industrial noise. Once again, the Council
appears to have relied on the Applicants’ submissions. However, with the
Council’s EHO recommending refusal and the Applicants responding that
acoustic shelters would be required this is clearly a major environmental
issue. Importantly, if the residential site is in an unfavourable acoustic
location, this would have effects on the operations of MIA going forward,
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
7
by locating a substantial level of potential objection within or close to its
flight paths.
3.8 The crucial matters that the Council’s Officers have missed are first, the
fact that building on this site would compromise undertakings given by
MIA when the second runway was granted permission. This would
prejudice the planned operation of the airport in the future. Secondly, the
cumulative effect of the mixed use development proposed and the
interaction between the various elements of the proposal.
3.9 By way of example, the noise from the aircraft passing overhead, plus
noise from the existing employment and traffic makes up the background
existing noise. To assess the impact on the various elements for the new
proposal it is necessary to differentiate the various elements and, in each
case, add the additional noise from the other activities to assess if the
environmental noise breaches policy, which, as will be demonstrated, it
does.
3.10 For the housing, even if it could be shown that the background noise
alone would not preclude residential development, to assess the impact of
noise on the residential component, noise from the employment element
and the traffic generated by all uses must be added to the background.
The only way to understand the interaction is to look at the situation
holistically – namely by way of an Environmental Statement. As it stands,
the various elements have been treated independently and are largely
worthless.
3.11 Similar arguments apply to the Air Quality Assessment (AQA). Here the
Council also seems to accept that an AQA would be necessary and as a
site close to the flight path from the MIA this seems essential. In addition,
the site is close to existing employment, agricultural uses and a sewage
works and the operators United Utilities (UU) draw attention to the
potential for noxious smells from the latter. All these last three points
could have a material effect on the operation of MIA and the sewage
works going forward. However, in the AQA undertaken, the Appellants
have concentrated only on the effects of traffic and not aggregated all
impacts. In particular, residents experience the unhealthy pollution from
aircraft engine fumes on a regular basis.
3.12 Although the impacts on ecological and nature conservation assets are
unlikely to be of major significance, Habitat Surveys have been prepared
and these show possible protected species are resident. As such, the
Council was correct in requiring a full ecological survey and submission of
appropriate mitigation measures.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
8
3.13 As for infrastructure, there is no headroom in the infant and primary
school accommodation to accept children from the application site on the
school roll. In terms of community infrastructure, the development would
bring no new service facility to the table. With regard to the effect on the
size of the Village of Mobberley, within the drawn development boundary
the increase would be some 50%. Mobberley is a large Parish, but a small
Village, with a s significant proportion of the properties and residents
living outside the drawn Village Envelope, including two large remote
mobile home parks.
3.14 The conclusion on land contamination hedges bets. However, it is clear
that the site is part of or adjacent to a large employment site, where the
use of dangerous chemicals would have been a daily event. In respect of
the later application on the appeal site, the EHO has now raised alarms
about contamination of the land and the sensitivity of the proposed use.
These concerns are echoed by the EA and MIA. Housing is a sensitive end
user and, in these circumstances, it is irresponsible not to assess the
potential for land contamination before granting planning permission.
There might also be the potential for leachate from the sewage works.
Both these could have a significant effect on the developable areas and
the traffic and industrial plant necessary to effect satisfactory remediation.
3.15 Returning to heritage matters, the Council seems to have missed that
there is a building, car parking and access roads proposed on the open
space land and this would have an adverse effect on the both the physical
extent and the setting of the Conservation Area and compromise some
important views from public vantage points as well as devalue the
relationship of the Conservation Area to the Village’s rural roots.
3.16 Importantly, an ES would look at the alternatives that would avoid the
loss of this sensitive land within and adjacent to the Conservation Area. It
would address the consequences of not using the Conservation Area and
Green Belt land and incorporating the open space within the development
site. As is stands, there is reason to believe that the physical and visual
harm would be substantial as the proposal would not preserve or enhance
and would detract inordinately.
3.17 When looking at the other matters highlighted by the Council, there are
number where it has taken a leap of faith. In particular, the site is situate
in a critical location for aircraft operations, being close to the MIA flight
path. There is, therefore, a safety risk that will be explored by an ex-
employee of the Airport. In addition, the proximity of the flight path will
preclude berry producing scrubs, trees above 3 m in height and any
stretches of open water, which may be necessary for drainage purposes.
There would also have to be restriction in lighting on the site, which may
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
9
lead to a personal safety risk encouraging addition trips by car during
hours of darkness.
3.18 Given this evidence, the only conclusion that we can draw is that the
Council required investigation of many environmental aspects and these
have been produced in a disparate fashion. This runs contrary to the
entire ethos of EIA, which requires all the environmental information to be
included in one place and be readily available for assessment by
interested persons and parties. Where the environmental evidence is
inadequate, as in this case, the appeal should be dismissed until the ES is
prepared and decisions taken on any necessary attenuation. It would be
inappropriate to seek to address any shortcomings in the environmental
evidence by the imposition of conditions without being certain that an
acceptable outcome could be achieved.
3.19 Finally, this position is further supported by the failure of the main parties
to engage with the Rule 6 party and agree a Statement of Common
Ground before the evidence for the inquiry had to be submitted.
4. Main issues and material considerations
4.1 Having regard to the prevailing planning policies, its seems to the Rule 6
party that the main issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the
proposed development can be considered sustainable and, as we judge
that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable
housing land, whether other material considerations would significantly
and demonstratively outweigh the benefits of the scheme, especially
having regard to:
a) The policy framework;
b) The loss of employment land;
c) The loss of Green Belt and agricultural land;
d) The implications for the character and appearance of Mobberley
Conservation Area;
e) The need for affordable housing in the area and viability issues;
f) The effect on the physical and social character of the Village;
g) The creation of new public open space;
h) The impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic;
i) The sustainability of the site;
j) Noise issues from aircraft, traffic and the adjacent industrial estate;
k) Design, layout and density issues;
l) The effect on amenities and services in the Village, including education
and retail provision;
m) Flooding and drainage;
n) The effect of public rights of way;
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
10
o) The concern about odour;
p) The air quality in the locality;
q) The issue of land contamination;
r) The effects on the landscape, trees and ecology;
s) The overall suitability of the site for housing; and
t) Other matters.
4.2 In addition, there are concerns raised about the way Council Officers have
considered the overall planning balance and the proposed s.106 Legal
Agreement.
5. The policy framework
5.1 As noted previously, the relevant section of the DP comprises the saved
policies from the Macclesfield Local Plan 2004 (LP). As this was adopted
prior to publication of the Framework, the saved policies can only attract
weight commensurate with their conformity with the Framework. As for
the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (LPS), there has been
some useful feedback from the LP Inspector and the draft LPS gives a
clear indication of the direction of travel intended.
5.2 The Council advances a raft of saved policies from the LP covering the
built development (including conservation area policy); development
control; transport; environment (landscape and ecology); housing
(including affordable housing); recreation and tourism, Green Belt; and
implementation policies. As for the emerging LPS, the Council suggests
this should be given considerable weight on the basis of the consultation
and research carried out. However, the formal objection period has only
just closed and, as such, apart from the steer given by the LP Inspector
and the direction of travel, this should be given relatively little weight.
5.3 Interesting enough, the Mobberley Parish Plan 2010 is not referred to in
the Officer’s report, despite it being adopted by the Council as a
consideration in deciding applications. The Plan looks for affordable
housing for local people to meet the demand identified during the
consultation process. It also looks for energy efficient forms of
development, adopting appropriate layout and design.
5.4 The emerging Mobberley Neighbourhood Plan (NP), designed to supersede
the Parish Plan has made little progress. This is hardly surprising having
regard to the sedentary pace of the LP since Cheshire East took over in
2008. The NP should be reflecting the wishes of the LPS, but as this has
only just been issued for consultation, it has been impossible for the NP
team to produce anything sensible. This has been further compounded by
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
11
the appeal application, which would turn all present thoughts on their
head.
5.5 The Council also rely on supplementary planning guidance covering such
matters as implementation and s.106 Agreements.
5.6 The policies and guidance referred to above have been draw on when
discussing the issues and other considerations. However, as an overview,
the appeal site is not allocated for housing in the LP or Parish Plan and not
identified for housing or promoted as a preferred site in the emerging LPS.
There are no preferred sites for housing in Mobberley shown in the
emerging LPS, which reflects the status and current accessibility of the
Village and is a key indicator that growth is intended to be organic for the
LPS period to 2030. In both the LP and emerging LPS the land is identified
as in existing employment use.
5.7 Delivery of the residential component of the appeal scheme would require
building on part of the Cheshire Green Belt and within the Mobberley
Conservation Area. Respectively, these designations carry a presumption
against inappropriate development and the obligation to consider the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance. Thus,
it can be said with certainty that the principle of development does not
accord with the development plan looked at as a whole and this is the
starting point. There are, of course, additional site specific objections
stemming from conflict with other policies.
5.8 Even so, as in this case, where local planning authorities cannot
demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land, DP policies
controlling the supply of housing cannot be considered up-to-date and
housing developments should be determined in accordance with the
presumption in favour of sustainable development. In turn, this triggers
paragraph 14 of the Framework, which explains that under such
circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse
impacts of a particular scheme would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies evinced by the
Framework, taken as a whole.
5.9 Against this background, should the proposal be shown to be sustainable,
the building of up to 360 new dwellings, including some 20 affordable
properties, attracts significant weight in the overall planning balance.
5.10 Whereas land in agricultural use would become vulnerable, the same
should not be said of land used for employment and where the intention is
for that use to be continued. The use of GB land is something of a moot
point at present as a recent Judgement has cast doubt about the level of
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
12
protection. However, common sense says that this will only offer a short
window of opportunity, because the GB is seen as such an important
designation in land use terms and should only be amended as part of the
local plan process. The weight to be accorded the effect on the
Conservation Area and Listed Buildings is something that would have to
be established on a case by case basis, but such designations are not
automatically vulnerable.
6. The loss of an employment site
6.1 Before moving to the site specific arguments it is necessary to understand
what is driving the appeal proposal. Following going into receivership
Harmans are a reformed company, having been bought out by the staff.
However, even though they are essentially a new company it seems that
they have a lease with the current land owners Argonaught Ltd, which is a
continuing lease for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, for the
company to remain financially viable, they have to divest themselves of
the outdated building assets and move to more modern premises, not
least because of the crippling business rates they are paying on those
outdated and grossly underused buildings.
6.2 The options for Harmans are, therefore, stark. They could stay where they
are until the lease expires, and continue using the site as at present and
pay for the lease and rates. This would not be economically sensible.
Alternatively, they could move the entire operation to a new location,
which would be business efficient, but carry with it the current ongoing
rental costs, understood to be £1m per annum. As stated by the
Applicant’s Agent, this means that even were Harmans to move to a more
suitable site for their ongoing purposes they would still be liable for paying
the lease for the outstanding years.
6.3 Faced with this, the landowners, in conjunction with Harmans, have come
up with this ‘get out of jail’ plan to promote a scheme where there would
be cross-fertilisation between reconfiguring the Harmans operation on
much less of the site, leaving the remainder to be developed for 360+
dwellings and a modicum of employment. Clearly the primary intention is
to fund the building of the new components for Harmans and the new
employment from the housing sales, with a significant profit going to the
landowners from the housing. The evidence would seem to demonstrate
this.
6.4 In the first place, there is no economic viability assessment for the entire
scheme, only for the housing elements and then only to justify that the
amount of affordable housing must be substantially below the 30% policy
requirement at 5%. Put another way, the loss of a significant employment
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
13
site is to be justified to address a poor financial arrangement taken on by
the revamped Harmans operation. We will return to this when considering
the affordable housing contribution in more detail.
6.5 There is a Marketing Report, but this does not look at the positive
opportunities for redevelopment of the site for employment, only the
negative aspects of why it might not prove fruitful. Crucially, no design
brief and/or Masterplan have been prepared for the use of the site as
wholly employment. For the site to reach critical mass, it would have to be
developed as one site, whereby enterprises could interact.
6.6 Allocations for employment land in a LP may be sacrificed in a number of
circumstances and previous decisions highlight these. First, there must
have been a comprehensive marketing strategy. There is no evidence of
this here. Secondly, there must be an oversupply of employment land
when assessed realistically. Again this is not the case here, where the LPS
Inspector identifies a shortage in this area. Thirdly, the existing usage
might be causing environmental problems for surrounding uses. There is
no evidence of this brought forward by the Appellants or the Council.
6.7 None of these apply here, where the only argument here is that there is a
shortage in the 5-year supply of readily available housing land, which
delivers the opportunity. While this is true at present, the LPS
Examination is due to take place in a very short time and this should
address this position. In any event, the LPS Examination is the correct
forum in which to assess these matters and not an ad hoc s.78 appeal,
which has a narrow remit.
6.8 The site is allocated for employment purposes by virtue of LP Policy E1 in
the LP and its use for employment is confirmed by Policy EG3 of the
emerging LPS. Although the Council Officer’s statement at a recent
planning meeting was that it is not allocated for employment or for that
matter any other use in the emerging LPS, this is to misstate the position
in an attempt to mislead. There is no need for it to be allocated as it is
already in employment use. In fact, if it was not then it would undermine
its understanding that it is a brownfield site.
6.9 The Council argues that there is sufficient employment land across the
district, without the Harman site. This is not borne out by recent events as
far as the northern area is concerned. The LP Inspector in his response to
the LPS points out that there is a shortage of employment land in the
north of the district. Moreover, the Council has just refused an application
for a retail park in Handforth on employment land adopting the very same
argument.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
14
6.10 Clearly it is not sound planning practice to sterilise employment land
where there is no reasonable prospect of employment uses materialising.
Equally, there is no point pursuing an employment use if there are other
problems such as access. On the first point, we would agree that large
scale industry and B8 haulage and transport are unlikely to be attracted to
a site with poor road links.
6.11 However, the use of the site for B1 office or light industrial development
would be perfectly feasible if the benefits of the site were highlighted and
the transport and access links improved. B1/office rents in Knutsford are
the highest in the region outside Manchester City Centre. There is a rail
station very close by and intercity rail connections and international air
links within a very short distance. In addition, with the LPS allocations and
objectives, there is an inevitability that traffic conditions in the centre of
Knutsford will be greatly improved sooner rather than later, which could
act as a catalyst to investment in the immediate hinterland e.g.
Mobberley. If not, cross-funding from a residential scheme would not
make the situation any better for the tranches that are proposed for
employment development, which would leave the new employment land
vulnerable.
6.12 There was a Marketing Report conducted, but the date of this was
December 2013 and the Report concedes that it was at a time of
recession. What it did say was that it would be most unlikely for anyone to
take on the site as a single entity. Similarly, it would be unattractive for
any of the underused buildings on the site to be re-let to other users as
they are generally bespoke buildings, unsuitable for general use. As for
the offices, these are not considered sufficiently modern to attract
interest, especially as there were other and better offers available.
6.13 The redevelopment prospects of the site were again not thought to be
good. The site meets none of the locational attributes necessary for
redevelopment and would, therefore, be unviable. What does not appear
to have been done is for there to be a focussed marketing strategy
promoting the benefits of the site based on a Design Brief and Masterplan.
The Marketing Report seems to have concentrated on the negative aspects
of the site.
6.14 In any event, the failure of the owners to devise an economic scheme is
not a good reason for residential dumping of this scale on an unsuitable
site. Moreover, we have seen no viability studies which show that the site
has been marketed on this basis or how the employment use would
develop alongside the housing. We have not been able to find any
marketing strategy for the site beyond advertising for someone to make
use of the underused buildings, which is unrealistic. The site needs to be
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
15
developed for employment for today’s needs and it has not been marketed
in this way.
6.15 Notwithstanding, the fact that the entire site could not be developed for
employment purposes is again not a good reason for moving to a
residential use. There are considerable areas of the site that, though
technically employment land, could remain undeveloped for many years.
The Plan will run until 2030. The Government perspective is not that every
allocated site should be developed in the short term, but that there should
be choice.
6.16 It should be remembered, also, that Mobberley has already supported
Ilfords/Harmans on one previous occasion, at the cost of a Barratt’s
housing development that still jars today as something without empathy
for the village ethos. Even then, at the planning committee meeting, the
Harman representative said that the company was destined for expansion,
with the clear intimation that this would be off-site. The loss of the
employment land on the appeal site would prejudice Harman’s expansion
on this site and make a move off site certainty.
6.17 As for the policy position, with the land identified for employment and the
recent loss of 10+ha of employment land at Parkgate, conceded in the
face of a shortfall in the 5-year housing land supply, the need to keep this
site available is now much stronger. If this site was lost then there would
be no land allocated locally for start-up businesses and local job creation,
in the jobs led growth economy of Cheshire East. As noted, whereas there
may be an oversupply in Cheshire East as a whole, this is not the case
around here and the Local Plan Inspector identified this as a concern.
6.18 One final point is that the Marketing Report identified that people living in
the houses in Mobberley are likely to be unsuitable to the type of work
generated by the present site, unless there is a transformation. This would
apply equally to the new houses proposed and leave Mobberley as another
dormitory mini town for Manchester and Airport City.
6.19 To summarise on this point, if the Harmans’ site is not viable going
forward, and, if the location and accessibility is as bad as the Council and
the Appellants believe, then this is not going to be improved by building
360+ houses on an unsuitable site. The need to carry the site forward as
an employment site is something that should be decided at the LP
examination, against the background of the shortage of suitable sites in
the north of the District. This will almost certainly require a radical
strategy for redevelopment, based on the assets the site has to offer and
not the negative points generated by the Appellants.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
16
7. The loss of Green Belt land
7.1 The Rule 6 party is happy to accept the Council’s position that as this is an
application for a change of use of agricultural land for outdoor sport and
recreation this is not an exception under paragraph 89 of the Framework.
Therefore, it attracts the negative presumption against. Consequently, for
there to be a justification for the departure from Green Belt policy the
Council acknowledges that there must be very special circumstances. We
add that, in such a situation, the very special circumstances must clearly
outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and all other harm.
7.2 In this case, there is first the in principle harm to the Green Belt. Next,
there would be the physical intrusion of the buildings, parking, access
routes and allotments that would prejudice the openness of the Green
Belt. Thirdly, there is no justification for its use as part of the appeal
proposal. There is a sports field at the exit to the appeal site, which is
owned and maintained by the Parish Council. The additional site proposed
would be superfluous to requirements for a small village and impose costs
that would either have to be borne by the Parish Council or have to be
offset against other infrastructure. Either way there is no audited or
objective justification for this. This site is not constrained and, thus, the
open space should be included within the developed area of the site.
7.3 Fourthly, and of even greater importance, the land proposed for the sports
field forms a part of the Mobberley Conservation Area and, as will be
shown later, this makes its positive contribution in its undeveloped state
as rural agricultural land, within site of the Parish Church, Listed Grade 1.
7.4 Taken together, this is a cynical attempt to maximise housing provision at
the expense of other interests of acknowledged importance, without any
justification. As such, there are no very special circumstances and so this
constitutes a significant negative factor in the planning balance.
8. The implications for the character and appearance of Mobberley
Conservation Area
8.1 Both the Appellant’s submissions and the Officer’s Report understate the
effect the proposals would have on the Mobberley Conservation Area. In
fact, neither seems to realise that the proposals would have any physical
effect on the area at all. The Officers make no mention of it in their Report
and apart from referring to a Heritage Report that had been prepared, it
was not mentioned in the Applicants’ Design and Access Statement. In the
Heritage Report itself, it recognises that the open views of the pastoral
landscape is one of the most significant characteristics of the Conservation
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
17
network of footpaths that provides access to this landscape is a valuable
asset.
8.2 Having said this, in the design phase the Conservation Area was not seen
as a main constraint. The appraisal failed to recognise the footpaths to the
east of the built area and across the sports field site. These are FP13 and
the two that are the subject of an outstanding Definitive Map Modification
Order (DMMO).
8.3 To access the impacts, it is necessary to start from the policy directives in
this regard. In the Framework, there is a section on heritage assets and
this looks at both physical effect and that on the setting of a Conservation
Area and Listed Buildings. In a nutshell, the guidance requires
consideration of the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or
appearance. In assessing whether the effects should direct the decision
maker to resist a development, it is necessary to look at the merits of the
asset and then to consider if the harm would be substantial or significant.
In these circumstances, there is a strong case for refusing planning
permission on this fact alone.
8.4 However, even should the harm be less than substantial, this does not
mean that it does not contribute a negative factor in the overall planning
balance. It may still be harmful to a varying degree. The PPG puts flesh on
how this should be decided.
8.5 Looking first at the character and appearance and what factors justified
the creation of the Mobberley Conservation Area, it is necessary to refer
to the Mobberley Conservation Area Appraisal 2006. This defines its
character and the important views and aspects.
8.6 First off, the limits of the Conservation Area are set wide and include an
appreciable number of important buildings of national and local
significance. These are generally focussed on the three ‘centres’ of the
historic village, namely around the Parish Church, the former mill on
Mobberley Brook and Knolls Green. The particular relevance of the
expanse is twofold. First, it emphasises the agricultural roots of the
Village.
8.7 Secondly, the field and footpaths running across it are in full view of the
Parish Church, which is medieval. In former days, it was always
considered that fields in sight of the Church would be more productive as
workers believed they were under the watchful eye of their Maker. The
loss of this field would diminish the asset and result in significant harm to
both the character and visual appearance of the extended setting of the
Church.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
18
8.8 Views from the southern stretches of PF13 and the other two, subject of
the DMMO, as they pass through the Conservation Area are critical. As
noted above, the key function of the Conservation Area is to emphasise
the close relationship between the built elements and the surrounding
farmland, thus reflecting the agricultural roots of the Village. The loss of a
key foreground view definitive of this function would be pronounced with
the change of use from agriculture to a much less rustic use and one of a
more domestic feel. In the opinion of the Rule 6 party, with the physical
and visual harm, this would constitute substantial harm and attract the
negative weight accordingly.
8.9 As such, the proposal would not accord with the saved LP Policies BE3 and
BE4 and Policy SE7 of the emerging LPS or the Government objectives set
out within the Framework, and in particular paragraphs 126-134. This
provides a further strong reason for resisting the current scheme and loss
of this open agricultural field.
9. The need for affordable housing in the area and viability issues
9.1 There is a need for affordable housing in the area as is evidenced by the
Local Councillor Jamie Mcrae and in the finding of the Mobberley Parish
Plan. The usual rate of delivery is expected to be 30% and the proposal
justified here in the Economic Viability Assessment (EVA) is for only 5%.
There may have been some collusion between the Council and the
Appellants to raise this figure, but so long as the EVA does not justify a
higher figure it is worthless. As such, for what is essentially a brownfield
site that has borrowed ‘cheap’ land from the Green Belt to provide the
necessary open space this is much too low and we shall look at why.
9.2 Importantly, history has informed us that few of the children of the
existing residents, who may have left, would be able to afford the new
properties, even if discounted by 20%, and would not qualify for social
housing. Thus, this small level of affordable housing would be of little or
no benefit to the Village and, therefore, not in accordance with the LPS or
the Mobberley Parish Plan.
9.3 Looking at possible defects in the EVA, first, the Green Belt element would
normally be included as open space within the built area of the site and,
after deduction of the essential costs, the residual value of the site
apportioned between the 360+ plots. In this case, this does not appear to
have happened. If it was then the individual plot costs would decrease.
9.4 The main driving force for the development advanced by the Appellants at
a recent Planning Committee is to regenerate Harmans. This is not what
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
19
the EVA and Marketing Assessment says. In effect, if the main driver is to
regenerate, then the profits from the housing should go toward this. To
include the cost of the regeneration and then require a further 20% profit
from the housing is double counting.
9.5 In addition, the site is allocated for employment use and so the value of
the land should only be employment value plus an uplift, of say 10%, for
an opportunity benefit. The EVA includes an uplift of 15-20%, which again
is high. What we seem to have here is a cross funding exercise, whereby
the residential element will fund the employment site leaving that at nil
cost and then delivering a 20% profit on the housing. In addition, the
infrastructure costs are all put down to the housing, which is
inappropriate.
9.6 Next, the sale price of houses in the Assessment is out of date. The prices
we find today are much higher – a 2-bed park home is on the market at
£225,000. In any event, the price should reflect the likely sale price at the
time of completion. As the site is for some 360 units and sites generally
build out at maximum of 50 units per annum, the sale price should reflect
the values anticipated for 2019/20. As the affordable housing would be
phased in accordance with the overall residential development, this again
would mean there is much more headroom available to affordable
housing. The conventional approach of the RICS is to take present day
value and apply an uplift of 10%.
9.7 Thirdly, the on-costs for development are suspect for a number of
reasons. Owing to the lack of a detailed site investigation, the costs of
remediation of land contamination is unknown. However, they are
included as £0.5m and this is a deducted cost. If this is the cost then this
counts for a significant amount of remediation and this should have been
addressed in more detail in an ES. In any event, much of the remediation
costs would appear to be included in the demolition costs and again this is
double counting.
9.8 Fourthly, the cost of securing the rights to cross the access between the
built part of the appeal site and the open space is unknown, but could be
very expensive. Importantly, as far as we can see, no update on the EVA
has been undertaken and this matter does not seem to have been known
at the time either of the Assessments were drafted.
9.9 Fifthly, the contribution allowed for education has been substantially
reduced by the Council in the latter application. Presumably this should
now apply to the appeal scheme.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
20
9.10 Finally, the maximum level of profit of 20% is taken, despite the ‘urgent
need’ to support Harmans. This is along with the highest level of
construction costs. In both cases these should be lowered, the first
because of double counting and the second because of economies of
scale. There is, also the extremely high cost of soundproofing the
dwellings and providing acoustic shelters for outside amenity. These are
not included as a separate item.
9.11 The bottom line is that the EVA is not robust, with many areas of
conjecture. Notwithstanding, if this site, with all its assets, cannot deliver
the full affordable housing contribution required by condition, then the
Council’s policy has been blown away virtually before it has been adopted.
If the site is so difficult and expensive to develop that there is no money
available to provide the affordable and social housing required by policy it
confirms why the site should be developed for a less sensitive and lower
cost development use i.e. employment. To proceed with the development
with such a low affordable housing contribution would be socially
irresponsible and put pressure on other greenfield sites, including those in
the Green Belt.
10. The effect on the physical and social character of the Village
10.1 The Village of Mobberley is interesting for a number of reasons, but one of
the key ones is its layout and disposition. As said previously, it is a large
Parish but a small Village. Overall, there are between 1300-1400 dwellings
within the Parish of Mobberley, but a significant number of these are
highly dispersed, with many well outside the defined village envelope. On
the one hand, this stems from historic reasons, with the original centres of
the Village some way from the present defined boundary. Much of this
area falls within the Mobberley Conservation Area, unlike most of the
‘new’ village.
10.2 The second reason is that the Village hosts a significant number of mobile
or park homes on two sites. One of these sites, in Morley Green, faces
Wilmslow, rather than Mobberley and for services, schools etc naturally
tends to the bigger town. The ‘new’ centre for Mobberley was built up
around the Ilford business in the mid-20th Century.
10.3 This means that, to all intents and purposes, the effective Village is much
smaller than the 1300 dwellings on the register and actually only has
some 6-700 properties within the village boundary. As such, the argument
that the appeal proposal would add almost 30% to the existing village is a
considerable under-estimate of the effect on its character. The real figure
is approaching 50%.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
21
10.4 This would represent a significant increase in the housing stock and
population of Mobberley. Moreover, in terms of population, the existing
ages of residents tend very much to the elderly end (50% higher than the
national average) with very many properties only supporting one or two
residents (2011 census). The lack of affordable housing has driven many
of the children away to find affordable properties elsewhere. The new
properties would largely be family homes with a correspondingly higher
occupancy rate.
10.5 This means that a large number of new residents would have to be
assimilated into a relatively small population. Crucially, with the extremely
limited facilities and employment opportunities in the Village, most
journeys for employment, main retail trips, most leisure and support
services would be to external locations. The new employment
opportunities must be discounted until there is a commitment to delivery,
which, as said, the Rule 6 party believes unlikely as there would be no
critical mass.
10.6 Schooling would be a particular problem. The appeal site is nearer the
village school than the main areas of the Village, meaning that first choice
would go to children on the appeal site. There is no possibility of
extending the school again after the recent expansion from 2/3 form to
one form entry. The latest Council position would mean that children living
in existing properties would have to travel to Knutsford.
10.7 To address these difficulties, the proposals give no indication of how new
residents would be integrated into the Village. There is virtually no
permeability between the proposals and the existing village. New
residents would walk past no attractions in the Village to catch a bus or
train and the grocery shop only offers a top-up facility. Crucially, the
social, religious and sporting centres in the Village are beyond walking
distance for most. As will be shown, the travel isochrones are not
reflective of reality.
10.8 The existing LP and the emerging LPS, together with the Mobberley Parish
Plan, envisage that Mobberley should develop organically until at least
2030. It is a desirable place to live and there is pressure for housing on
infill plots, rounding off and redevelopment of sites. Government policies
about converting agricultural buildings, a maximum of three per holding,
will all push up the windfall delivery and increase the Village organically as
envisaged.
10.9 Put briefly, the assimilation of a development of this scale and the
integration of the residents it would bring would be far too large for the
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
22
Village to handle over too short a period. This reinforces the view that this
development should not be supported.
11. The creation of new public open space
11.1 The proposed open space/sports field is something of a misnomer. It is on
a site that was acquired historically for a sports and social club for Ilford
employees, but was refused planning permission on GB grounds. The club
was eventually located in Great Warford. Many of the same objections
pertain today.
11.2 The area available for the sports field has reduced as some land originally
within the red line application site has been sold off to residential
properties backing onto the field for garden extensions. Enforcement
action is pending. The site location application plan has been amended to
reflect this. Incidentally, it is believed that the land to the east of the
sports field is also within the Applicants’ ownership, though this is not
shown on the application plans.
11.3 The Council accepts that this phase of the development is in the Cheshire
Green Belt and would constitute inappropriate development, attracting a
presumption against unless very special circumstances can be shown to
outweigh the in principle harm to the GB and all other harm. The Rule 6
party do not accept that this could be shown and the Council’s view that a
balance should be taken is disputed.
11.4 If we look first at the benefits of the scheme, it is contended that this
forms part of the open space provision for the residential element and
possibly the employment component of the appeal site. This is not clear.
However, what it fails to recognise is that the facility is remote from the
residential development and could not be overlooked and its use
monitored from the properties. What is needed is open space within the
built area of the site and not something remote from it. What it would do
is provide some allotments, which are desirable, though not an essential
element of this proposal as the Parish Council own land elsewhere to meet
this demand.
11.5 The sports pitch and other parts of the open space are duplicates of what
is already within the Village. There is a sports field and football pitch
within a similar distance from the housing as that currently proposed.
There has not been a village football team for many years and in the
Parish Plan consultation procedures this was not sought after.
11.6 The Parish Council also offers three other areas of open space in the
Village. There is 10+ hectares on Town Lane, a significant area of open
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
23
space around the Scout Hut off Hall Bank and the land at the Victory and
Memorial Hall together with the small Jane Taylor play park. The Village is
extremely well blessed with open space. In this context, it is also worth
noting that the Village is surrounded by extensive open space by virtue of
being located within open countryside, which is ‘borrowed’ by many for
leisure activities and pursuits.
11.7 Thus, for a large residential site, the open space is in the wrong space, is
unnecessary and is the wrong type of amenity provision for a large
residential estate.
11.8 Turning to the other aspects of harm, it would result in harm to the
character and appearance of the Mobberley Conservation Area, the loss of
Grade 3 agricultural land and diminish the openness of the GB.
11.9 Importantly, it now seems that vehicle, and in fact any, access to the
open space from the residential development is in question. It is divided
from the built areas by a track owned by United Utilities (UU). UU is a
public company and, as such, bound to work in the best interests of its
shareholders. Consequently, it would be duty bound to secure the best
return for allowing access.
11.10 Incidentally, the claim by the Appellants at a recent Cheshire East
Strategic Planning Meeting stated that an agreement had been reached
with UU on this application, is not accepted. We followed this up with UU
and they were clear that at the time this proof was written they had
reached no agreement and, in fact, said they, whereas they were aware of
the difficulty, they had not yet been approached.
11.11 Crucially, as currently envisaged the proposal would not meet the
requirements of Sport England. If the Appellants could not negotiate a
satisfactory access with UU, then the situation would become far worse.
For such schemes vehicle access is required. This is essential on sports
fields to give access for emergency vehicles. It is also necessary to give
access for bulk materials used in ground maintenance and general
maintenance equipment. The minimum requirements of Sport England
would not be met by one fall back option, namely by building the changing
facilities etc, car parking to the west of the UU access and letting users
walk to the sports field. Neither would it be realistic for users of the
allotments to convey the necessary materials to and from a remote
parking area.
11.12 Bearing this in mind, if the sports field etc is an essential part of the
development, then UU hold a ransom strip, potentially yielding up to one
third of the equity of the entire residential site. Although the Council
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
24
submits that this is not a planning but a legal matter, this is not the case.
The reason for this is simple.
11.13 Any costs that arise as a consequence of acquiring the necessary rights to
cross the UU access, would put up the cost of the scheme and have a
material effect on the Economic Viability Assessment. In turn, the cost of
acquisition/access rights can be used to offset against any infrastructure
or other cost benefits, such as affordable housing, for the community.
Thus, in this case, the economics of the site and potential viability would
be adversely affected and this would have severe consequences for the
planning merits of the scheme.
11.14 Taking all these factors together, it is clear that there are no very special
circumstances for this element of the scheme that would outweigh the
harm to the GB and all other harm. In addition, access remains
unresolved and, consequently, this again is a cogent reason for resisting
this scheme.
12. The impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic
12.1 The substantive evidence on this topic has been given previously by the
Rule 6 party’s highway and traffic witness. All I do here is to draw
together the key conclusions to take forward to the overall planning
balance.
12.2 The Transport Assessment (TA) draws the base information from surveys
taken in March 2014 and applies the mid-range TEMPRO growth rates.
Surveys taken by the Rule 6 Party in March 2016 do not correlate closely
with Appellants’ predictions and the higher figures should be carried on to
the design year, which should now be 2021. No check figures or other
validation appear to have been taken on behalf of the Appellants. As for
generation and attraction by the proposed development, there is no
dispute and these can be assigned to the network in the ratios envisaged
by the TA.
12.3 In terms of junction capacities, the three onto Town Lane/Knutsford Road
at Ilford Way, Smith Lane and Broadoak Lane all operate below theoretical
and practical capacity at present in both the morning and evening peak
periods. However, the Broadoak Lane Junction is observed to regularly
exhibit queues of 12 or more cars in the morning peak, which can take
several minutes to clear.
12.4 The problem junction identified in the TA is in Knutsford at the Brook
Street/Hollow Lane junction and then through to the A50 Holmes Chapel
Road. Even today this junction suffers from severe and unpredictable
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
25
congestion, with queues extending back at times as far as Knutsford Fire
Station, with a queue time of 15+ minutes. This is compounded because
the exit from Hollow Lane is invariably blocked by traffic queuing back
from the A50 and compounded by right turn movements into the Aldi
store and King Street.
12.5 Moving forward to 2021, the situation becomes much worse, with the local
highway authority (LHA) concluding that the junctions in Knutsford will be
considerably in excess of theoretical capacity. This meets the test of
severity evinced by the Framework (paragraph 32).
12.6 To address this problem, the LHA is requiring a contribution to an
improvement scheme in Knutsford. However, the improvement, which
only came to light a week before the preparation of this evidence, is
described as an interim scheme. Nevertheless its total cost would be
approaching £1.2m and our assessment is that it would provide very little
meaningful improvement and certainly not be cost effective. The Rule 6
party firmly believes that to materially reduce or remove the degree of
severity at the design year a major improvement would be necessary,
costing very much more.
12.7 As it is, the interim scheme has no provenance in terms of design or
Council approval and would require contributions from a number of
housing and employment schemes. No assessment of the interim proposal
has been shared with us.
12.8 Unfortunately, the Council does not have an approved CIL scheme,
whereby contributions could be drawn from development and pooled to
meet infrastructure shortcomings /improvements. Importantly, fivee
contributions have already been required to fund traffic improvements in
Knutsford – Aldi, Parkgate Lane, Parkgate, Oliver Valves and Booth’.
Having regard to the Government’s edict that no more than five
contributions can be made to general highway improvements since 2010,
this would be the sixth and, therefore, would fall foul of Government
Policy.
12.9 Within the TA, no recognition of other congestion points has been
identified or been examined. These occur on the A538 approach to the
M56; the Knutsford Road approach to Wilmslow at the King’s Arms
roundabout; and the Brook Lane junction with the Wilmslow/Alderley
Road. Although arguably more remote than the Knutsford junctions, traffic
from the development would have direct impact on the operations of
these junctions.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
26
12.10 Modelling of the single access road to the site, Ilford Way junction with
Town Lane, estimates that this is within acceptable flow to capacity ratios,
even with the additional development traffic in 2018. However, our latest
traffic counts observe that traffic is already above the levels predicted by
the Appellants for the design year. We contend that traffic delays at the
Ilford Way/Town Lane junction will be more severe than the modelling
suggests and, if this development was to proceed, a scheme to improve
this junction is required.
12.11 Turning to the sustainability access of the site, the TA draws a simple 2
km walk and 5 km cycle isochrone from the centre of the appeal site.
However, this is wholly unrepresentative of the actual distances from the
centre of the site to destinations. Moreover, the routes that would have to
be taken for journeys are poor bordering on unsuitable for pedestrian and
cycle use.
12.12 Footways linking the site along Town Lane are narrow and are only on one
side of the road. Elsewhere, for example on Smith Lane, footways are
none existent and only unmade verges are available. There are no
dedicated cycle routes or segregation or even protection. Finally, street
lighting is inhibited by the proximity of the Airport and, while aesthetically
pleasing, the current provision is generally poor to non-existent. A table
has been prepared to show the actual travel distances, which are realistic
and would be far less attractive.
12.13 Although 2 km is considered to be an acceptable walk distance, research
has shown that most people would not walk that distance, but 90% would
choose to use a car. In fact, evidence shows that only 10% of journeys
over 1.375 km would be by foot. The reasonable walking distance is that
which 50% would walk and this is estimated to be below 0.9 km.
12.14 Bus stops lie some 600 m from the centre of the site to meet a half-hourly
service to Knutsford and Wilmslow (with onward service to Altrincham).
The rail Station with a service connecting to Knutsford and Chester to the
east and Altrincham, Stockport and Manchester to the west and north.
This service is half hourly during peak hours and hourly at off-peak times.
The Station is 1.5 km from the centre of the appeal site, but would have
to be accessed along roads with no footway or lighting, making walking
highly unlikely and cycling challenging. Shops are 700m from the centre
of the site and the school is more than 2km.
12.15 There is no pedestrian crossing facility apart from the ‘Pelican Crossing’
located near the village shops. No improvements are proposed to facilitate
pedestrian crossing near the Ilford Way access road. Our contention is
that a development of this scale requires improvements for traffic and
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
27
pedestrians at the Ilford Way access point, such as a roundabout with
pedestrian refuges.
12.16 In summary, the additional traffic generated by this proposal would add to
traffic problems in all directions. This would be severe in Knutsford, with
no improvement in sight. Conditions in other directions would also be
poor. Although some services and facilities are within walking distance,
many are by way of poor routes in terms of segregated footways and
lighting. No mitigation measures are proposed for the residents of
Mobberley, who are adversely affected by this development. Overall, this
is not, as claimed, a highly accessible site by sustainable means of
transport.
13. The sustainability of the site
13.1 The Framework defines sustainability as the golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking, and looks for proposals to be assessed against the three dimensions, economic, social and environmental. The Framework also sets out the 12 core planning principles underpinning planning decision taking and these provide useful guidance on how the sustainability accreditation of individual applications should be assessed. These principles have been factored in when weighing the benefits and disbenefits of the appeal scheme.
Economic benefits
13.2 As for the economic dimension, this particular proposal would generate most of the benefits of any housing and employment development and Government recognises the importance of these. There would be the short term construction jobs and purchase of building materials and, in the future the generation of service jobs such as cleaning, child care, decorating and household repairs. A proportion of the income of new residents would be disposable and this could be used to support the Village facilities and other activities in the Village, whether through the Parish Council precept or other less formal organisations and events.
13.3 This scheme could also create some new employment, and some of the jobs would be available for local people. However, this is tempered somewhat by the uncertainty about when the employment would be delivered and the lack of linkage with the transport system. Crucially, nothing is proposed to improve or adopt the existing public transport options. Large vehicles would have some distance to travel to reach the motorway network and have to travel though either Knutsford or Wilmslow to gain access. The more direct route to the M56 is unavailable, owing to the weight restriction on Burleyhurst Lane and Newton Hall Lane.
13.4 No claim is made that the construction workers would be drawn from village residents and there is no evidence produced to show that a particular level of unemployment exists in the village. As such, it seems likely that many if not most would commute into the Village by private car as the TA concedes. Target figures for trips by sustainable means are only
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
28
19% and this uses the under estimate of actual distances to key destinations. The likely figure would be much less, probably around 10%.
13.5 There are some shops in the Village offering a top-up shopping facility, a Post Office, bakers, chemist and takeaway. This means that most large convenience shopping and virtually all comparative retail activity would be undertaken elsewhere. A Doctor’s surgery, a Dentist and vet are located in the Village centre. There are several pubs in the Parish, but perhaps surprisingly none offer a convenient walking route to and from the appeal site, with the nearest The Railway at some 1.6Km and The Bulls Head 2.1Km.
13.6 The appeal development would bring nothing to the table in terms of shops and services and with the centre of the Village being a walking distance of some 700 m from the centre of the site a considerable proportion of trips are likely to be made by car. Taken together, these factors dent the sustainability accreditation of this dimension, though it might just be judged marginally positive overall.
Social benefits
13.7 Turning to the social benefits, the big gain on a site like this would normally be the affordable housing provision. However, in this instance the assessed provision of 5% would fall woefully short of the 30% required by policy. Even then, the offer for discounted house purchase some 20% below market price would be unaffordable by locals and key workers. This would not address the social needs of the Village and extended area. The Appellants’ EVA for the scheme has been challenged elsewhere. Notwithstanding, if the 5% is accepted then this is another powerful argument against releasing this site for housing.
13.8 The Appellants argue that there is an infant and primary school in the Village, which is true. However, the School is not in the built area of the Village and, owing to the relationship of the appeal site to the school, the new homes proposed would have a devastating effect on the existing village. The current school roll is intended to cater for the Village to grow organically and would then be running at a maximum. This upper limit is expected to be reached for the school year 2017/18.
13.9 There would, therefore, not be room for the additional children from the appeal site without further expansion. The Council has consistently and vehemently refused to entertain expansion of the School into the Green Belt and the current site offers no room for expansion. It was only by buying Mode Cottage at an extraordinary price that the recent extension could be built. No contribution for primary education (except for special needs) would be sought from the appeal scheme as the Council now looks at the available education offer within a 2-mile radius.
13.10 Looked at in this way, the children from the appeal site would gain preference over children being brought up in the existing village centre. The appeal site is nearer to the school and distance is a key determinant of school catchment.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
29
13.11 All secondary education would be remote and, being more than 3-miles distant, would require travel to be provided at the cost of the public purse.
13.12 As noted there is a Vet’s and Doctor’s surgery and a dentist in the Village, but of course no hospital. Next, there would be the support for the Church along with other organisations, including the village sports and social clubs, and these would benefit from the input of newcomers. On the downside, the remoteness of many services would not make it easy for those living in the affordable housing, who could be expected to have a lower car ownership, with many reliant on a modest bus service to access a much wider range of social services. This not the same as being able to walk.
13.13 However, the key point is that, when completed, this would be a very large increase in the village population, realistically approaching 50% and, if the Design and Access Statement is anything to go by, would offer no permeability of layout to assist integration with existing residents. With no timescale for additional employment opportunities in the Village, in the early years there would be wholesale migration out of the Village for employment, most shopping and some health, education and leisure pursuits.
13.14 The TA indicates that 81% of journeys would rely on the car. This exodus each day would do little to add to the social fabric of the Village and counts as significant negative. There can be little doubt that the preferred option of small scale development over the Plan period would be much easier to assimilate into village life. Other than the sports field, which would be superfluous, the development would bring no social facilities to the table.
13.15 Against this background, it is hard to reconcile this proposal with the Framework (paragraphs 54 and 55) that looks for new development to reflect local needs and be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of the rural settlement. As such, the social benefits of the proposed development for the existing village would be extremely limited, and at best marginal.
Environmental benefits
13.16 Finally, when considering the environmental dimension, benefits are very definitely harder to find. As for the effects from noise and the general environmental climate, the adverse impacts on the GB and enjoyment and character and appearance of the Mobberley Conservation Area and Listed Buildings, these would be negative for the reasons given previously.
13.17 Turning to the accessibility of the Village, walking to and from key attractions would be difficult and the opportunities for safe cycling within the Village are almost non-existent. Public rights of way would offer leisure opportunities, but the harm to views into the Conservation Area temper this as a benefit.
13.18 In addition, there are any number of environmental questions posed, but left unanswered. These include unresolved concerns about air quality, odour, land contamination, flooding and drainage and traffic impact. The
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
30
bus service is modest and would not be supported financially by the appeal scheme. It is reported as under pressure for lack of funding virtually every time it comes up for review and cannot be guaranteed. The Travel Plan target seems optimistic and misses out several key features and does nothing to address the travel modes for the existing Harman staff. Busses, of course, do not run in the evenings or on Sundays, which limits the benefits for leisure and some other pursuits.
13.19 Rail travel is not an option other than in combination with car travel, as the nearest station is not accessible by a reasonable pedestrian route, not proposed for improvement as part of the scheme.
13.20 On the topic of ecology, with the possible exception of the great crested newt, the appeal site does not host any particular asset of national merit, with most inhabitants being of low interest value. There may be rarer visitors, but the redevelopment of the site would provide some opportunity to enhance the habitat. Next, there would be the loss of Grade 3 agricultural land. This is a negative component, especially if it proved to be Grade 3a.
13.21 Summarising on the environmental dimension, this falls well short of a positive sustainable outcome for a large number of reasons, some of which, like noise, are compelling in their own right, with others contributing to an unsatisfactory or unknown outcome to be weighed in the balance.
14. Noise issues from aircraft, traffic and the adjacent industrial
estate
14.1 The starting point for this is the Council’s EHO, who advises that the site
is severely impacted by noise as it is located within the Preferred Noise
Route for departing and arriving aircraft to MIA. The EHO considers that
with extensive mitigation it is possible to achieve acceptable noise levels
for indoor habitable rooms. With regard to outdoor amenity areas, the
EHO recommended initially that this could not be addressed to satisfy the
World Health Organisation (WHO) noise standards for an unprotected
garden and the application should be refused. The EHO resiled from this
stance on the offer acoustic canopies within gardens to provide some
areas, which he was advised would meet WHO standards and also meet
the Framework and PPG policy about designing out noise exposure. There
is also the community area of tranquillity on the sports field that the EHO
is advised would be acceptable in noise terms.
14.2 The Rule 6 party disagrees with these conclusions for several reasons. The
first is that noise expectation in a rural area is different from that in an
urban environment. The second is that, whereas it is accepted that one
can design noise out for internal accommodation, this would be at the
expense of creating residential ‘tombs’, with no possibility of opening
windows or natural ventilation. It would also create an unnatural situation
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
31
insofar as residents looking out of windows would expect to hear noises
from birds, animals, transport and even planes. They would not be able to
enjoy some of the very features that make rural life attractive.
14.3 As for external quiet areas the need to erect noise canopies in garden
areas is a clear indication that the noise climate is not acceptable for living
in this location. Even then, there is no evidence that they would be
effective and if they were, the vision of residents ‘diving for cover’ every
minute or so could be a comedy sketch. Thus, there is no outdoor living
space that is at or below the recommended 50-55dB criterion, and this
includes the tranquillity communal space.
14.4 In addition, as no air quality measurements have taken place, it has not
been appreciated that the proposed shelters would hold aircraft engine
fumes making the canopies potentially harmful. This phenomenon is
experienced with existing car ports in the Village and is again a reason
why this approach must be discouraged.
14.5 The long term health effects have been dismissed by the Appellants and
the Council’s EHO. This is despite accredited and peer reviewed reports
that there is a long term adverse effect on health and consequent costs
due to exposure to noise of the levels that would be experienced on this
site. The AEF Report of January 2016 looks at the correlation between
aviation noise and health. It concludes that the cost associated with sleep
disturbance alone for every individual living on this site would be between
£600 and £900 each year. With some 1,000 residents possible the costs
would approach £1m per annum.
14.6 Crucially, the Appellants’ Noise Assessment misses several key points. The
first, and a determining point, is that building on this site would
compromise undertakings given by MIA and prejudice their flight
operations for the future. Secondly, the Assessment does not using the
most up-to-date information. The data base is from 2012, during a period
of recession, with the latest information being from 2014, which gives a
much worse noise climate. In fact, the 2008 figure is the highest for
movements at over 200,000. The following recession dented this
substantially, reducing the figure by more than 25%, with the current
figure still well below in the 170,000s.
14.7 The third point is that there is an absence of an important measurement
and that is the dBLAmax and the number of times that is reached or
approached. This can be critical to sleep. It is measured by MIA, but not
released. Next, and also important, the MIA is currently operating at less
than 50% of its capacity and the Noise Assessment should take into
account MIA’s forecast growth.
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon
32
14.8 Moreover, the planned reconfiguration of the Terminals at the Airport is