$ulfkzamv.docx

APPLICATION No: 17/69773/OUTEIAAPPLICANT: Peel Investments (North) LtdLOCATION: Land South Of Worsley Road, Worsley PROPOSAL: Outline planning application with all matters reserved for future

approval except for access (part) off Worsley Road for the development of the site for residential purposes for up to 165 dwellings with associated road and utilities infrastructure, open space and other green infrastructure, hard and soft landscaping and drainage infrastructure.

WARD: Worsley

Description of Site and Surrounding Area

The application site comprises approximately 9.45ha of open land that lies to the south of Worsley Road (A572). To the west of the site lies an area of woodland together with residential properties at Drywood Avenue. To the east of the site lies an area of open land, whilst to the north east are residential properties at Beechwood Drive together with Worsley Lodge Care Home. Beyond this to the east lies the Worsley Loopline public footpath/cycleway. To the south of the site lies the Bridgewater Canal, whilst to the north beyond Worsley Road lies Bridgewater School.

$ulfkzamv.docx

The application site comprises agricultural land currently used for grazing. The site is largely open in character, however there are a number of clusters of trees and scrub vegetation across the site, including a line of woodland that lies along the site’s northern boundary with Worsley Road. The site’s topography slopes from north to south from approximately 40m AOD adjacent to Worsley Road down to approximately 24m AOD towards the Bridgewater Canal. Sindsley Brook lies to the east of the application site, and forms part of its eastern boundary. A small pond lies to the south east of the site within the adjoining open land and this is used by Salford Anglers Club. The site is crossed by a number of definitive rights of way. A definitive footpath (PROW W163) crosses the site from east to west, and another definitive footpath (PROW W71) cuts through the eastern part of the site and then continues in a north-south orientation just beyond the eastern boundary of the application site. A further definitive footpath (PROW W70) lies just outside the application site, running broadly alongside the site’s western boundary. There are other definitive rights of way within the vicinity of the site, including the Worsley Loopline public footpath/cycleway, and the towpath of the Bridgewater Canal.

There are a number of designated heritage assets within proximity of the application site. Worsley Village Conservation Area lies approximately 120m to the west of the site, and the Grade II listed Drywood Hall lies approximately 50m to the north of the site across Worsley Road. In addition, Drywood Lodge (Worsley Road), which is an identified local heritage asset, lies approximately 30m to the west of the site.

Description of Proposal

The application seeks outline planning consent for the development of up to 165 residential dwellings and all matters are reserved with the exception of the means of access in to the site from Worsley Road. Whilst the application is in outline only, it is accompanied by a Principles and Parameters Document that has been prepared on the basis of key development principles which are intended to provide the framework for any future reserved matters application.

The breakdown of proposed land uses on the site would comprise 4.70 hectares of housing development, 0.60 hectares of road infrastructure, and 4.15 hectares of public realm and green infrastructure (including existing woodland, new areas of green space and woodland planting, play areas, and areas for sustainable urban drainage and ecological mitigation). The scheme would be developed at varying densities throughout the site, with the average net density across the areas of housing development being approximately 36 dwellings per hectare.

Consent is sought for the creation of a single point of vehicular access to the site from Worsley Road. This would be sited approximately 120m to the south west of the junction of Beechwood Drive and Worsley Road, and approximately 30m from the northern most vehicular access point serving Bridgewater School.

The Principles and Parameters Document identifies that the development would be served by a primary spine road, with a network of smaller roads and cul-de-sacs radiating from the spine road. The existing public rights of way which cross the site would be maintained, with some minor realignment of these definitive footpath routes.

In terms of scale, the Principles and Parameters Document identifies that the majority of dwellings would be up to 2.5 storeys in scale, with the potential for a number of 3 storey dwellings in key locations across the site, with the detailed design to be confirmed at the reserved matters stage.

The Principles and Parameters Document also identifies the proposed location of the areas of public realm and green space within the site. There would be two broad parcels of housing development, separated by a finger of green space along the line of the public right of way which crosses the site from east to west. The two parcels of housing development would be encircled by green space, with an equipped play area (LEAP) sited centrally within the site, and sustainable drainage swales and ponds around the periphery of the southern half of the site. The majority of the existing woodland along the site’s northern boundary would be retained (with the exception of the removal of four trees to facilitate the vehicular access to Worsley Road), and a woodland trail play space would be created within this area. There would also be native tree and shrub planting across the areas of green space, with the intention of providing landscape and visual mitigation.

Environmental Impact Assessment

An Environmental Statement (ES) provides a systematic examination of environmental effects that may be caused by a development proposal on the receiving environment. The process allows modification of the project to minimise potentially harmful effects through the incorporation of mitigation measures and enhancement

$ulfkzamv.docx

proposals within the design process. The applicant voluntarily submitted an Environmental Statement alongside this planning application in April 2017 which comprises the following: -

Environmental Statement (April 2017) Non Technical Summary Introduction Project Description Need and Alternatives EIA Methodology including cumulative assessment Traffic and Transport Built Heritage Landscape and Visual Impact Ecology Air Quality Land Contamination and Ground Conditions Noise and Vibration Hydrology and Flood Risk Waste Socio-Economic Land Use and Recreation Archaeology

Supporting Documents

A series of supporting documents have been submitted by the applicant in support of the planning application: Affordable Housing Statement Air Quality Assessment (within ES) Arboricultural Impact Assessment Crime Impact Assessment Design and Access Statement Education Capacity Assessment Flood Risk Assessment (within ES) Heritage Assessment (within ES) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (within ES) Noise Impact Assessment (within ES) Planning Statement Principles and Parameters Document Recreation and Tourism Assessment (within ES) Statement of Community Involvement Sustainability and Energy Statement Transport Assessment and Travel Plan (within ES) Utilities Statement

Publicity

Site Notice: Accompanied by Environmental Statement Date Displayed: 20 April 2017Reason: Planning application with Environmental Impact Assessment

Site Notice: Non HH Affecting public right of way Date Displayed: 20 April 2017Reason: Article 13 affecting public right of way

Site Notice: Non HH Affecting conservation area Date Displayed: 20 April 2017Reason: Affecting character or appearance of conservation area

Site Notice: Non HH setting of listed building Date Displayed: 20 April 2017Reason: Affecting setting of Listed Building

$ulfkzamv.docx

Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 27 April 2017Reason: Affecting setting of Listed Building

Planapp with Env Impact AssessmentArticle 15 Standard Press NoticePlanning App in Conservation Area

Neighbour Notification

A total of 1,169 properties were notified of the application, reflecting all households who had previously been notified of, or made contributions in relation to, the previous application (13/63157/OUTEIA) and the subsequent public inquiry.

In addition, four sets of site notices were displayed within the vicinity of the application site.

Community engagement

An exercise to inform the local community was undertaken by the applicant prior to the submission of this application. This included the distribution of consultation leaflets on 10 March 2017 to 65 residential properties within the immediate surrounding area, to ward councillors, to the RAID (Residents Against Inappropriate Development) group, and consultation with Bridgewater School. The applicant also highlights that they have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement with the local community and stakeholders on their proposals for this site over a number of years, in relation to the previous application (13/63157/OUTEIA).

During the ten day pre-application consultation period a total of 16 emails were received to the dedicated consultation address, which included comments from local residents, Councillors and from the Worsley Civic Trust. These comments related to the principle of development on greenfield land, and the impact of the development in terms of the highway network, pollution and the capacity of local services

Full details of the pre-application community engagement is detailed within Chapter 4 of the submitted Planning Statement.

Representations

Objections have been received from a total of 150 individual property addresses. The key points raised within these objections are summarised below:

Principle Previously developed sites should be redeveloped before greenfield sites, and there are sufficient

brownfield sites available to meet Salford’s housing needs Loss of green open land which positively contributes to the visual amenity of the area, and delivers health

benefits in terms of both physical and mental health The development would fragment the openness and continuity of the Worsley Greenway, and is contrary to

UDP Policy EN2 There is no requirement for additional housing in this area, and there are other sites coming forward for

housing such as at Leigh Road This application cannot be determined until the new public inquiry against the previous refusal of consent for

up to 600 dwellings has taken place The development would be contrary to paragraph 7 of the NPPF as there are no significant long term

economic, social or environmental benefits that outweigh the harm The development would be contrary to paragraph 14 of the NPPF as there are specific policies in the

Framework that indicate development should be restricted The development would be contrary to paragraph 74 of the NPPF as no assessment has been undertaken

which has clearly shown the open space or land surplus to requirements, the loss resulting from the proposed development is not replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location, and nor is the development for alternative sports and recreational provision

There are extant permissions for a large number of dwellings in Salford which have yet to be built out, and there are empty homes across the city

The land is one of the last remaining green spaces in the area

$ulfkzamv.docx

The application is contrary to UDP Policies R4 and R2 as it will detract from the quality, character, openness and continuity of Worsley Greenway and result in a reduction in the recreational value of this area

The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and the Draft Local Plan propose to designate this land as Green Belt and as Local Green Space and therefore it should not be developed. Determining this application ahead of the adoption of these documents would prematurely pre-determine decisions about the scale and location of new housing provision and would contradict the aim of promoting a plan led approach to housing development. As such the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of the NPPF

The Supreme Court judgement in Cheshire East Council v Richborough Estates LLP (2017) UKSC 37 has made clear that paragraph 49 of the NPPF should be given a narrow meaning and this it does not override other policies in the development plan. As such, the relevant policies of the development plan remain extant and should be given full weight in decision making

The cumulative impact of all proposed developments within the surrounding area must be taken into consideration, particularly in terms of highway impact and air quality

Highways and transport Development will result in increased traffic congestion in an area that already suffers from very high levels

of congestion at peak times Additional traffic will increase highway safety risks, particularly for school children and the elderly Traffic congestion caused by the development will inhibit access to the area for emergency service vehicles The position of the new vehicular access into the site will lead to highway safety issues, particularly at peak

periods and during school pick up / drop off The cumulative impact of this development will be unacceptable when taken together with the existing

position and coupled with the traffic from RHS Bridgewater and new housing development in Boothstown Travel Plan assumptions about future public transport use are unrealistic as many people who live in

Worsley do so because of its easy access to the motorway network for work purposes The site is not in a particularly sustainable location, and public transport provision serving Worsley is very

poor Creating an additional lane on Worsley Courthouse roundabout will not address traffic congestion as there

remains only one lane on the sliproad to join the M60 The existing highway envelope of Worsley Road is not wide enough to accommodate the proposed ghost

islands, and would require widening of the road The Transport Assessment relies on much of the traffic modelling data from the previous application in

2013, and there are major flaws in its base data of traffic queue length at the junction of Worsley Road and the Worsley Courthouse roundabout. The model identifies an AM peak queue length of 45.8m however the RAID evidence presented to the public inquiry calculated an AM peak queue length of 355m

The Transport Assessment does not take into account the RHS Bridgewater scheme, or the impact of the 1,850 houses proposed via the Draft Local Plan within the surrounding area, including Hazelhurst Farm, Land East of Boothstown, and Land West of Boothstown

The proposed development and highway changes will make it even more difficult to turn right on to Worsley Road from Worsley Lodge Care Home

The motorway network between J12 and J17 of the M60 is at capacity and the proposed development will compound this

The scale of highway improvement works needed to offset the harm caused by the additional traffic movements cannot be delivered by the current scheme, and as such the proposal is contrary to NPPF paragraph 32

Design, landscape and amenity The density of the proposed development is excessive and provides too little amenity space Development of this scale will further erode the character of the local area The proposal would degrade the amenity of neighbouring residents The proposal would destroy the character of Worsley by turning an open green space into urban sprawl The proposal would have an adverse impact on the rural setting of Worsley, and will put the area at risk of

overdevelopment with a high density of housing This green open space provides a wonderful visual tonic viewed from the public rights of way which

surround and cross the land, and this will be lost by development of this site Development will result in the loss of this piece of countryside in the middle of a city where cattle graze,

which is so rare

$ulfkzamv.docx

The land acts an important buffer zone for Worsley Woods and the linear walkway from Little Hulton to Monton and gives users a feeling of wellbeing

This open land contributes to the character of Worsley as a historic village The visual impact of the development will be of detriment to local residents and visitors to the area

Ecology and trees The proposal will involve the removal of mature trees The site is a haven and habitat for much of Worsley’s local wildlife and the proposed development would

destroy this Development will obstruct a vital green habitat corridor within the urban environment The development is contrary to UDP Policy EN9 as Worsley Greenway is a wildlife corridor The proposal will have a serious detrimental effect on Worsley Woods This application does not provide the same level of biodiversity, wildlife and ecological enhancement areas

as the previous application and therefore conflicts with UDP Policy EN9

Recreation This beautiful green area is regularly used by walkers, runners, dog walkers and families and development

will reduce the attractiveness of this land for recreation purposes, which will in turn result in negative health impacts

Loss of an oasis in the city which has the feeling of being in the countryside The proposal does not enhance access to the Loopline or Worsley Woods other than to provide access for

the proposed new housing The development is contrary to UDP Policy R4 as Worsley Greenway is a key recreation area Worsley has the lowest number of parks and open spaces of all Salford’s neighbourhoods, and therefore

this open land must be protected

Pollution Development will result in an increase in air pollution associated with traffic movements and will remove a

key green lung thereby further worsening local air quality Salford has a higher than average incidence of breathing related health problems and the air quality impact

of this development will have a detrimental impact on the health of local people. Research has demonstrated that air pollution exacerbates a range of health conditions including cancer, asthma, diabetes and heart disease, and every year 40,000 deaths are attributable to exposure to air pollution. There are higher than average incidences of breathing related conditions amongst residents of the Worsley area

Air pollution associated with additional traffic will impact on the health of pupils at Bridgewater School Additional traffic will exacerbate existing levels of standing traffic outside properties on Worsley Road, which

contributes to noise and air pollution for local residents During the public inquiry in relation to the previous application it was stated that the pollution levels in

Worsley were already above the maximum permissible limit as set by EU legislation, and therefore this development would further exacerbate the situation

The Supreme Court has ordered the Government to put into place measures to reduce the amount of vehicle generated air pollution to which the population are subjected. The Broadoak area is a designated Air Quality Management Area and therefore new housing development should not be approved as this would result in additional air pollution from traffic and domestic heating systems

Flooding The site is known to flood and development will make the flooding situation worse in the local area The site acts as a sink for rainwater during heavy downpours and development of the site could result in

flooding of existing properties within the local area

Infrastructure and services Development will place even greater strain on schools, hospitals, doctors’ surgeries and dentists in the local

area There are insufficient local shops in the area to meet the needs of the development

Other There would be significant disruption and traffic problems during the construction phase

$ulfkzamv.docx

Should the application be allowed, there will be further applications to increase the number of houses and develop more of the land

Approval of this application would open the floodgates in terms of the development of other greenfield and Green Belt sites across Worsley and the city as a whole

Proposal will discourage tourism to Worsley, as Worsley Woods is a major tourist destination and this meadow is a vital neighbour to the woods which is used for walking and leisure pursuits

Development of this scale threatens to undermine Worsley’s unique historic character Development would result in a reduction in local property values The sewage system would be unable to cope with this additional number of houses The application does not take into account the other proposed housing developments by the applicant

within the local area, including at Hazelhurst Road and at Leigh Road My objection to this development would be withdrawn if all of the 165 dwellings were affordable properties

for first time buyers

Consultation Pre-application consultation was deficient as the consultation leaflet was only sent to 65 households

surrounding the proposed development. Previous consultation leaflets were sent to some 9,400 residents and businesses

In addition to these submissions, the following objections were also submitted:

A petition objecting to the proposed development was submitted with 38 signatories. The cited reasons on which these objections are based are reflected within the summary of key issues above.

Objections have been received from Boothstown Residents Association, and from Moorside South Residents Association. The cited reasons on which these objections are based are reflected within the summary of key issues above.

One local resident has submitted details of a series of traffic queue length surveys undertaken by themselves in April / May 2017. This details that surveys were undertaken of three junctions: Worsley Courthouse Roundabout / Worsley Road (A572) St Mark’s Church Roundabout / Walkden Road (A575) Worsley Road (A572) / East Lancashire Road (A580) The surveys identify average queue lengths over the period 6.30 - 9.30am, and maximum queue lengths during this period, and details travel times and average speeds. The submitted details compare the recorded survey data with the traffic surveys carried out in October 2013 on behalf of RAID.

A statement has been submitted on behalf of RAID (Residents Against Inappropriate Development) which objects to the application proposal. This raises the following points: The application site is part of a strategic area that provides an open space for local residents and residents

from further afield, and also provides a very rare break in the urban form in the wider context of Salford as a whole

The development will result in the loss of openness and fragmentation of the Worsley Greenway The social and environmental benefits of the Worsley Greenway far outweigh the delivery of the 165

dwellings, particularly in the context of the 227,000 homes identified within the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework

The site has a sylvan nature and is unique within the immediately local area and within the wider Salford area

Development of this scale on any part of the site would destroy its sylvan nature, and degrade its value as a community asset

The site provides the setting for the surrounding area as a whole including the local conservation areas, listed buildings, and the Bridgewater Canal which is of national heritage importance

Traffic problems within the surrounding area are already severe and this development would make the situation worse

The development will exacerbate the existing poor air quality within the surrounding area and its resultant impacts on health

$ulfkzamv.docx

An objection has been received from Barbara Keeley MP which raises the following issues: The proposed development would severely affect the quality of life of the current residents of Worsley and

would also impact on the thousands of people who enjoy this land for recreational use This is one of only a few green areas which serve as a green lung for Salford The Draft Local Plan identifies this land as Local Green Space and as proposed Green Belt, and the

Greater Manchester Spatial Framework proposes the designation of this land as Green Belt The proposed development would fragment the openness and continuity of the Worsley Greenway contrary

to UDP Policy EN2 This land is home to local wildlife which would be adversely affected by any development In 2016 the World Health Organisation designated Salford as having one of the highest levels of air pollution

in the country and as such serious consideration needs to be given to the health implications the proposed development due to air pollution from additional cars

Local roads in the area will simply not be able to accommodate additional traffic from this proposed development and this could bring traffic in the area to a complete standstill

The development would place additional strain on the local infrastructure, particularly schools which are oversubscribed and have no spare capacity

The area is not well served by public transport and therefore it is not realistic to expect a greater reliance on public transport from future residents of this proposed development

Development of this scale could change the character of Worsley forever

Councillors Clarkson, K Garrido and Compton have objected to the proposed development and requested that this planning application is referred to the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the grounds of the impact of the proposal on Worsley Greenway, and its impact in terms of traffic and air pollution.

Relevant Site History

13/63157/OUTEIA – Outline planning application with details of reserved matters for the access, construction of up to 600 dwellings, marina facilities and basin, class A1 (retail) and class A3 (café) uses, associated formal and informal recreation and green space provision, landscaping and drainage works, vehicular access, car parking, diversion and realignment of public rights of way, the creation of new footpaths and connections to adjoining footpath network and the creation of an ecological area at Aviary Field including the formation of a pond and the creation of a recreation area at Aviary Field.

Planning permission was refused by the Council’s Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on 7 November 2013 for the following reasons:

1) The proposal would be contrary to the provision of saved policy EN2 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan in that the development would fragment the openness and continuity of the Greenway.

2) The development is of a scale and nature that would prejudice the outcomes of the current Local Plan process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location and phasing of development, contrary to Annex 1 of the NPPF Para 216 and the Planning System: General Principles1.

Following a public local inquiry in June / July 2014, the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal against refusal (APP/U4230/A/13/2209607) on 26 March 2015.

The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector’s view that the intensity of the development, together with its proposed layout, would unnecessarily fragment the Worsley Greenway and totally destroy its character and continuity. He also concluded, in agreement with the Inspector, that there would be fundamental harm to the Greenway’s openness and to its value as an amenity, recreation resource and wildlife corridor. In addition, he considered that the scheme would unnecessarily impair the movement of flora and fauna and that the scheme would be contrary to UDP Policy R4 in terms of recreation and amenity. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the proposal would also impact upon local air quality and health and that it made inappropriate provision for sports participation and informal play. Overall, the Secretary of State concluded that the scheme does not comply with the development plan, most notably because of its very marked conflict with UDP Policy EN2, and that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF Framework taken as a whole.

1 This reason for refusal was subsequently withdrawn by the Council on 2 May 2014, in advance of the public local inquiry.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Following an application for judicial review this decision was quashed and remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate. A new public inquiry is due to be held in October 2017.

The quashing of this decision has no relevance to the making of a decision on this current planning application.

95/34516/FUL – Erection of tennis and fitness centre together with associated car parking and landscaping and new vehicular access. Land south of nursing home, Worsley Road, Worsley. Planning permission was refused on 21 June 1996 for the following reasons:

1) The proposed development would be contrary to the strategy of the City Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies EN18 and EN25 of the Unitary Development Plan which seek to preserve the open character of the Worsley Greenway.

E11870/Outline – Development of land for residential purposes and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses at land south or Worsley Road, Worsley. Planning permission was refused on 16 March 1983 for the following reasons:

1) The proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of the Worsley and Boothstown Local Plan wherein the land is intended to remain in agricultural use.

2) The proposed development would result in the loss of valuable agricultural land (Grade 3a). 3) The proposed development would result in the loss of a substantial area of open land which

contributes greatly to the amenity and character of the area.

Consultations

Arboricultural Consultant –

The four trees proposed for removal are part of a linear group which flank Worsley Road. The loss of components of this group could result in mid/long terms impacts on the retained trees, which could be more susceptible to storm damage and to the change in soil conditions. This may contribute to the short/mid term decline of trees either side of the proposed site access. Other parts of the site may be better able to accommodate the site access without the removal of mature components of the tree stock. As such refusal is recommended based upon the current proposals.

Canal And River Trust – No comments.

Design For Security –

No objection, subject to the development being designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained within section 3.3 of the submitted Crime Impact Statement.

Environment Agency –

No objection, subject to planning conditions requiring i) maintenance of an undeveloped easement of a minimum width of 8m from the bank top of Sindsley Brook, ii) submission and approval of a landscape management plan to ensure an effective management regime is put in place for all landscaped areas to protect the ecological value of the site and the wider wildlife corridor, including the Sindsley Brook watercourse, new SuDS pond and associated wetland BAP habitat, iii) submission of a surface water drainage system for the site based on sustainable drainage principles that details how it will aim to maximise biodiversity and where feasible enhance water quality, and iv) submission and implementation of a remediation strategy if contamination not previously identified is found to be present during development.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service –

There are no nationally significant remains demanding preservation in situ and it is considered that archaeological interests can be dealt with through a planning condition should consent be granted. As such, no objection is raised subject to a planning condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in line with a Written Scheme of Investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit -

$ulfkzamv.docx

The application is supported by sufficient and appropriate ecological survey information and no further work is required in order that the application can proceed to determination.

The proposed development would result in the loss of areas of species-rich marshy grassland of biodiversity value however it is proposed that this habitat will be re-created within the application site boundary.

No objection to the proposed development subject to conditions which require i) submission of the detailed design of the SuDS works that demonstrates how the proposals will effectively mitigate the impact of the loss of existing wetland habitats on the site, ii) submission of a detailed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan that demonstrates how the marshy grassland and access arrangements can be delivered, and the management and maintenance arrangements for the new areas of habitat created to ensure their effective management over the lifetime of the development, iii) submission of further bat survey work at the reserved matters stage with a particular focus on assessing those trees which are proposed to be removed and to assess whether any flight lines/foraging routes away from these trees would be impeded by the proposed development, iv) submission of a lighting scheme to demonstrate how the woodland edge and other edge habitats would be appropriately lit to allow for bat foraging. In addition, a condition is recommended to ensure that any vegetation clearance or earth moving is undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March – August inclusive).

Greater Manchester Fire Services – No comments received to date.

Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No comments received to date. Highways –

The Council’s Highways Officer considers that whilst the submitted information may underestimate the impact of the proposed development to a degree, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in a severe impact on the operation of highway network.

In relation to the proposed J13 eastern roundabout improvement scheme, the Council’s Highways Officer and TfGM have concerns regarding the practical operation of the proposed scheme in highway safety terms in relation to the path of vehicles exiting the roundabout on to the M60 southbound on slip. Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Highways Officer considers that a suitable scheme can be developed, through further discussion between Highways England, TfGM, the Council’s Highways Officer, and the applicant. As such, subject to a planning condition requiring submission and approval of the full design and construction details for the proposed improvement scheme (reflecting the condition recommended by Highways England), it is considered that the traffic impact of the proposed development on J13 could be effectively mitigated.

Highways England –

Highways England’s appointed transport consultants have undertaken a detailed review of the transport implications of the application proposal on the strategic road network. Having given the application due consideration, no objections are raised, subject to planning conditions requiring i) submission and approval of the full design and construction details for the proposed improvements to Junction 13 of the M60 as identified by the applicant’s transport consultants, ii) implementation of the approved works, and iii) submission and approval of a detailed Travel Plan.

Historic England – No comments.

Manchester Ship Canal Company – No comments received to date.

National Grid Plant Protection – No objection.

Natural England –

No objection. Based on the information provided, Natural England advises that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes. The local planning authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposed development on any local sites prior to determination.

Open Spaces Society – No comments received to date.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments received to date.

Ramblers’ Association Greater Manchester and High Peak Area –

The proposed development would affect Public Footpath Worsley 173 which traverses the site. It is assumed that the details of the footpath alignment will be taken into account at the reserved matters stage. Senior Engineer Flood Risk Management –

The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and is a major development for which SuDS are required. The application site is a greenfield site in the Core Conurbation Critical Drainage Area and therefore the SFRA requires that surface water runoff be restricted to the existing greenfield runoff rate.

The applicant has provided a drainage strategy with accompanying plans and calculations, which indicate that SuDS surface water will be directed to a system of swales and detention basins providing conveyance, attenuation and treatment prior to discharging to a watercourse with flow restricted to greenfield runoff rates.

An outline development plan has been provided showing that buildings will be located outside and higher than areas of potential fluvial and surface water flooding, with these areas being designated as SuDS wetland and which correspond to the detention basin in the drainage strategy.

As such, no objection is raised subject to a condition requiring submission and subsequent implementation of a detailed drainage strategy as part of any future reserved matters application that is compliant with the mitigation measures identified in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.

United Utilities –

No objection, subject to conditions regarding foul and surface water drainage, and sustainable drainage. Advise that a public sewer crosses the site which will require an access strip width of six metres and that United Utilities may not permit building over the line of the sewer.

Urban Vision Environment (Air And Noise) –

No objection, subject to conditions requiring submission of a Construction Method Statement to control dust and other environmental issues during the construction phase, ii) that defined noise standards be attained with regard to the proposed dwellings and their garden areas, and iii) submission of a scheme for the erection of appropriately positioned acoustic barriers and their subsequent implementation in order to ensure that defined noise standards are achieved within the garden areas of all proposed dwellings.

Urban Vision Environment (Land Contam) –

No objection, subject to conditions being attached requiring a site investigation report to address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on the site, together with the submission of any proposed remedial works and their subsequent implementation, and the submission of a verification report to validate that all remedial works have been undertaken in accordance with the agreed measures.

Planning Policy

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan ST1 - Sustainable Urban NeighbourhoodsThis policy states that development will be required to contribute towards the creation and maintenance of sustainable urban neighbourhoods.

Unitary Development Plan ST4 - Key Tourism AreasThis policy states that the following areas will be protected and enhanced as tourism destinations and tourism development will be focused primarily within 1. Salford Quays 2. Chapel Street 3. Worsley Village, Barton Swing Aqueduct and the Bridgewater Canal Corridor.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Unitary Development Plan ST5 - Transport NetworksThis policy states that transport networks will be maintained and improved through a combination of measures including the extension of the network of pedestrian and cycling routes; the expansion and improvement of the public transport system and the enhancement of support facilities; the maintenance and improvement of the highway network; the provision of new road infrastructure where this will support the city's economic regeneration; requiring development proposals, highway improvement schemes and traffic management measures to make adequate provision for the needs of the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists, and, wherever appropriate, maximise the use of public transport; and the protection and enhancement of rail and water-based infrastructure to support the movement of freight and passengers.

Unitary Development Plan ST10 - Recreation ProvisionThis policy states that a comprehensive range of accessible recreation opportunities will be provided through 1) the protection, improvement and reorganisation of existing recreation sites; 2) the development of a regional park; 3) developing a network of Key Recreation Areas; 4) provision of new recreation facilities on sites allocated in the UDP; 5) the development of a series of Local Nature Reserves; 6) improvement of access between urban areas and the Countryside; 7) use of planning obligations to provide new and enhanced recreation facilities.

Unitary Development Plan ST12 - Development DensityThis policy states that development within regional centres, town centre and close to key public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density appropriate to the location and context.

Unitary Development Plan ST13 - Natural Environmental AssetsThis policy states that development that would result in an unacceptable impact on any of the city's natural environmental assets will not be permitted.

Unitary Development Plan ST14 - Global EnvironmentThis policy states that development will be required to minimise its impact on the global environment. Major development proposals will be required to demonstrate how they will minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

Unitary Development Plan DES1 - Respecting ContextThis policy states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness.

Unitary Development Plan DES2 - Circulation and MovementThis policy states that the design and layout of new development will be required to be fully accessible to all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists through and around the site safely, be well related to public transport and local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

Unitary Development Plan DES3 - Design of Public SpaceThis policy states that development should include the provision of public space; designed to have a clear role and purpose which responds to local needs; reflects and enhances the character and identify of the area; is an integral part of and provide appropriate setting and an appropriate scale for the surrounding development; be attractive and safe; connect to establish pedestrian routes and public spaces and minimise and make provision for maintenance requirements.

Unitary Development Plan DES4 - Relationship of Development to Public SpaceThis policy states that developments that adjoin a public space shall be designed to have a strong and positive relationship with that space by creating clearly defining public and private spaces, promoting natural surveillance and reduce the visual impact of car parking.

Unitary Development Plan DES6 - Waterside DevelopmentThis policy states that all new development adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal will be required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway. Schemes should incorporate a waterside walkway with pedestrian links between the walkway and other key pedestrian routes and incorporate ground floor uses and public space that generate pedestrian activity. Where it is inappropriate to provide a waterside walkway, an alternative route shall be provided. Development should protect, improve or provide wildlife habitats; conserve and complement any historic features; maintain and enhance waterside safety; and not affect the maintenance or integrity of the waterway or flood defences. All built development will face onto the

$ulfkzamv.docx

water, and incorporate entrances onto the waterfront; be of the highest standard of design; be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside; and enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway, and provide visual links to the waterside from surrounding areas.

Unitary Development Plan DES7 - Amenity of Users and NeighboursThis policy states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or users of other development.

Unitary Development Plan DES9 - LandscapingThis policy states that hard and soft landscaping should be provided where appropriate that is of a high quality and would enhance the design of the development, not detract from the safety and security of the area and would enhance the attractiveness and character of the built environment.

Unitary Development Plan DES10 - Design and CrimeThis policy states that developments must be designed to discourage crime, antisocial behaviour, and the fear of crime. Development should i) be clearly delineated ii) allow natural surveillance iii) avoid places of concealment iv) encourage activity within public areas.

Unitary Development Plan H1 - Provision of New Housing DevelopmentThis policy states that all new housing will contribute toward the provision of a balanced housing mix; be built of an appropriate density; provide a high quality residential environment; make adequate provision for open space; where necessary make a contribution to local infrastructure and facilities required to support the development; and be consistent with other policies of the UDP.

Unitary Development Plan H4 - Affordable HousingThis policy states that in areas that there is a demonstrable lack of affordable to meet local needs developers will be required by negotiation with the city council to provide an element of affordable housing of appropriate types.

Unitary Development Plan H8 - Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing DevelopmentThis policy states that planning permission will only be granted where there is adequate and appropriate provision for formal and informal open space, and its maintenance over a twenty-year period. Standards to be reached will be based upon policy R2 and guidance contained within Supplementary Planning Documents.

Unitary Development Plan A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the DisabledThis policy states that development proposals, road improvement schemes and traffic management measures will be required to make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists.

Unitary Development Plan A8 - Impact of Development on Highway NetworkThis policy states that development will not be permitted where it would i) have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety ii) cause an unacceptable restriction to the movement of heavy goods vehicles along Abnormal Load Routes.

Unitary Development Plan A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New DevelopmentsThis policy states that there should be adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards; maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded; and parking facilities should be provided consistent with the provision and maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.

Unitary Development Plan EN2 - Worsley GreenwayThis policy states that development will not be permitted where it would fragment or detract from the openness and continuity of the Greenway, or would cause unacceptable harm to its character or its value as an amenity, wildlife, agricultural or open.

Unitary Development Plan EN8 - Nature Conservation Sites of Local ImportanceThis policy states that development that would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a Site of Biological Importance, a Local Nature Reserve, or a priority habitat for Salford as identified in the Greater

$ulfkzamv.docx

Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan, will only be permitted where the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the reduction in the nature conservation interest of the site; the detrimental impact has been minimised as far as is practicable; appropriate mitigation measure have been provided. Conditions or planning obligations will be used to ensure the protection, enhancement and management of these sites and habitats.

Unitary Development Plan EN9 - Wildlife CorridorsThis policy states that development that would affect any land that functions as a wildlife corridor, or that provides an important link or stepping stone between habitats will not be permitted. Conditions and planning obligations may be used to protect, enhance or manage to facilitate the movement of flora and fauna where development is permitted.

Unitary Development Plan EN12 - Important Landscape FeaturesThis policy states that development that would have a detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not be permitted unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that the importance of the development plainly outweighs the nature conservation and amenity value of the landscape feature and the design and layout of the development cannot reasonably make provision for the retention of the landscape feature. If the removal of an important existing landscape feature is permitted as part of a development, a replacement of at least equivalent size and quality, or other appropriate compensation, will be required either within the site, or elsewhere within the area.

Unitary Development Plan EN13 - Protected TreesThis policy states that development which would result in an unacceptable loss of, or damage to protected trees will not be permitted. Where the loss of trees is considered acceptable adequate replacement provision will be provided.

Unitary Development Plan EN17 - Pollution ControlThis policy states that in areas where existing levels of pollution exceed local or national standards, planning permission will only be granted where the development incorporates adequate measures to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk or nuisance to occupiers, and that they are provided with an appropriate and satisfactory level of amenity.

Unitary Development Plan EN18 - Protection of Water ResourcesThis policy states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground water.

Unitary Development Plan EN19 - Flood Risk and Surface WaterThis policy states that any application for development that it is considered likely to be at risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere will need to be accompanied by a formal flood risk assessment. It should identify mitigation or other measures to be incorporated into the development or undertaking on other land, which are designed to reduce that risk of flooding to an acceptable level.

Unitary Development Plan EN22 - Resource ConservationThis policy states that development proposals for more than 5,000 square metres of floorspace will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources and on the local and global environments, has been minimised as far as practicable; and full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options, and such measures have been incorporated into the development where practicable.

Unitary Development Plan EN23 - Environmental Improvement CorridorsThis policy states that development along any of the city’s major road, rail and water corridors will be required to preserve, or make a positive contribution to the corridor’s environment and appearance.

Unitary Development Plan CH2 - Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed BuildingThis policy states that development will not be granted that would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.

Unitary Development Plan CH5 - Archaeology and Ancient MonumentsThis policy states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an unacceptable impact on an ancient monument, site or feature of archaeological importance, or its setting. Planning conditions

$ulfkzamv.docx

will be imposed to record and evaluate, excavate and preserve remains of local archaeological value, prior to the commencement of the development.

Unitary Development Plan CH8 - Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological or Historic InterestThis policy states that the impact of development on any building, structure or feature that is identified on the council’s local list of buildings, structures and features of architectural, archaeological or historic interest will be a material planning consideration.

Unitary Development Plan R1 - Protection of Recreation Land and FacilitiesThis policy states the development of existing Recreation Land and facilities will not be permitted unless: i. the development is for recreation purposes that would contribute to the continued recreation use of the site; ii. adequate replacement provision, of equivalent or better accessibility, community benefit and management is made in a suitable location; iii. it has been clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to recreational requirements; iv. the development is ancillary to the principal use of the site.

Unitary Development Plan R4 - Key Recreation AreasThis policy states that development within, adjoining or directly affecting a key recreation area will only be permitted if consistent with the following: the i) protection and enhancement of the existing and potential recreational use of the area; ii) protection and improvement of amenity of the area; iii) the protection of existing trees, woodlands and other landscape features; iv) the provision, improvement and maintenance of new areas of woodland planting; v) the provision, improvement and maintenance of public access; vi) the provision, improvement and maintenance of accessible, open land recreation uses; and vii) the provision, improvement and maintenance of the quality and diversity of wildlife habitats.

Unitary Development Plan R5 - Countryside Access NetworkThis policy states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would result in the permanent obstruction or closure of any part of the Countryside Access Network, unless an alternative route is provided that is equally attractive and convenient. New development that is proposed on a site needed for the provision of a new route or link as part of the Countryside Access Network will be required to incorporate that route/link as part of the development.

Unitary Development Plan DEV5 - Planning Conditions and ObligationsThis policy states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need or demand for infrastructure, services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are put in place.

Other Material Planning Considerations

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

Local Planning Policy

Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and ConstructionThis policy document expands on policies in Salford’s Unitary Development Plan to provide additional guidance for planners and developers on the integration of sustainable design and construction measures in new and existing developments.

Supplementary Planning Document - DesignThis document reflects the need to design in a way that allows the city to support its population socially and economically, working with and inviting those affected into an inclusive decision making process. Equally, development must contribute to the creation of an environmentally sustainable city supporting the natural environment minimising the effects of, and being more adaptable to, the potential impact of climate change.

Supplementary Planning Document - Greenspace StrategyThis policy document expands on the policies of the Unitary Development Plan relating to the issues of open space and recreation, and seeks to ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of how those

$ulfkzamv.docx

policies should be implemented and their desired outcome. This should help to ensure that the greenspace needs of Salford are successfully met; delivering safe, high quality open spaces that are well-located, well-designed, well-managed, and meet the aspirations of local communities.

Supplementary Planning Document - Nature Conservation and BiodiversityThis policy document expands on the policies of the Unitary Development Plan relating to the issues of nature conservation and biodiversity, and seeks to ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of how those policies should be implemented and their desired outcome.

Supplementary Planning Document - Design and CrimeThis policy document contains a number policies used to assess and determine planning applications and is intended as a guide in designing out crime.

Supplementary Planning Document - Trees and DevelopmentThe policy document has been prepared to give information to all those involved in the development process about the standard that the Local Planning Authority requires for new development proposals with specific reference to the retention and protection of trees.

Supplementary Planning Document - Planning ObligationsThis policy document expands on the policies in Salford’s Unitary Development Plan to provide additional guidance on the use of planning obligations within the city. It explains the city council’s overall approach to the use of planning obligations, and sets out detailed advice on the use of obligations in ensuring that developments make an appropriate contribution to: affordable housing, open space, education, transport, public realm, and other infrastructure and services where appropriate.

Planning Guidance - Flood Risk and DevelopmentThe overarching aim of the planning guidance is to ensure that new development in areas at risk of flooding in the city, is adequately protected from flooding and that the risks of flooding are not increased elsewhere as a result of new development.

Planning Guidance - HousingThe purpose of the guidance is to ensure that the residential development coming forward in Salford contributes to establishing and maintaining sustainable communities, tackles the specific housing and related issues that face Salford, and helps to deliver the vision and strategy of the UDP, the Housing Strategy and the Community Plan.

Other relevant guidance, plans and strategies Bridgewater Canal Corridor Masterplan (2011) Landscape Character Assessment (September 2007) Salford West Strategic Regeneration Framework and Action Plan 2008 – 2028 (January 2008)

Appraisal

The key issues for consideration in the determination of this application are: Principle of development Impact on the highway network; transport infrastructure and public rights of way Education Design and amenity issues Pollution Ecology, nature conservation and trees Flood risk, drainage and utilities Heritage and archaeology Sustainability credentials Planning obligations Other issues Planning balance and conclusions

$ulfkzamv.docx

Principle of development

i) Strategic location

The application site forms part of the Worsley Greenway which is identified as forming “a strategically important ‘green wedge’ within the Worsley area”. The merits of protecting the Worsley Greenway have long been recognised by the Council and are reflected by relevant policies in development plans both past and present. UDP Policy EN2 states that development will not be permitted where “it would fragment or detract from the openness and continuity of the Greenway, or would cause unacceptable harm to its character or its value as an amenity, wildlife, agricultural or open recreation resource”.

The reasoned justification to UDP Policy EN2 confirms that the Worsley Greenway “covers some 195 hectares, and is of great value to the city and local area. It provides amenity open space, recreational land and facilities, attractive landscapes, farmland, water features such as Old Warke Dam, public access, strategic recreation routes, areas of ecological importance, attractive woodland, features of historic and heritage importance, and relief within an urban area. It also provides the setting for the settlements of Worsley, Roe Green, Beesley Green, and the Bridgewater Canal, and is an essential element of their historic character. The protection and enhancement of Worsley Greenway, in its entirety, is therefore of great strategic and local importance.”

The following sections of the report provide an assessment of the application proposal against UDP Policy EN2.

a. Impact on the openness and continuity of the Greenway

Worsley Greenway forms a continuous belt of open land that stretches from Roe Green in the north west to Monton in the south east. The area where Worsley Road crosses the Greenway and where the application site is located, lies towards the mid-point of this open belt of land, with the Greenway extending to the north across land known as Broadoak North towards Roe Green, and extending south and east across land known as Broadoak South towards Monton. The area where the application site is located represents one of the narrower parts of the Greenway.

The application proposal would introduce a substantial amount of built development within the Worsley Greenway. This would involve the erection of up to 165 dwellings of between 2 and 3 storeys in scale on the application site.

The proposal incorporates areas of green space in order to provide an element of connectivity between those parts of the Greenway which lie to the north beyond Worsley Road, and those parts which lie to the south of Worsley Road and predominantly to the east and south east of the application site. The Principles and Parameters Document identifies that along the site’s western boundary a strip of green space would be retained in order to afford screening of the proposed housing development from the public right of way (PROW W70) which runs just beyond the site’s western boundary and to the rear of properties on Drywood Avenue. The Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVIA) submitted alongside the application confirms that this landscaped strip would be at least 8m in width, with proposed landscaping providing visual screening in the form of native hedgerow and trees. The Principles and Parameters Document also identifies that elements of green space would be retained along the site’s eastern boundary, through the provision of an area defined in the Design and Access Statement as the ‘Entrance Green’, together with a belt of green space along the eastern boundary comprising marshy grassland habitat and sustainable drainage swales.

The narrow strip of green space which would be provided along the site’s western boundary would make a negligible contribution in terms of maintaining openness and continuity due to its narrow width, taken together with the context of surrounding development, with Bridgewater School to the north, and residential properties at Drywood Avenue to the west. On its western side the proposed development would effectively merge with the built up area of Worsley to the west, notwithstanding the small area of woodland which lies outside the application site and to the rear of nos. 1 – 21 Drywood Avenue.

The extent of open land which lies outside the application site boundary to the east and south east would evidently facilitate a greater degree of continuity along this eastern side of the proposed development than would be achieved on the western side. However, the degree of continuity would be significantly compromised by the effect of the development creating a pinch point around the north eastern corner of the site. The proposed ‘Entrance Green’ feature would provide a green gap of approximately 60m in width between the proposed housing development and the residential properties at 125 Worsley Road and at Beechwood Drive

$ulfkzamv.docx

which lie to the north west. The existing built development at Worsley Lodge Care Home to the east would also contribute to the perception of a pinch point at this location, with a distance of approximately 130m between the Care Home and the proposed housing development.

In the context of the scale of the proposed development with up to 165 dwellings at Broadoak South it is considered that the proposed development would clearly have a very significant impact on the openness of the Greenway. The development would also significantly undermine the continuity of the Greenway by creating a clear pinch point, and serve to fragment that part of the Greenway which lies to the north of Worsley Road from the remainder of the Greenway which extends south and east towards Monton. As such it is considered that the proposed housing development would fundamentally fragment and detract from the openness and continuity of the Greenway, contrary to UDP Policy EN2.

It must also be recognised that to make the development acceptable in planning terms with regard to meeting the need for additional primary school places that would be generated by the proposed development (for the reasons set out below in the Education section of this report), the proposed housing development is likely to necessitate the development of a primary school on land at Broadoak North. The applicant has committed to setting aside 1.1 hectares of land at Broadoak North on this basis, however it must be recognised that this land also lies within the Worsley Greenway. Whilst it is acknowledged that this land lies outside the red line boundary of this application, for the reasons set out below in the Education section, the setting aside of this land for the development of a primary school is considered to represent the only available option in terms of meeting the requirement for additional pupil places that would be generated by this development and thereby making it acceptable in planning terms in relation to the requirements of UDP Policy DEV5 and the Planning Obligations SPD. Whilst the proposed school would be subject to a separate planning application to be determined on its own merits, it must be recognised that approving this current application may well result in the development of a primary school at Broadoak North. As such the cited impact of the proposed housing development in terms of fundamentally fragmenting and detracting from the openness and continuity of the Greenway, would be further compounded by the development of a primary school on land at Broadoak North.

It should be recognised that both Salford’s Draft Local Plan (November 2016) and the Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) (October 2016) propose that 184.5ha of land within the West Salford Greenway (which includes the application site within its scope) be designated as Green Belt (Policy GB1 within the Draft Local Plan, and Policy GM13 within the Draft GMSF). In addition, Salford’s Draft Local Plan proposes the designation of 180.4ha of land within the West Salford Greenway (which includes the application site within its scope) as Local Green Space (Policy GI5/5). Whilst these emerging development plan policies demonstrate a clear commitment to the long term retention of the Worsley Greenway, taking into account paragraph 216 of the NPPF in terms of the weight that may be given to emerging plans, it is considered that the Draft GMSF and Draft Local Plan carry very limited weight in the determination of this planning application. However, notwithstanding this, it is clear that the intention of Policy EN2 in terms of affording a strong degree of protection to the openness and continuity of the Worsley Greenway is proposed to be carried forward and further strengthened by the policies within these emerging plans.

b. Impact on the character of the Greenway

Salford’s Landscape Character Assessment (September 2007) classifies the application site area (and the majority of the Worsley Greenway) as Urban Fringe Lowland, and that this wider area forms one of three large loosely connected blocks of predominantly open land which break up the built development of West Salford. In terms of key features, the assessment identifies that “the predominantly open land and relatively few buildings provide a relaxing visual contrast to the more densely developed adjoining urban areas”. The application site (and the majority of the Worsley Greenway) lies within the block identified as Sub Area 2: Worsley Woods Wedge. The second part of the Landscape Character Assessment identifies landscape policy guidance specific to each of the defined sub areas.

In relation to Sub Area 2: Worsley Woods Wedge, the following three policy objectives and guidance are identified:1) Conserve the mainly rural character – the policy objective recognises that the Worsley Woods Wedge

provides an attractive landscape setting for the settlements of Worsley, Road Green and Beesley Green and contains a number of important landscape features which need to be protected. The associated policy guidelines highlight that any new development should be sited close to existing buildings or on the fringes of the area so as not to fragment or encroach on the openness and continuity of the wedge, and that new planting with locally native trees and shrubs should be used to screen any new built development.

$ulfkzamv.docx

2) Enhance existing public access and provide new informal recreational provision – the policy objective highlights that the Worsley Woods Wedge provides amenity open space, recreational land and facilities and the associated policy guidelines identify that opportunities to enhance existing, and develop appropriate new recreational routes within the area should be sought.

3) Enhance existing and create new biodiversity interest as part of any new recreational developments – the policy guidelines identify that new planting, landscaping and the management of existing habitats should maximise ecological benefits.

A Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted as part of the application submission to assess the likely impacts of the proposed development on landscape and visual amenity, and this forms part of Chapter 7 of the submitted Environmental Statement.

The assessment identifies that public views towards the application site are obtained from eight separate rights of way, including the two which pass through the site and a range of paths passing through the surrounding open landscape. It also recognises that there are public views towards the development site from Worsley Road. The LVIA confirms that the public right of way which crosses the site in an east-west direction (PROW W163) will be set within a green corridor of at least 22m in width and which will be landscaped to soften views of the housing development which would lie to the north and south of this route. In relation to PROW W70 which runs broadly parallel to the western boundary of the application site, the LVIA confirms that a landscaped strip of at least 8m in width will be maintained along the site’s western boundary in order to provide visual screening to users of this route. In relation to PROW 71 which runs just beyond the eastern boundary of the application site, and lies within the site for part of its length, the LVIA confirms that the built development will set back from the application site’s eastern boundary, and this land will be retained as green space to provide a naturalistic character.

The LVIA considers that the sensitivity of the landscape within this location is medium, and that there would be an adverse impact of moderate significance on the landscape during construction works. Upon completion of the development, the LVIA considers that the effect of the development on the landscape at the year of completion would be minor adverse and of minor significance. The LVIA has also assessed the residual landscape effect ten years following completion by when the vegetation and landscaping treatment across the site would have matured. The LVIA considers that by this point in time, the effect of the development on the landscape would become neutral and of no significance on the basis that the boundary landscape treatments would increasingly soften and filter views of the development.

The LVIA has been reviewed by the Council’s Landscape Consultant. They disagree with the findings of the LVIA in this regard and consider that from a landscape perspective, development of the scale and nature proposed would result in adverse and significant effects upon landscape character. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that the proposed development would essentially reduce Broadoak South by half, and would sever the Urban Lowland Fringe Sub Area 2: Worsley Woods Wedge in two, virtually conjoining urban development. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that whilst green linkages would be retained to the west and east of the application site, these would not compensate for the complete change in character of the site resulting from developing open agricultural land. Whilst the submitted LVIA considers that due to the visual containment of the site, the wider character area outside of the site is not adversely affected from a landscape character perspective, the Council’s Landscape Consultant disagrees with this conclusion on the basis that inter-visibility within or between a landscape character unit(s) is not the only criteria to be applied in assessing landscape effects.

As set out above, Salford’s Landscape Character Assessment identifies that the policy objective for this sub area is to conserve the mainly rural character, and the associated policy guidelines highlight that any new development should be sited close to existing buildings or on the fringes of the area so as not to fragment or encroach on the openness and continuity of the wedge. This approach is consistent with Policy EN2 of the UDP.The LVIA asserts that “well designed development” would not conflict with this policy and that “naturalistic landscape treatment of the green infrastructure areas will ensure that the proposal will fit in with the local landscape character”. It is on this basis that the LVIA considers that the overall effect upon the landscape at the year of completion would be minor adverse and of minor significance. The Council’s Landscape Consultant disagrees with this assessment as they consider that the development would clearly result in a major change in landscape character and conflict with the above referenced policy guidance, resulting in significant (in EIA terms) adverse landscape effects.

$ulfkzamv.docx

The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that with regard to visual effects (in LVIA terms), it is recognised that the application site is relatively visually contained. They do however highlight that when vegetation is out of leaf, views across the site from Worsley Road are possible, as they are throughout the year from the public rights of way that surround and cross the application site. The site is also visible from locations along elevated stretches of the Worsley Loopline pedestrian and cycle route (PROW W164/NCR 55), particularly when travelling northwards. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that people using these public rights of way will clearly be adversely affected by the development, with large parts of the adjacent public rights of way urbanised, irrespective of the creation of green corridors as part of the proposed development. The existing open fields which comprise the western portion of Broadoak South will be urbanised with housing development which will result in a significant change from a number of viewpoints and for a variety of visual receptors.

The submitted LVIA summarises the assessment of significance of visual effects on completion by stating that there will be no adverse effects of major significance and that users of PROW W163 which crosses the site from east to west will only experience adverse visual effects of moderate significance at the year of opening. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that this assessment is incorrect, and that the view will be radically transformed in terms of the proximity to housing development and the scale, nature and wide panorama of the view that will be affected. As such, the Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that and that the effect will be adverse and significant in EIA terms. Similarly, the LVIA considers that users of PROW W51 and PROW W71 would experience adverse visual effects of slight significance at completion, and residual visual effects ten years following completion are assessed as either slight adverse or negligible. Again, the Council’s Landscape Consultant considers these assessments are not justifiable.

The Council’s Landscape Consultant concludes that the scheme would result in adverse landscape and visual effects which are significant and which cannot be successfully mitigated for. As such it is considered that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the Worsley Greenway, contrary to Policy EN2 of the UDP.

c. Impact on the Greenway as a wildlife, agricultural, amenity and open recreation resource

i. Wildlife

As set out within the Ecology section of this report below, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the Worsley Woods Local Nature Reserve (LNR) or Site of Biological Importance (SBI), the Bridgewater Canal (SBI) Site of Biological Importance (SBI), or on protected or priority species. Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) identify that there would be a degree of harm to the function of this area of land as a wildlife corridor due to the introduction of residential development which will further narrow and bifurcate the existing resource and there will be an increase in the presence of domestic predators as well as human disturbance. However, in the context of the linear habitat areas that would be created around the periphery of the site and the open nature of the land which adjoins the application site to the north and east, it is not considered that the proposed development would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna as identified by UDP Policy EN9. On this basis, it is considered that whilst the proposed development would result in a degree of harm to the value of the Worsley Greenway as a wildlife resource, it would not result in an unacceptable degree of harm, which is the policy test in this regard as identified within UDP Policies EN2 and EN9.

ii. Agriculture

Whilst the proposed development would result in the loss of 4.2 hectares of best and most versatile land, for the reasons set out below under ‘Existing use – agricultural land’ it is considered that the agricultural value of this land is necessarily constrained by its location within the urban area and its isolation from other areas of agricultural land. Whilst the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land is regrettable, it is not considered that this would result in unacceptable harm to the value of the Worsley Greenway, which is the policy test in this regard as identified within UDP Policy EN2.

iii. Amenity value and recreation resource

The application site forms part of the wider Worsley Woods and Greenway Key Recreation Area as identified by UDP Policy R4 (Key Recreation Areas). The policy identifies that planning permission will only be granted for development within, adjoining or directly affecting a key recreation area where it would be consistent with a series of objectives. The reasoned justification to the policy identifies that these key recreation areas are

$ulfkzamv.docx

considered to be of city wide importance and are linked by a network of strategic recreation routes. The reasoned justification confirms that these areas are considered to have great potential to help meet the demand for recreational uses in a sustainable way by providing formal and informal recreation opportunities close to where a large number of residents live. This designation recognises that for sites in private ownership it may not be possible to provide unrestricted public access, but highlights the importance of maximising such access as far as possible.

As set out above, the application site comprises agricultural land in private ownership. Whilst the site does not have a formal recreation function, it does make a significant contribution to the recreation and amenity value of the network of public rights of way which surround and cross the site. As highlighted within the objections submitted by local residents, this open area of land has a significant informal recreational value for both local residents and for residents of surrounding areas the city. The overall provision of green space within the wider Broadoak / Worsley area is below average in terms of access to formal facilities. Whilst the majority of the area has access to a District Park (the largest type of park in the city providing the widest range of facilities) there is no access to Neighbourhood Parks, limited access to play areas for older children (Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play, NEAP) and no access to play areas for younger children (Local Equipped Area for Play, LEAP). In contrast the wider area has good access to informal green space most notably Worsley Woods, Dukes Drive and the network of recreation routes and public footpaths. The importance of these informal green spaces is increased given the lack of formal open spaces available locally. It is considered that this increases the importance of these public rights of way which cross and surround the application site in terms of affording opportunities for recreation by local residents.

The application proposal would maintain the existing public rights of way which cross the site (PROW W163 and W71), albeit with some minor realignment to their route. The submission documents confirm that the design of the indicative scheme has been developed in order to provide green buffers around each of the public rights of way which surround and cross the site. As set out above, a narrow landscaped strip would be provided along the western boundary of the site in order afford screening of the proposed housing development from PROW W70, and a belt of green space and landscaping would be provided along the eastern boundary of the site to afford screening of the proposed housing development from PROW W71 (and PROW W51 and W164 which lie beyond this to the east). In addition, a landscaped green finger would be maintained along the route of PROW 163 where it crosses the site in an east-west direction. As discussed above however in relation to landscape character, whilst this would afford a degree of screening, users of these public rights of way would experience a significant adverse impact in terms of the amenity value of these routes. Where users of these routes currently enjoy extensive open vistas and the perception of countryside within the urban area, the experience of these routes would predominantly become one of landscaped paths lying between areas of housing development. As set out above, the Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that the effect of this change in landscape terms would be adverse and significant.

It is recognised that the areas of green space proposed as part of the development in terms of the amenity space, LEAP, woodland trail and the permissive routes through the areas of marshy grassland habitat and sustainable drainage swales and ponds would result in the creation of areas of amenity and recreation value for future residents of the development and existing local residents, and as such would increase the amount of publicly accessible green space on the application site (on the basis that existing public access to the site is restricted to the linear public rights of way which cross the site). As acknowledged within paragraph 15.96 of Chapter 15 within the Environmental Statement, the impact of the proposed development would clearly result in a different experience to that currently enjoyed by walkers along these linear routes. The proposal would substantially reduce the sense of tranquillity and openness currently experienced by users of routes PROW W70, W163 and W71. As such, it is not considered that the proposed green space provision would outweigh the substantial reduction in the amenity and recreation value of the application site which results from the extensive vistas across open land which are currently experienced by users of the public rights of way which surround and cross the site, and which would be lost as a result of the proposed development.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development would be contrary to objectives i) and ii) of UDP Policy R4 as it would not protect and enhance the existing and potential recreational use of the area, and nor would it protection and improve of the amenity of the area. In this context, it is also considered that the proposed development would result in harm to the value of the Greenway as an amenity and open recreation resource contrary to UDP Policy EN2 in this regard.

ii) Previously undeveloped land

$ulfkzamv.docx

UDP Policy ST11 sought to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within the city and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward where necessary. In essence the policy identified a sequential approach to development. The policy was not however saved beyond 21 June 2009 because it was not fully in conformity with RSS Policy DP4 (Making Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure) and it was considered that this policy covered the issue adequately. However, following revocation of RSS, the development plan makes no reference to a sequential approach to the use of land, nor does it identify a target for the use of brownfield land.

NPPF paragraph 17 identifies twelve core land use planning principles, of which bullet point 8 states that planning should “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.” Although the NPPF does encourage the use of brownfield land, it does not identify a sequential approach to development which prioritises the use of previously developed land over greenfield sites.

iii) Existing use – agricultural land

The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) is a method for assessing the quality of farmland to enable informed choices to be made about its future use within the planning system. The ALC system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into subgrades 3a and 3b. NPPF paragraph 112 requires local planning authorities to take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. It states that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. Best and most versatile land is defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as grades 1, 2 and 3a.

The local planning authority has a specific duty under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to take into account any representation made by an owner of the land or a tenant of an agricultural holding. There have been no representations made by any agricultural tenant.

In order to inform the previous planning application (13/63157/OUTEIA), a detailed ALC survey of the site was undertaken in March 2012 as part of the assessment of the wider site area. The following agricultural land grades were recorded in relation to the boundary of the current application site:

ALC Grade Area (hectares) Percentage of total site area

2 0.9 9%3a 3.3 35%3b 1.2 13%4 2.8 30%5 0.9 9%Non Agricultural 0.4 4%Total 9.5 100%

4.2 hectares (44%) of the application site is classified as best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). The Grade 2 and 3a land is focused on the northern part of the site where soils are lighter textured and better drained. The main limiting factor in relation to the ALC of the remaining part of the site is soil wetness, which necessarily limits the workability of the soil across the southern parts of the site. A further walkover survey of the site carried out in January 2013 confirmed the characteristics as identified by the detailed ALC survey in March 2012. The submission documents which are contained within Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement confirm that the site is periodically used for livestock grazing and is farmed on the basis of a tenancy agreement with the landowner. It identifies that the area is farmed as an off lying piece of land that forms part of a larger livestock based holding that was historically based at Burgess Farm (Walkden), that there are no buildings currently on the application site that are used in connection with any farming enterprises and that none of the site is entered into land based Environmental Stewardship schemes.

Natural England has not commented on the proposed loss of best and most versatile agricultural land recognising that the amount of land to be lost falls below its 20 hectare statutory consultation threshold in this

$ulfkzamv.docx

regard, and it is therefore the responsibility of the local planning authority to determine how significant the loss of agricultural land is in this context.

Whilst the proposed development would result in the loss of 4.2 hectares of best and most versatile land, its loss must be considered in the context of the wider area, where large strategically important areas of the Grade 1 agricultural land are located to the south west at Chat Moss. It is also recognised that the land is used by a single tenant as a piece of grazing land remote from their main holding. It is not considered that this loss would lead to a significant adjustment in the day to day management of the holding and it would not be likely to lead to the loss of the overall farming operation. The Environmental Statement assesses the environmental effects of the proposed development and considers that the loss of the agricultural land is of minor adverse significance.

In this context, it is not considered that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would result in an unacceptable degree of harm in this regard.

iv) Proposed use

a) Residential

NPPF Chapter 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) paragraph 47 identifies a clear policy objective to, “boost significantly the supply of housing”. Paragraph 17 states further that the planning system should “proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver new homes….that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing…needs of an area.” The NPPF indicates that this will be achieved first and foremost, by local planning authorities, “using their evidence base to ensure that their local plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs of market and affordable housing in the housing market area,…including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period.”

i) Objectively assessed housing need and housing land supply assessment

Paragraph 47 (bullet point 2) of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify, and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% buffer. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20%.

The Council’s most up to date five-year supply position covers the period between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021 and is fully set out in a report that was published in November 20162. This report concludes that in determining planning applications for new housing development, the Council will apply a housing requirement based on the latest household projections (2014-based) with a 5% buffer. This means that there is an 8.7 years supply of deliverable sites for housing over the period between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021.

The second sentence of paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that “Relevant policies should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. This is not engaged because the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply, and therefore the Council’s policies for the supply of housing should not be considered out-of-date on this basis.

ii) Phasing

The submission documents identify that the delivery of the development would be anticipated to take place over a three year period by a single housebuilder delivering the market housing, and one or more registered providers delivering the affordable housing. The applicant considers that based on recent experience of comparable sites in the area, the development could commence by 2018 and be complete by 2021. On the basis of delivery of up to 165 dwellings within this timeframe, it is considered that the proposal would make a positive contribution in terms of housing supply.

iii) Qualitative need

2 Salford City Council (November 2016) Salford’s five-year housing land supply position: 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2021

$ulfkzamv.docx

Chapter 5 of the submitted Planning Statement details the applicant’s case that the Council’s current supply of deliverable sites for housing shows a disproportionate reliance on the delivery of apartments within a limited number of locations, and that the identified supply therefore fails to meet the objectively assessed housing needs of the city. The applicant cites NPPF paragraph 50 in this regard and the requirement to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, and considers that the low levels of delivery of family housing and of affordable housing conflicts with this aspect of the Framework. The Planning Statement also sets out the applicant’s case that the lack of delivery of family housing will compromise the economic competitiveness and growth objectives of Salford and of Greater Manchester as a whole, as they consider that households will have to move outside the area in order to find accommodation which meets their needs. The applicant considers that for Salford to meet the housing needs of its communities it must diversify its housing supply, in particular by releasing additional good quality sites for family and affordable homes in the western parts of the city. As such, the Planning Statement identifies that “the proposal at Broadoak South… will deliver a range of aspirational family homes and up to 50 units of affordable housing in a strong market area in which demand is high. It will diversify the forward supply of housing in the City, supporting the need for housing products which can accommodate families and those needing affordable homes.”

The Council fully recognises the role and importance of housing growth and continues to grant planning permission for new housing where this is sustainable development, in order to significantly boost the supply of housing in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF. This is demonstrated by the fact that as of 31 March 2017 there were a total of 20,348 dwellings with planning permission across the city. Of the total 20,348 dwellings with planning permission as of 31 March 2017, 17,340 (85%) are apartments and 3,008 (15%) are houses.

Taking into account dwellings with permission (at an earlier base date of 31 March 2016), the 2016 Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (table 7) considers that between 2016 and 2035 there is the potential for 35,727 net additional dwellings on specific sites and once an allowance for windfall developments is made; of this total 7,356 (21%) are houses and 28,371 (79%) are apartments.

This mix of dwellings with planning permission, and the estimated long term delivery up to 2035, reflect an inevitable concentration of development in the wards of Ordsall and Irwell Riverside (which form part of the Manchester/Salford City Centre, and also includes Salford Quays) where high density apartment schemes are being delivered on brownfield land in highly sustainable/accessible locations. Nevertheless, the Council acknowledges that it is important that Salford seeks to provide a good mix of residential opportunities both for existing and potential residents, and supports housing diversity and growth across Greater Manchester. It is in this context that the Council is preparing its Local Plan and is involved in the production of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF).

The Draft GMSF and / or Draft Local Plan allocate sites for 4,470 houses in Salford West that do not comply with the current policy framework (for example they are currently in the Green Belt3). The release of such land in Salford is in areas where new housing supply is generally most constrained, and is considered appropriate in order to enable a better mix of dwellings to come forward in sustainable locations, including where highly skilled workers want to live. Considering the issue of the mix of dwellings at a Greater Manchester level through the plan led system provides the most appropriate co-ordinated approach for ensuring that the right type of housing is being provided across the conurbation rather than through the incremental loss of sites that are afforded protection from development as a result of individual planning applications.

Although the Draft GMSF and Draft Local Plan carry very limited weight in the determination of this planning application, they clearly demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that a good mix of dwellings is provided. The implications of the election of the Greater Manchester Mayor on the timetable for the next stages of the GMSF are being considered currently, but there remains the clear intention to progress the GMSF and the Local Plan.

iv) Housing mix

NPPF paragraph 50 states that local planning authorities should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations in order to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership, and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

3 3,300 of the 4,470 dwellings are on sites currently in the Green Belt.

$ulfkzamv.docx

UDP Policy H1 requires that all new housing developments will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of type and size. In determining whether the proposed mix and density of dwellings on a site is appropriate and acceptable, regard will be had to criteria A –H of Policy H1.

Supplementary guidance is provided in the Housing Planning Guidance (December 2006), which although not part of the development plan is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that within that part of the city where the application site is located, the large majority of dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments. The reasoned justification to the policy confirms that normally this will mean at least 80-90% of dwellings on individual sites being in the form of houses rather than apartments. The proposed development would provide a total of up to 165 houses and as such would be in accordance with Policy HOU1.

Policy HOU2 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that where houses are proposed the majority should have at least three bedrooms. The submission documents confirm that the proposed development would comprise a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including mews, semi-detached and detached properties. Whilst the final mix of housing types would be subject to any future reserved matters application, the indicative housing mix identified in the submission documents is as follows:

Housing type Number of dwellings Percentage2-bed Up to 16 10%3-bed Up to 66 40%4-bed Up to 58 35%5-bed Up to 25 15%TOTAL Up to 165 100%

On the basis of the indicative housing mix, approximately 90% of the dwellings would have three or more bedrooms. As such it is considered that the indicative layout is in accordance with UDP Policy H1 and Housing Planning Guidance Policies HOU1 and HOU2.

v) Density

The NPPF indicates that local authorities should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. UDP Policy H1 sets out the approach to housing density within Salford, and confirms that all new housing development should be built at an appropriate density, which will be no less than 30 dwellings per hectare (net) in relation to the application site (recognising that the site does not meet the circumstances set out in criteria (2) of the policy where a higher minimum density would apply). The Design and Access Statement confirms that on the basis of the indicative layout, the proposed development would achieve an overall net density of 36 dwellings per hectare. This would therefore be in accordance with the policy requirement in this regard. vi) Affordable housing

NPPF paragraph 50 states that where local planning authorities have identified that affordable housing is needed, they should set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution can be justified and the approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities.

UDP Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide an element of affordable housing, of appropriate types on all residential sites over 1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more dwellings.

Policy OB1 of the Planning Obligations SPD identifies that the application site is located in a Mid/High residential value area. The policy identifies that for schemes comprising houses there is a requirement for 20% affordable housing provision with a tenure mix of 75% social / affordable rented and 25% intermediate. The policy requires that the affordable housing should be provided on-site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value is robustly justified, and sets out that the affordable dwellings should reflect the dwelling mix across the development as a whole.

$ulfkzamv.docx

The Affordable Housing Statement which is set out at Appendix 1 within the submitted Planning Statement confirms that the applicant will provide 30% affordable housing, thereby exceeding the policy requirement in this regard. It further states that the design of the affordable homes will be indistinguishable from the homes for sale, and will be provided in clusters throughout the scheme. In addition to this and following discussions during the course of the application’s consideration, the applicant has confirmed further details regarding the approach to affordable housing.

The applicant has confirmed that 20% of the affordable housing provision (i.e. up to 33 dwellings) would be in full compliance with the requirements of Policy OB1 of the Planning Obligations SPD. As such, this element would provide a tenure mix of 75% social / affordable rented and 25% intermediate tenure. Of the social / affordable rented element, half would be social rented, and half would be affordable rented. The policy also requires that the affordable dwellings should reflect the dwelling mix across the development as a whole. In this regard, the affordable housing provision would be fully in accordance with the policy requirement.

The applicant has however committed to provide an additional 10% affordable housing provision over and above the 20% policy requirement. In relation to this additional 10%, the applicant has not confirmed at this stage the approach to tenure and dwelling type, and wishes for this to be subject to ongoing discussion as part of any future s106 legal agreement negotiations. The applicant’s cited rationale for this is that they consider the Council’s requirement for a 75% social / affordable rented and 25% intermediate tenure split does not fully reflect the evidence of local need in the area and they consider that there is a need for a broader mix of accommodation which could be delivered by taking an alternative approach in relation to the additional 10% affordable housing provision.

The delivery of affordable homes on the application site would make a positive contribution towards meeting the identified shortfall of such homes (an annual need has been identified by the council of around 760 homes per annum) and would help to diversify the mix of dwellings within the local area. The weight to be accorded to this is assessed within the ‘Planning balance and conclusions’ section of the report below.

b) Open space and recreation

UDP Policy H8 confirms that planning permission for housing development will only be granted where adequate and appropriate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a twenty year period. This is supplemented by Policy OB2 of the Planning Obligations SPD which requires a financial contribution towards off-site provision where the development does not provide the range of required open space provision on site.

The submission documents confirm that the development would incorporate green infrastructure totaling 4.15ha (representing approximately 44% of the site area). This would comprise the following elements: 1.12ha of public realm and greenspace; 0.47ha of existing woodland; 0.13ha for a proposed woodland play area / trail; 1.97ha for ecological mitigation and sustainable urban drainage measures; 0.40ha proposed woodland planting; and 0.06ha play area locally equipped play area (LEAP).

The ‘Parameters for landscape, hydrology and ecology’ plan establishes the locations of these various elements within the site. The proposed LEAP would be located centrally within the site, between the two parcels of housing development. Whilst the preferred approach of the Council has more recently been to direct the majority of equipped play areas to existing parks and larger open spaces in order to better manage their long term maintenance, for a development of this type and scale the provision of a LEAP on site is considered appropriate in order to ensure that this local standard is met and to avoid creating a large area of deficiency in terms of access to an equipped play area. The delivery of this LEAP could be secured via planning condition.

There would be a range of amenity space provided across the proposed development, thereby addressing this element of Policy H8 and OB2 requirement in this regard. The proposed provision would meet or exceed the minimum requirements based on the type and scale of housing development and the relevant local recreation standards. The proposed green space provision would be accessible to both existing and future residents.

$ulfkzamv.docx

No sports pitches or other outdoor sports facilities (youth and adult) facilities would be delivered on site as part of the application proposal. The applicant has therefore confirmed their agreement to make a financial contribution towards off-site provision and improvement of sports pitches and other youth and adult facilities, in line with the requirements of Policy OB2 of the Planning Obligations SPD in this regard.

On this basis, it is considered that the proposed development would meet the requirements of UDP Policy H8 and Policy OB2 of the Planning Obligations SPD in this regard.

Impact on the highway network; transport infrastructure and public rights of way

The NPPF (paragraph 35) identifies that development should be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities; create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding

street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

It also confirms that planning decisions should take account of whether the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up, that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people, and whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. It confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe (paragraph 32).

A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan have been submitted as part of the application submission.

i) Sustainable location

Pedestrian access

The Transport Assessment states that walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level, and has the greatest potential to replace car trips for distances up to 2km. It cites the IHT publication ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (2000) which suggests ‘desirable’, ‘acceptable’ and ‘preferred maximum’ walking distances for pedestrians without mobility impairment for some common trip purposes, as per the table below:

Suggested acceptable walking distancesCommuting / school Elsewhere (m)

Desirable 500m 400mAcceptable 1,000m 800mPreferred maximum 2,000m 1,200m

An assessment of walking distances from the site identifies that the small clusters of shops / facilities at Worsley Road and Barton Road are located at 545m and 565m walking distance from the site respectively. The cluster of shops / facilities at the junction of Worsley Road / Clovelly Road are located around 1.1km walking distance from the site, with the wider range of shops and facilities within Monton neighbourhood centre being located approximately 1.2km walking distance from the site via the Bridgewater Canal towpath and Dukes Drive Country Park. In terms of local schools, the independent Bridgewater School lies directly to the north of the site at Worsley Road, and the 1.1ha site which the applicant has confirmed they would make available for a primary school would lie adjacent to this on the land known as Broadoak North. The existing Broadoak Primary School would also lie within the defined acceptable walking distance catchment for the majority of the proposed dwellings. In terms of state funded secondary schools, the assessment recognises that these lie around the preferred maximum walking distance but cites that local bus services together with specific school buses which pass close to the application site would provide access in this regard.

Cycling

The Transport Assessment identifies that it is generally recognised that cycling can substitute car trips, particularly for journeys under 5km. There is a good network of both on and off road cycle routes within the

$ulfkzamv.docx

surrounding area, including segregated routes along the A580, and the Worsley Loopline route which forms part of National Cycle Network Route 55 which lies to the east of the application site. The Transport Assessment confirms that a 5km cycling catchment from the site provides routes to Walkden, Swinton, Eccles, Boothstown, the Trafford Centre and part of Trafford Park.

Public Transport

There are existing bus stops on Worsley Road directly to the north of the application site, with further bus stops to the east of the site on Greenleach Lane, near to its junction with Worsley Road. The majority of the proposed dwellings would lie within a 400m walking distance of the bus stops on Worsley Road, which is generally considered to represent an acceptable walking distance to access bus services. The Transport Assessment identifies that on weekdays there are a total of 149 buses passing the site frontage on Worsley Road, and that service provision remains good at weekends with 139 buses on a Saturday and 83 on a Sunday. The Nos. 34 and 68 services run every 30 minutes on weekdays, providing services connecting Leigh, Astley, Pendleton and Manchester City Centre, and Farnworth, Walkden, Eccles and the Trafford Centre respectively.

Rail services at Swinton, Moorside, Walkden, Patricroft and Eccles stations all lie within approximately 3km of the application site and provide access to services on both the Manchester – Wigan line, and the Manchester – Liverpool line.

Accessibility conclusions

The application site is considered to be reasonably well located in terms of sustainable access by means other than the private car, having regard to the context of its suburban location. There are a good range of opportunities for walking and cycling to local facilities, and the site is served by a range of bus services providing access to other parts of the conurbation including Manchester City Centre and the Trafford Centre. It is however recognised that the site is not as well served by public transport provision as other parts of the city, and as such the proposed development is less likely to result in modal shifts towards public transport than developments in those parts of the city which are better served by public transport services.

ii) Proposed access arrangements

Vehicular access to the site is proposed via a single access point off Worsley Road. The applicant proposes that the existing highway envelope of Worsley Road be reconfigured to facilitate the creation of ghost islands to accommodate turning traffic. A ghost island would be provided to accommodate traffic turning right in to the application site from Worsley Road, and further ghost islands would be provided to accommodate traffic turning right in to Bridgewater School (to both of its vehicular access points) from Worsley Road. In addition, a ghost island would accommodate traffic turning right in to the driveway for Worsley Lodge Care Home from Worsley Road. Two additional pedestrian refuges are proposed within Worsley Road as part of this reconfiguration, to facilitate pedestrians crossing the road. In addition, a new highway footway is proposed along the south side of Worsley Road for the length of the application site, where there is currently no footway with the exception of the existing bus stop on the south side of the road. The proposed arrangements are identified on the ‘Access arrangements and Worsley Road improvements’ plan which forms part of the Principles and Parameters Document.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Proposed access arrangements and improvements to Worsley Road

The Council’s Highways Officer has identified that a traffic management scheme which incorporates Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) would be required to prevent on-street parking associated with school pick up / drop off at Bridgewater School which could otherwise compromise the safe operation of the highway and the proposed ghost island arrangements. The measures to Worsley Road within the vicinity of the application site would include the introduction of waiting restrictions along this stretch of Worsley Road. The requirement for the submission and implementation of a traffic management scheme would be secured via condition.

For the purposes of clarification, it should be noted that whilst the previous application (13/63157/OUTEIA) included provision for a shuttle bus service to serve the proposed development, the submitted Transport Assessment confirms that in relation to this current application, there is not considered to be a need to provide a shuttle bus service given that all of the proposed dwellings would be within walking distance of Worsley Road which is an existing bus route.

iii) Impacts on highway network

The submitted Transport Assessment (TA) confirms that updated traffic counts were undertaken in July 2016 at the M60 J13 roundabouts and the Worsley Road / A580 East Lancs Road junction, to complement the counts undertaken in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the previous application (13/63157/OUTEIA). The TA confirms the July 2016 traffic counts recorded a reduced level of traffic passing through J13, which may result from traffic re-routeing associated with the roadworks to facilitate Smart Motorway running which are currently ongoing between J8 and J20 of the M60. As such, the TA has adopted the 2013 recorded traffic flows (prior to the Smart Motorway roadworks commencing) as the baseline for the assessment, recognising that these recorded flows were higher than the July 2016 flows, and in order to provide a more robust assessment that is not skewed by any temporary reduction associated with the current roadworks.

In terms of trip generation, the TA identifies that the development of 165 dwellings would result in 95 two way trips (25 inbound and 68 outbound) during the AM peak hour, and 101 two way trips (64 inbound and 37

$ulfkzamv.docx

outbound) during the PM peak hour. This equates to around 1.5 vehicle movements per minute, which would be split both east and west along Worsley Road. The TA confirms that this assumption has been based on all 165 dwellings being market housing, and that actual trip generation could be expected to be less than this given that 30% of dwellings would be affordable housing which generally results in lower average trip generation per dwelling.

In terms of trip distribution, the TA has assumed that approximately 60% of traffic generated would be westbound along Worsley Road towards J13, 30% of traffic generated would be eastbound along Worsley Road towards the A580 junction, and that 10% of traffic generated would be northbound via Greenleach Lane. The impact of traffic generated by the proposed development at key junctions as a percentage flow increase is set out in the table below:

In relation to the junctions of Worsley Road with Greenleach Lane and Hazelhurst Road, the TA finds that in absolute terms the impact equates to just one additional vehicle movement every one or two minutes and as such these junctions would continue to operate with significant spare capacity. In terms of the junction of Worsley Road and the A580 East Lancs Road, the TA finds that this would represent less than one vehicle movement in two minutes (or per cycle of the traffic lights) and that such small increases would not be perceptible. As such, the TA confirms that operational testing of the proposed development has been confined to J13 of the M60 and its two associated roundabouts – the eastern roundabout (Worsley Courthouse) and the western roundabout (St Mark’s Church).

This detailed operational assessment of the impact on J13 indicates an increase in journey time of over one minute on the Worsley Road approach to J13 as a consequence of the proposed development. It finds that there would be no material change on the western roundabout approaches.

On this basis, the TA identifies that an improvement scheme for the eastern roundabout (Worsley Courthouse) is proposed to be delivered associated with any grant of consent. This scheme has been designed to provide additional entry capacity through widening existing approaches to provide a third entry lane, in conjunction with widening the roundabout’s circulatory carriageway to accommodate three lanes. Spiral road markings and ‘keep clear’ markings would also be introduced.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Proposed improvement scheme to J13 eastern roundabout (Worsley Courthouse) (updated scheme submitted on 6 July 2017)

The TA summarises the output of the assessment of the J13 eastern roundabout taking into account the impact of the development and the effect of the junction improvement scheme, and compares this to the 2023 base ‘do nothing’ position for the AM peak within the following table:

In terms of the AM peak, this identifies that the impact of the proposed development taken together with the junction improvement scheme would result in a reduction in queuing time from Worsley Road and Walkden Road approaches compared to the base ‘do nothing’ position, with an increase in queuing time from Leigh Road. The TA finds that the overall performance is not considered to be materially different from the base ‘do nothing’ scenario, and therefore concludes that the proposed junction improvement scheme would provide adequate mitigation for the proposed development in this regard. The TA also includes assessment of the PM peak, in relation to both the eastern and western roundabouts. The TA concludes that on the basis of the assessment, the proposed eastern roundabout improvement scheme provides appropriate mitigation for the development’s impact on the highway network.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Highways England’s appointed transport consultants (Mouchel) have undertaken a detailed review of the transport implications of the application proposal on the strategic road network. This raises a number of issues in relation to the assumptions underpinning the TA, but finds overall that the impact on the strategic route network is not expected to be material. Informed by this assessment, Highways England have raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to planning conditions requiring i) submission and approval of the full design and construction details for the proposed improvements to Junction 13 of the M60 as identified by the applicant’s transport consultants, ii) implementation of the approved works, and iii) submission and approval of a detailed Travel Plan.

The submission documents have also been reviewed in detail by the Council’s Highways Officer and Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM). The Council’s Highways Officer and TfGM also raised a series of issues in relation to the assumptions underpinning the TA, which in part reflect those raised by Mouchel in their assessment for Highways England, and raised a number of other points pertinent to the assessment of impact of the proposed on the local highway network. The points raised in this context included: That use of 2001 Census data within the TA assumptions to derive the trip distribution should be updated to

reflect the 2011 Census; That RHS Bridgewater should be reflected as a committed development for the purposes of the TA

assumptions; That additional information needed to be provided to confirm and validate some of the detailed assumptions

informing the TA; That more detailed drawings of the proposed highway works outside the application site at Worsley Road

need to be provided to demonstrate how visibility splays and minimum highway footway widths can be achieved; and

That revisions were needed to the J13 eastern roundabout improvement scheme.

The applicant’s transport consultants have submitted a suite of additional information in response to these points. In relation to RHS Bridgewater, this additional assessment identifies that reflecting the additional traffic associated with RHS Bridgewater would have minimal effect on journey times (with changes ranging from 5 to 12 seconds at each of the assessed roundabout approaches).

The Council’s Highways Officer has reviewed the additional submitted information and considers that whilst this may still underestimate the impact of the proposed development to a degree, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in a severe impact on the operation of the highway network.

In relation to the J13 eastern roundabout improvement scheme, whilst the applicant has submitted an updated plan during the course of the application’s consideration (plan submitted on 6 July 2017 as shown above) which shows updated lane markings on the south western side of the roundabout, the Council’s Highways Officer and TfGM still maintain their concerns regarding the practical operation of the proposed scheme in highway safety terms in relation to the path of vehicles exiting the roundabout on to the M60 southbound on slip. Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Highways Officer considers that a suitable scheme can be developed, through further discussion between Highways England, TfGM, the Council’s Highways Officer, and the applicant. Therefore, notwithstanding that there remain concerns with the detail of the submitted improvement scheme, it is considered that subject to a planning condition requiring submission and approval of the full design and construction details for the proposed improvement scheme (reflecting the condition recommended by Highways England), the traffic impact of the proposed development on J13 could be effectively mitigated.

The proposed highway improvements in terms of the J13 eastern roundabout improvement scheme and the works to Worsley Road within the immediate vicinity of the application site would be secured via condition, to secure their delivery via s278 of the Highways Act 1980. The requirement for a traffic management scheme relating to Worsley Road in order to ensure visibility splays are protected and limit on-street parking associated with school pick up / drop off at Bridgewater School would also be secured via condition.

It is considered that the residual cumulative impact of the proposed development on the highway network would not be severe, and it is not considered that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact on the operation of the highway network in accordance with the requirements of UDP Policy A8.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Travel Plan Framework

A Travel Plan Framework has been submitted as part of the application submission, which provides a framework for the development of a detailed Travel Plan which would be prepared prior to occupation of the proposed development and which would be the responsibility of the housebuilder to implement. identifies the opportunities and measures which will be employed to encourage residents to travel in a sustainable way with the aim of reducing single occupancy car trips and increasing access by alternative modes. The Travel Plan Framework identifies that a Travel Plan Co-ordinator role would be established for a period of six years to manage the Travel Plan, and that they would be responsible for marketing the Travel Plan to all new residents, organising travel surveys, monitoring changes in travel against modal switch targets, identifying areas where further improvements could be made, and reporting to the Council in relation to this. The Travel Plan Framework outlines the series of principles which would underpin Travel Plan, in terms of provision of information to new households, encouraging walking and cycling, encouraging use of public transport, and car sharing.

The Council’s Highways Officer and TfGM have confirmed that the proposed approach is acceptable, and any grant of consent would be conditioned to require preparation of a detailed Travel Plan and its subsequent implementation, which would be tied to first occupation of the proposed dwellings.

iv) Public Rights of Way

The ‘Parameters for development areas, access and movement’ plan indicates that the two existing public rights of way which cross the site (PROW W163 and PRW W71) would be subject to minor re-alignment as part of the proposed development. The detailed re-alignment of these routes would be determined at any future reserved matters stage. These routes would also be subject to resurfacing through provision of a 2m wide rolled stone surface. The Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer has not raised any objection in this regard, but has highlighted that a Diversion Order application may be required, and it is considered that an informative could be added in this regard.

The applicant has also provided additional details regarding proposed improvements to existing public rights of way which lie outside of the application site. It is proposed that the stretch of PROW W163 which connects the site to Worsley Loopline to the east, and the stretch of PROW W70 which runs along the north bank of the Bridgewater Canal to Duke’s Drive would both be subject to improvement via provision of a 2m wide rolled stone surface. In addition, there would be a number of permissive routes created within the site itself to improve permeability and connections to the surrounding network of public rights of way. The delivery of off-site works would be secured via legal agreement.

Education

UDP Policy DEV5 requires adequate mitigation to be secured via planning conditions or obligations where development would result in a material increase in the need or demand for infrastructure, services, or facilities. This is expanded on within the Planning Obligations SPD, and in terms of education provision, the SPD identifies that in relation to new housing development, a developer contribution will be sought towards the expansion of primary schools within the city in order to meet the additional requirement for pupil places that the development can be expected to generate.

On the basis of applying the primary pupil yield factor as set out within Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD, based on the indicative housing mix identified within the submission documents, the proposed development would be expected to generate a requirement for an additional 47 primary pupil places. The Council’s Children’s Services team have confirmed that

i. There will be insufficient surplus capacity within local primary schools to accommodate this requirement for additional pupil places;

ii. There is no capacity to extend any existing schools within the local area (this is due to either schools with the potential for additional capacity having already been expanded, or because some of the relevant schools are either academies and / or voluntary aided, and therefore expansion is at their discretion); and

iii. There are no other sites within the local area that are available to the Council to create additional school capacity.

Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD contains a formula based approach to calculating the required education contribution, based on the application of an average primary pupil yield factor and the cost per

$ulfkzamv.docx

primary pupil place. However, for the reasons set out above, the Council considers that there is no capacity to expand existing schools within the local area and there are no other sites within the local area that are available to the Council to create additional school capacity. Policy OB4 of the Planning Obligations SPD sets out that where it is not practicable for the Council to expand capacity within existing schools sufficient to accommodate the additional requirement for pupil places that will be generated by a development, and there are no alternative solutions available in this regard, the Council will negotiate with developers to secure the setting aside of land to accommodate a school. The policy sets out a number of criteria that land set aside for schools in this way should comply with.

In relation to the previous planning application (13/63157OUT) and the subsequent public inquiry, the agreed solution to addressing the requirement for additional pupil places was that the applicant would provide a financial contribution in accordance with the formula based requirement, which would be directed towards the creation of additional school capacity on the site of the Alder Brook Pupil Referral Unit which lies to the south of the application site across the Bridgewater Canal. The delivery of a pedestrian bridge crossing the canal was also agreed as part of the heads of terms in order to facilitate access to the school from the application site. In the intervening period since this approach was agreed, the Council’s Children’s Services team have confirmed that the Alder Brook Pupil Referral Unit site is no longer able to accommodate additional primary school capacity due to expansion of the existing educational services which are delivered from this site. As such, this does not represent an option capable of meeting the demand for additional pupil places that would be generated by this application proposal.

Following discussions with the Council during the course of this application’s consideration, the applicant has confirmed in the event that there is no capacity in local schools and no other sites have come forward by the time the proposed housing is delivered, the applicant would commit to making land available for a one form entry (1FE) primary school (a total of 210 pupil places) on land north of the application site across Worsley Road. This land lies adjacent to Bridgewater School, has direct frontage to Worsley Road and is within the applicant’s ownership.

The applicant has confirmed that the site would comprise approximately 1.1ha of land. Given that the proposed school site lies outside of this application’s red line boundary, the setting aside of the land would need to be secured by a s106 agreement. The applicant has confirmed the land would be provided at no cost to the Council for the delivery of a 1FE school and that in addition to this they would make a financial contribution to the cost of delivering the additional school places that the development would generate in line with the formula based approach set out within Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD. The applicant has also confirmed that the delivery of the housing development would be phased in accordance with the delivery of additional school places to ensure that the need generated could be accommodated.

In terms of the criteria set out within Policy OB4 of the Planning Obligations SPD: i) the provision of a 1.1ha site would be sufficient to accommodate a 1FE primary school, ii) the school would be accessible to the development it is primarily intended to serve, being located directly to the north across Worsley Road, and iii) planning permission would be required for the school however it is considered that there are no in principle reasons why the associated traffic and car parking impacts of the proposed school could not be satisfactorily mitigated, recognising the potential to create dedicated parking and drop-off provision within the site.

It is therefore considered that subject to an appropriately worded legal agreement, the proposed approach to the setting aside of land for a 1FE primary school and the provision of a financial contribution towards the delivery of the requirement for pupil places that would be generated by the proposed development would in principle address the requirements of UDP Policy DEV5 and the Planning Obligations SPD in this regard (notwithstanding any other planning policy conflict in relation to the development of land at Broadoak North, as referred to under the ‘Principle of development’ section above), in terms of ensuring that the requirement for additional primary school places could be effectively mitigated.

Design and amenity issues

UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness. The policy advises that in assessing the extent to which any development complies with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and landscape, the character, scale and pattern of streets and building plots, and the quality and appropriateness of proposed

$ulfkzamv.docx

materials. The NPPF identifies that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (paragraph 17).

The Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) ‘Shaping Salford’ seeks to ensure that new development within the City is both distinctive and fits in. The SPD advises that design of new development should honor Salford’s past and reflect its ambitions for the future. UDP Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

A minimum level of information is required in order to fully consider the implications of the proposals when outline applications are considered. In this particular case, the applicant has provided an indicative layout and series of development parameter plans which detail site access, development areas, access and movement, and landscaping, hydrology and ecology. Therefore, whilst the scheme only seeks consent for the means of access, it is appropriate to consider the principle of the indicative layout against the provisions of Policies DES1, DES2 and DES7 of the adopted UDP and the Design SPD.

The Design and Access Statement presents an analysis of development opportunities and constraints and details the four design concepts which have informed the indicative layout. Development would take the form of two parcels of housing development within the site, with a green finger running between them and green space surrounding them. The southern parcel of land would be surrounded by wetland areas and swales, whilst to the north of the northern parcel of land the existing woodland would be retained with a woodland play trail introduced, and a new area of amenity space created as part of an ‘Entrance Green’ feature at the main entrance point to the site. The green finger separating the two parcels of housing development which marks the position of the existing public right of way which crosses the site in an east-west orientation would be defined by an area of amenity green space defined as ‘Drywood Greenway’ and a Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP). The Design and Access Statement defines three broad character areas and outlines the overarching defining urban design and landscape character for these areas.

The Design and Access Statement indicates that the proposed development will include a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including mews, semi-detached and detached properties. An indicative mix is provided, however the exact quantum of units will be determined through submission of any future reserved matters application. In terms of the scale of the proposed dwellings, the ‘Parameters for development areas, access and movement’ plan which forms part of the Principles and Parameters Document confirms that the majority of the development would comprise dwellings of up to 2.5 storeys, with the potential for a number of focal 3 storey dwellings located on the southern parcel of land, clustered centrally within this parcel around the indicative primary spine road.

The Design and Access Statement identifies a series of building height and size parameters as follows:

Scale of dwelling Typical height (to ridge) Maximum height (to ridge)2 storey 8.5m 9.0m2.5 storey 10.0m 10.5m3 storey 11.5m 13.0m

The approach outlined within the ‘Parameters for development areas, access and movement’ plan and the scale of dwellings defined within the Design and Access Statement is considered broadly acceptable within the context of the site.

The exact siting and design (including how the internal arrangements of the dwellings would be laid out) is reserved for future consideration and the overall acceptability of the layout would depend upon the design solution proposed at the reserved matters stage. The applicant would be expected to address detailed design issues in accordance with relevant development plan policies, the Design SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that a high quality scheme is achieved, which respects the character of the surrounding area.

At this stage it is however considered that based on the plans contained within the Principles and Parameters Document, a suitable scheme could be delivered which would ensure sufficient privacy is maintained for both future occupiers of the proposed dwellings, and occupiers of the existing residential properties which lie adjacent to or overlook the application site at Drywood Avenue, Beechwood Drive and at Drywood Lodge

$ulfkzamv.docx

(Worsley Road) and that future occupiers are provided with an appropriate level of amenity in accordance with the provisions of UDP Policy DES7. Although indicative at this stage, it is considered that the Design and Access Statement provides sufficient information to demonstrate that any future reserved matters application could be capable of complying with the Council’s policies on high quality design and could provide an appropriate level of amenity in accordance with the provisions of UDP Policy DES7, the Design SPD and the NPPF.

Design and crime

UDP Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. This approach is fully in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 58 and 69 which indicate that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments “create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.” Further policy guidance is outlined in the council’s Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.

A Crime Impact Statement has been submitted as part of the planning application, prepared by Design for Security which is part of Greater Manchester Police. The Crime Impact Statement concludes that whilst the scheme layout has yet to be determined, the Land Use Parameters plan suggests houses will be arranged in two development parcels that could readily accommodate a series of perimeter blocks with many of the houses facing out across the recreational pathways and other well located areas of open space, which is very positive from a crime prevention perspective. The statement identifies that the principal area of concern from a crime and design perspective relates to the proposed footpath links through the development and the potential for offenders to use the rights of way as a conduit to commit crime and disorder. The statement identifies a series of recommendations in this context to inform the detailed design of the site at any future reserved matters stage, such as for example ensuring that the retained public rights of way are suitably visible and overlooked by the housing development, that boundary treatments are appropriate and robust, that parking provision is laid out in semi-private or private spaces, and that houses are built to Secured by Design standards.

It is considered that these issues could be addressed as part of any future reserved matters application. The submission of a Crime Prevention Plan would be required as part of any future reserved matters application, and this would be secured via planning condition.

As such it is considered that the plans which are contained within the Principles and Parameters Document, and would be conditioned associated with any grant of consent, demonstrate that future reserved matters applications would be capable of complying with the requirements of UDP Policy DES10 and the Design and Crime SPD.

Pollution

The NPPF identifies 12 core planning principles, one of which indicates that planning should “contribute to....reducing pollution.” To prevent unacceptable risks from air pollution, planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The NPPF states that the effects of pollution on health and the sensitivity of the area and the development should be taken into account. NPPF paragraph 124 makes clear that planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan. In addition, UDP Policy EN17 seeks to ensure that development does not have a detrimental impact on environmentally sensitive uses by way of an increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution), water or soil, or by reason of noise, odour, artificial light or vibration.

i. Air Quality

The application site lies outside the designated Air Quality Management Area, however the applicant has submitted an Air Quality Assessment (AQA) in support of the planning application due to the scale of the proposed development. The Air Quality Assessment is set out within chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement and has been carried out by Air Quality Consultants Ltd.

The report assesses existing and future air quality, both with and without the development, in order to assess the impact of the completed development when occupied. It also considers the air quality impacts arising from the construction phase. The report identifies that the application site lies outside the designated Air Quality

$ulfkzamv.docx

Management Area, and that whilst parts of Worsley Road do lie within the designated area these are over 300m from the application site.

The report finds that future air pollutant levels will be below the relevant air quality standards and that no specific mitigation measures are required. It concludes that upon completion and occupation of the development, the impact of vehicle exhaust emissions are predicted to be insignificant at any of the sensitive locations within the vicinity. In terms of the construction phase, the report identifies that the use of good practice control measures and the implementation of a dust management plan would provide suitable mitigation for a development of this size and would reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level.

The submitted documents have been reviewed by the Council’s Air and Noise Consultant who raises no objections to the proposed development on air quality grounds, subject to a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Method Statement in order to control dust and other environmental issues during the construction phase.

ii. Noise

NPPF paragraph 123 states that local planning authorities should avoid granting consent for development which would give rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of noise, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

The applicant has submitted a noise and vibration assessment report in support of the planning application, which is set out within chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement and has been carried out by Cundall. The report comprises a noise survey of the existing noise climate and an assessment of the mitigation measures required in order for the proposed development to achieve the required standards for internal and external noise.

The report concludes that the prevailing noise source at the proposed development is road traffic and that in order to achieve the internal noise criteria a glazing and ventilation strategy is recommended. The report identifies that whilst the noise standards for private residential garden areas would be met by approximately 90% of plots, there may be some plots (primarily those in close proximity to the A572 Worsley Road) where the predicted noise level would exceed the 55 dB(A) standard. The report identifies that close-boarded timber fences erected around these rear garden areas of between 1.8 – 2.0m in height would assist in mitigating the impact of noise to these garden areas.

The submitted documents have been reviewed by the Council’s Air and Noise Consultant who agrees with the recommendations of the noise and vibration assessment report, but considers that it should be achievable for all of the proposed private residential garden areas to meet the required standard for external noise levels of less than 55 dB(A) (via the detailed design of the scheme and the detail of any acoustic barriers) and that it should therefore be demonstrated at the reserved matters stage how this standard would be achieved. As such, the Council’s Air and Noise Consultant has raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions that require the defined noise standards be attained by the proposed dwellings, and the submission of a scheme for the erection of appropriately positioned acoustic barriers and their subsequent implementation in order to ensure that defined noise standards are achieved within the garden areas of all proposed dwellings.

In relation to the request for a condition requiring the erection of appropriately positioned acoustic barriers, this has been subject to further discussion with the Council’s Air and Noise Consultant. It is clear that the erection of an acoustic barrier may be unacceptable in design terms, particularly if it were to be sited along or in proximity to the site’s frontage to Worsley Road where the character of the area is defined by its open tree lined appearance. On the basis of further discussion, the Council’s Air and Noise Consultant considers that it should be possible through the detailed design, layout and orientation of the properties and their boundary treatments, to ensure that the identified noise standards in relation to private garden areas can be achieved. As such, the Council’s Air and Noise Consultant has confirmed that a condition relating to an acoustic barrier is not required.

iii. Contaminated Land

NPPF paragraph 121 states that planning decisions should ensure that the proposed site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions, including pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation.

$ulfkzamv.docx

A Phase 1 Environmental Review has been submitted with the application. This comprises a review of historical and geological mapping, available environmental data, site walkover and historic site investigations in order to produce a preliminary conceptual model for the application site. The report concludes that site-wide contamination is unlikely on the site.

The Council’s Land Contamination Consultant has reviewed the submitted documents and concurs with the findings, but highlights that the site investigation report produced in 2013 by the applicant’s appointed environmental consultants should be updated as part of future detailed site investigations with further gas monitoring required in order to confirm the position.

As such, the Council’s Land Contamination Consultant raises no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions being attached requiring a site investigation report to address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on the site, together with the submission of any proposed remedial works and their subsequent implementation, and the submission of a verification report to validate that all remedial works have been undertaken in accordance with the agreed measures.

The Environment Agency has also reviewed the submitted Phase 1 Environmental Review. The Environment Agency response confirms that the site history does not indicate that past land use will have resulted in significant widespread contamination on the site and that both groundwater and surface water sampling have been carried out, which has not identified any significant soil or groundwater contamination. As such, the Environment Agency response confirms that based on the submitted information the site appears to be low risk to the environment, and therefore no objection is raised on land contamination grounds subject to a condition requiring submission of proposed remedial works and their subsequent implementation, should contamination be found.

Ecology, Nature Conservation and Trees

NPPF paragraph 109 identifies that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

An ecological appraisal undertaken by ESL (Ecological Services) Ltd has been submitted as part of this planning application in order to assess the likely environmental effects of the proposed development on the biodiversity and nature conservation interest of the application site and its surroundings. This is contained within Chapter 8 of the submitted Environmental Statement.

The assessment has taken into account the potential effects of the development on statutorily protected species and habitats listed in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, together with the habitats and species of Principal Importance listed by the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and Local Nature Reserves (LNR) lying close to the site. The Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats and species, adjacent non-statutory sites such as the Bridgewater Canal, and locally important designations sites identified in the Local Plan, including the Worsley Greenway, are also considered.

A full suite of ecological surveys were carried out in 2011/12 in relation to a larger area that encompassed the application site within its scope, which were submitted in support of the previous planning application (13/63157/OUTEIA). The assessment undertaken for the current application draws on the information provided by these previous surveys, but has been revisited on the basis of a series of ecological surveys undertaken between April and August 2016. Following a walkover survey to note obvious changes since 2012, a series of more detailed surveys were undertaken, namely for plant communities and species, great crested newts, bats, and breeding birds. In addition, an updating survey visit was also carried out for invertebrates.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) have reviewed the submitted documents. In relation to the updated surveys and additional field assessments undertaken in 2016 to inform the ecological appraisal, GMEU have confirmed that these appear to have used reasonable effort and appropriate methodologies. GMEU highlight a limited number of minor errors and omissions within the data, however they confirm that these minor oversights do not invalidate the assessments or the ecological appraisal conclusions. GMEU consider that the 2016 survey

$ulfkzamv.docx

results and evaluation are in agreement with the assessment provided in 2013, that the site offers local value for a large number of features but provides habitat of more than local value in terms of i) species-rich marshy grassland with some standing water, and ii) some of the assemblage of birds such as reed bunting and curlew.

GMEU raise no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions which require i) submission of the detailed design of the SuDS works that demonstrates how the proposals will effectively mitigate the impact of the loss of existing wetland habitats on the site, ii) submission of a detailed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan that demonstrates how the marshy grassland and access arrangements can be delivered and the management and maintenance arrangements for the new areas of habitat created to ensure their effective management over the lifetime of the development, iii) submission of further bat survey work at the reserved matters stage with a particular focus on assessing those trees which are proposed to be removed to facilitate the development and to assess whether any flight lines/foraging routes away from these trees would be impeded by the proposed development, iv) submission of a lighting scheme to demonstrate how the woodland edge and other edge habitats would be appropriately lit to allow for bat foraging.

The Environment Agency has reviewed the submitted information. In terms of biodiversity, the Environment Agency confirm that they generally welcome the proposed development's commitment to achieve sustainable development, biodiversity gain and enhance the overall wildlife value of the site within applicant's ownership. They also welcome the applicant's commitment to appropriately mitigate for lost Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) wetland habitat by creating additional wildlife habitat to that which will be initially lost through the development proposals, recognising that detail would be provided at the reserved matters stage to show how these design principles will be achieved. As such, the Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring submission and approval of a landscape management plan to ensure an effective management regime is put in place for all landscaped areas to protect the ecological value of the site and the wider wildlife corridor, including the Sindsley Brook watercourse, new SuDS pond and associated wetland BAP habitat. This would require details of the extent and type of new planning, maintenance regimes and maintenance responsibilities, non-native invasive species control, site boundaries and buffers around existing water bodies, and details of any new pond or wetland habitat to be created.

i. Impacts on International and National Sites

The nearest site of international importance is Manchester Mosses Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is approximately 7km south west of the site and is designated for its raised bog habitats. There are no National Nature Reserves (NNRs) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within 5km of the site, the nearest being Astley & Bedford Mosses SSSI (part of the Manchester Mosses SAC). On this basis the submitted ecological appraisal concludes that there is no connection between the site and these habitats, and it is considered very unlikely that the proposed development will impact them in any way.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit and statutory consultees have raised no issues in relation to this conclusion and as such it is considered that the proposed development raises no conflict with regard to UDP Policy EN7 and the requirements of the NPPF in this regard.

ii. Impacts on Local Sites

Worsley Woods Local Nature Reserve (LNR), which is also a Local Wildlife Site (Site of Biological Importance (SBI)), comprises a range of woodland and plantations, a reservoir and ponds and lies beyond the site to the north, with the nearest point lying approximately 200m to the north of the application site beyond Bridgewater School.

Although not directly adjacent to the site, a stretch of the Bridgewater Canal (between Monton and Barton Bridge) is designated as a SBI due to its important populations of aquatic plant communities. The application site lies approximately 930m to the north west of the nearest part of the Bridgewater Canal which is designated as an SBI.

The submitted ecological appraisal concludes that the proposed development will result in no impact on Worsley Woods or the Bridgewater Canal as locally designated sites. Greater Manchester Ecology Unit has raised no issues in relation to this conclusion and as such it is considered that the proposed development raises no conflict with regard to UDP Policy EN8 and the requirements of the NPPF in this regard.

iii. Impacts on protected and priority species

$ulfkzamv.docx

The submitted ecological appraisal identifies that no presence of protected species was found within the application site as part of the ecological survey work. It confirms that a number of species of Principal Importance listed by the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 were recorded on or near the site in 2012 as part of the ecological survey work undertaken at this time.

The ecological appraisal identifies that there are no records of great crested newts on the site or in the immediate surrounding area, and as such great crested newts are not considered to be an ecological feature of the application site. It also identifies that the remaining amphibians identified are widespread and common in the local area and are not legally protected. On the basis that suitable habitat exists for them close to the application site, the ecological appraisal concludes that they are considered to be of local importance at most, and also likely to be resilient to the impacts of development, and as such they are not considered to be an important ecological feature.

The ecological appraisal considers that bats do not form an important ecological feature of the site. However, it acknowledges that some of the mature trees within and around the site have features suitable for use by roosting bats, and the potential to develop more in the future. The edge habitats are clearly important for commuting and foraging bats, all species of which are statutorily protected, and as such the ecological appraisal considers that these habitats are an important ecological feature in at least a local context. The appraisal confirms that the six trees identified as having potential bat roosting features would be retained as part of the application scheme.

The ecological appraisal identifies that a total of 32 bird species were recorded using the site during the six breeding bird survey visits, including three species of Principal Importance listed by the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, namely dunnock, song thrush, and reed bunting. Song thrush is a Red List species while dunnock and reed bunting are included on the Amber List. A further two Red List species, grey wagtail and mistle thrush, together with three further Amber List species, snipe, stock dove, and house martin, were also recorded during the breeding bird survey.

The appraisal considers that all the species recorded are common and widespread and typical of the habitats present on the site. It acknowledges that whilst not particularly diverse, the assemblage present does include several woodland and wetland species and is considered to be of some local interest but likely to be resilient to the effects of development. It identifies that the most important habitats for breeding birds within the application site are areas of dense scrub and the marshy grassland area, whilst the open grassland areas (especially where heavily-grazed) do not appear to be used by breeding species other than for feeding.

GMEU consider that the 2016 survey results and evaluation are in agreement with the assessment provided in 2013, that the site offers local value for a large number of features but provides habitat of more than local value in terms of some of the assemblage of birds such as reed bunting and curlew which are identified as occupying the marshy grassland (and both of which are S41 Species of Principal Importance). GMEU also note that starling and song thrush were identified as present and foraging within the drier grassland, and that reed bunting was present in the marshy grassland on the day of GMEU’s site survey.

In relation to bats, GMEU acknowledge that the six trees identified as having potential bat roosting features would be retained as part of the application scheme. GMEU do however recommend that at any future reserved matters stage, further bat survey work be undertaken with a particular focus on assessing those trees which are proposed to be removed to facilitate the development and to assess whether any flight lines/foraging routes away from these trees would be impeded by the proposed development. GMEU also recommend that any grant of consent is conditioned to require submission of a lighting scheme to demonstrate how the woodland edge and other edge habitats would be appropriately lit to allow for dark space for bat foraging

As such, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 17 and the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity SPD.

iv. Impacts on important habitats

The submitted ecological appraisal identifies that habitats present on the site comprise semi-improved grassland, marshy grassland, standing water, disturbed ground, mixed woodland, scrub and mature standard

$ulfkzamv.docx

trees. The higher, northern part of the site is mainly semi-improved grassland with a small area of mixed woodland in the north west corner. To the south and west the ground slopes downward, and the grassland becomes wetter, culminating in a fairly large area of species-rich marshy grassland with a network of small seasonal pools on the west side. An area of disturbed ground is also present in the south west of the site, left by earlier drainage works, and a damp, shallow channel, formerly a line of Sindsley Brook, follows the post and barbed wire fence which forms the southern boundary of the site. The Bridgewater Canal adjoins the site’s southern tip and at this location both banks are reinforced and no marginal or aquatic vegetation is evident.

The ecological appraisal identifies that all of the habitats recorded are common and widespread within a local and national context, and that no nationally rare, nationally scarce, Red Data Book, S41 Principal Species or Greater Manchester BAP priority plant species were recorded within the site. The appraisal considers that most of the plant communities on the site are similarly common and unthreatened, and are not important ecological features. It does however identify that the species-rich marshy grassland on the southern part of the site is a S41 Principal Habitat, and also a Greater Manchester Biodiversity Habitat, and this community is considered to be an important ecological feature in a county context. Approximately 1ha of marshy grassland would be lost to the development.

GMEU consider that the 2016 survey results and evaluation are in agreement with the assessment provided in 2013, that the site offers local value for a large number of features but provides habitat of more than local value in terms of species-rich marshy grassland with some standing water. This habitat type is identified as a NERC Habitat of Principal Importance and is also assessed as meeting criteria for selection as SBI (Site of Biological Importance), and of importance in the county context.

In terms of mitigation for the loss of habitat, the submitted ecological appraisal identifies that whilst the development will result in the loss of the marshy grassland and wet flashes in their present position, a larger area of wetland habitat will be created within the site comprising open water and marshy grassland at the southern end of the site, linking with further marshy grassland along newly created swales. Within their comments, GMEU confirm that the re-creation of marshy grassland can off-set the loss of habitat in biodiversity terms (notwithstanding that this will limit the area of green space which can serve a recreation / amenity function for residents). GMEU recommend that in order to compensate for the loss of the standing open water within the marshy grassland, the SuDS scheme should be designed to incorporate a pond. The applicant has confirmed that the SuDS scheme has the potential to incorporate standing open water in normal rainfall conditions and as such it is considered that the detailed design and implementation of a SuDS scheme that secures appropriate wetland habitat to offset the loss of existing habitat could be secured via planning condition.

The ecological appraisal confirms that in addition to this, habitat creation and enhancement of existing features to improve their current value would be carried out to maximise biodiversity gain. The mixed woodland block along the northern boundary of the site to Worsley Road would be retained with the exception of a break to facilitate the construction of the vehicular access point, and the planting of native trees and scrub along the south-east and south-west boundaries of the site would complement the retained trees on the site and provide linking corridors which would over time provide nesting habitat for breeding birds and movement corridors for bats.

v. Impact on the wildlife corridor

The site is identified on the UDP Proposals Map as a Wildlife Corridor Key Area of Search (UDP Policy EN9). The applicant acknowledges that the site has value as a wildlife corridor; however they consider that the site would continue to function as a wildlife corridor both during and post development.

GMEU have highlighted within their comments that the application site lies within part of the Worsley Greenway Wildlife Corridor Key Area of Search which is relatively narrow in comparison to other stretches of this corridor. GMEU consider that whilst the application proposal would compensate for the loss of marshy grassland, this will not entirely replicate the function or character of the matrix of current habitats within open pasture land which is of value for species movement and foraging. GMEU highlight that the introduction of residential development will further narrow and bifurcate the existing resource and there will be an increase in the presence of domestic predators as well as human disturbance. Whilst there will therefore be a degree of harm to the function of this area of land as a wildlife corridor, in the context of the linear habitat areas that would be created around the periphery of the site and the open nature of the land which adjoins the application site to the north and east, it is not considered that the proposed development would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna. As such it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with UDP Policy EN9 in this regard.

$ulfkzamv.docx

vi. Protection of water quality within Sindsley Brook and the Bridgewater Canal

The ecological appraisal confirms that best practice measures to protect the water quality of the Sindsley Brook and the Bridgewater Canal will be implemented and monitored throughout the construction phase. This could be secured via condition as part of the requirement for a Construction Method Statement, with the condition specifically referring to the requirement for the statement to detail measures to prevent the pollution of watercourses.

vii. Protection of nesting birds

Site clearance during the bird breeding season has the potential to damage or destroy bird nests, which would constitute an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). GMEU recommend a condition to ensure that any vegetation clearance or earth moving is undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March – August inclusive). Having regard to the tests for planning conditions set out within the Planning Practice Guidance, it is however not considered proportionate to apply a condition in this regard given that this is addressed via alternative legislation. This would however be identified as an informative for the applicant associated with any grant of consent.

ix. Trees

An Arboricultural Report has been submitted as part of the application submission in accordance with the requirement of Policy TD1 of the Trees and Development SPD. The report provides a schedule of trees surveyed (classified in accordance with BS 5837:2012), together with a tree constraints plan, an arboricultural impact assessment and a tree removal plan. The report identifies a total of 146 individual trees and 32 groups of trees within the application site and on adjacent land. Of these, approximately half of the trees have been categorised as Category A trees and groups (trees of high quality and value which make a substantial contribution). There is a Tree Preservation Order (TPO50) which covers trees within and adjacent to the site, which includes the group of trees which lies along the site’s northern boundary with Worsley Road, and a group of trees which lies directly to the east of the application site boundary.

The Arboricultural Report identifies that four Category A trees (T18, T19, T20 and T21) which lie along the site’s northern boundary with Worsley Road would need to be removed in order to facilitate the laying out of the vehicular access to the site. In addition, the report identifies that a further 22 trees would be removed, however these trees are all categorised as Category U trees (trees in such a condition that any existing value would be lost within 10 years and which should in the current context be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management). The report also confirms that a number of trees have the potential to be affected by the proposal and that tree protection methods would therefore be applied in relation to these trees to ensure that they are adequately protected throughout the construction phase.

The four Category A trees to be removed comprise three Limes and one Oak and their position in relation to the proposed site access is shown on the plan below:

$ulfkzamv.docx

The Planning Statement confirms that further limited removal may be required in order to facilitate the creation of the proposed highway footway along the south side of Worsley Road, and that this would be confirmed at the reserved matters stage associated with detailed design works. The Planning Statement confirms that the loss of trees will be mitigated through the extensive planting, landscaping and open space proposals which form part of this application.

The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant has reviewed the submitted report. They consider that the trees proposed for removal form part of a linear group which flanks Worsley Road, and that the loss of components of this group could have a mid to long-term impact upon the retained trees, and result in an impact on ground conditions for the retained trees. The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant considers that the removal of these trees could make the remaining trees more susceptible to storm damage. They also consider that the change in soil conditions to facilitate the vehicular access may contribute to the short to mid-term decline of the trees either side of the access point.

The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant considers that an alternative point of vehicular access further west along Worsley Road may prove more acceptable in terms of arboricultural impact. Whilst this would result in the loss of a greater number of trees in total, they consider that the impact would be reduced compared to the removal of the four mature trees proposed which form a prominent feature within the avenue of mature trees along this stretch of Worsley Road.

It must however be recognised that this current application proposes the same point of vehicular access to the site as was proposed in relation to the previous application 13/63157/OUTEIA and where the loss of trees in this regard was not challenged. It is also recognised that there is extensive scope for replacement tree planting across the application site in relation to the areas of green space which are proposed.

The application proposal will result in harm in terms of the removal of these four mature trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Order, and it is recognised that this removal has the potential to prejudice the future of a number of adjacent trees which could be more susceptible to storm damage. In the context of the number of trees which are to be retained across the site as a whole, and the replacement planting proposed across the areas of green space within the site, it is not however considered that this would result in an unacceptable loss. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with UDP Policy EN13 in this regard, subject to relevant conditions to require tree protection measures, and replacement tree planting within the site.

Flood risk, drainage and utilities

$ulfkzamv.docx

NPPF paragraph 103 indicates that local planning authorities, when determining planning applications, should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where it can be demonstrated that the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, and where development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant. In addition, UDP Policy EN18 seeks to ensure that development would not have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground water. Salford’s Flood Risk and Development planning guidance expands further on these policies.

The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment undertaken by RPS which forms part of chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement. The assessment states that the Environment Agency’s indicative floodplain map identifies that the site is entirely located within Flood Zone 1 (low risk), with the exception of a small area of land at the site’s southern tip which lies within Flood Zone 2. The area of land which lies within Flood Zone 2 is not proposed for built development. Additional flood modelling to assess the potential increased impact of climate change has been undertaken by RPS and identifies flood levels of 24.76 m AOD for the 1 in 100 year plus 35% climate change event, and the assessment therefore confirms that the relevant flood extent does not extend on the site. The assessment confirms that building slab levels for new dwellings will be set a minimum of 26m AOD (exceeding the 1 in 100 year plus 35% climate change event) and that in reality slab levels will be much higher than this across the majority of the site taking account of the existing topography which rises from south to north.

The assessment also confirms that the Environment Agency mapping identifies that southern/south western parts of the site are at risk of surface water flooding and that there are surface water flooding conveyance routes across the site. In terms of mitigating surface water flooding, the assessment identifies that surface water conveyance routes will be assessed as part of detailed site design to ensure appropriate mitigation is incorporated, and that the proposed on-site surface water manage systems will be designed able to accommodate such flows. The assessment confirms that the site is not susceptible to groundwater flooding and that there is a limited risk of flooding from other sources.

The application site is a greenfield site in the Core Conurbation Critical Drainage Area and therefore the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) requires that surface water runoff be restricted to the existing greenfield runoff rate. In terms of surface water management, the assessment confirms that the potential for the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) has been considered. An outline surface water drainage strategy has been developed for the site which includes swales and detention basins. This would include both wet and dry swales, and these would provide attenuation (up to 1,145m3) and would function as a means of providing surface water conveyance. The attenuation ponds would provide a significant volume of attenuation (up to 2,955m3) and would form part of the surface water treatment train.

The assessment finds that on the basis of ground conditions, it is considered that traditional soakaways are unlikely to provide a feasible method for the disposal of surface water run-off from the site. Subject to percolation testing at the detailed design stage, the assessment identifies that it may however be possible to accommodate shallow soakaways (such as those below porous paving) on the northern part of the site, and that there is potential to include permeable / porous paving within some areas of the proposed development (such as turning heads, sections of non-through roads and car parking spaces/bays). The assessment considers that should the attenuation requirement of the site exceed the capacity of these SuDS techniques then any shortage could be addressed through underground storage tanks or oversized pipes within the surface water drainagenetwork. As such, the proposals would be capable of complying with the SFRA requirement in terms of surface water runoff being restricted to the existing greenfield runoff rate.

The Council’s Flood Risk and Drainage Engineer has reviewed the submitted information and considers that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy represents a robust assessment. As such, the Flood Risk and Drainage Engineer raises no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring submission and subsequent implementation of a detailed drainage strategy as part of any future reserved matters application that is compliant with the mitigation measures identified in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. In order to discharge this condition, the Flood Risk and Drainage Engineer highlights that any future reserved matters application would need to be accompanied by a final drainage layout together with hydraulic calculations to demonstrate that surface water discharge will be restricted to the existing greenfield rate, that there will be no flooding in a 1 in 30 year event, and that there will be no internal flooding in a 1 in 100 year plus climate change event.

The Environment Agency has also reviewed the submitted information. In terms of flood risk, the Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring maintenance of an

$ulfkzamv.docx

undeveloped easement of a minimum width of 8m from the bank top of Sindsley Brook as it is a designated main river. The Environment Agency has also advised that any proposed works or structures within 8m of the bank of Sindsley Brook may require an Environmental Permit. In terms of sustainable drainage, the Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring submission of a surface water drainage system for the site based on sustainable drainage principles that details how it will aim to maximise biodiversity and where feasible enhance water quality, in order to protect and improve water quality and improve habitat value within Worsley Greenway.

United Utilities raise no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions regarding foul and surface water drainage, and sustainable drainage. United Utilities advise that a public sewer crosses the site which will require an access strip width of six metres and that United Utilities may not permit building over the line of the sewer. The sludge main that crosses the site is identified within the ‘Existing site features and technical constraints’ plan which forms part of the Principles and Parameters document, and an easement is identified in relation to this pipeline.

On this basis, it is considered that the development would be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and would contribute to a local reduction in flood risk. It is therefore considered to comply with UDP Policies EN18 and EN19 to meet the requirements of the NPPF with regard to flood risk.

Heritage and archaeology

i. Heritage

A Heritage Assessment has been submitted as part of the planning application, and forms an appendix to Chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement. Whilst there are no built heritage assets on the site, there are a number of designated heritage assets within proximity of the application site. Worsley Village Conservation Area lies approximately 120m to the west of the site, and the Grade II listed Drywood Hall lies approximately 50m to the north of the site across Worsley Road. In addition, Drywood Lodge (Worsley Road), which is a non-designated local heritage asset, lies approximately 30m to the west of the site.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting “special regard” will be given to the “desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

Section 72 confirms that “special attention” is to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a conservation area. The meaning of “preservation” is taken to be the avoidance of harm.

The implication of the wording “special regard” and “special attention” is that these factors should be given additional weight in decision making and not simply the same weight as any other material consideration.

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It then continues to say that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that as heritage assets are irreplaceable any harm or loss “should require clear and convincing justification”.

Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that substantial harm or loss is outweighed by substantial public benefits. Paragraph 134 states that where a proposal leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The significance of a heritage asset relates to the value of the asset because of its heritage interest which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. However, significance derives not only from an asset’s physical presence but also from its setting.

In the annex to the NPPF the setting of a heritage asset is described as “the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”.

The submitted Heritage Assessment identifies a number of designated and non-designated heritage assets within a 1km radius of the site. It is considered that the majority of these assets are too far away from the application site to experience any impact arising from the proposal. Notwithstanding this, there are three assets which must be considered more fully owing to their closer proximity to the application site.

The Grade II listed Drywood Hall lies approximately 50m to the north of the site across Worsley Road. Drywood Hall was built in 1855 as a dwelling but now forms part of Bridgewater School and is predominantly of two storeys with projecting wings to the rear. It has a timber frame with slate and graduated stone slate roof. To the front of the building is a central two storey porch consisting of a gabled upper part supported by circular columns and carved brackets. The gable includes decorative timber panelling with a 5-light timber mullion window and the Bridgewater coat of arms. The Heritage Assessment identifies that the building is primarily experienced from the open parcel of land to its immediate south that lies between Worsley Road and the building, and also that it “sits within a relatively well enclosed and well defined setting, bounded by Worsley Road to the south.” It continues to state that “the building is largely screened by mature trees to the south and modern buildings to its west, north and east”. It is therefore difficult to obtain clear views of the Hall from Worsley Road.

The submitted Principles and Parameters Document identifies that the majority of the existing mature trees and woodland along the application site’s frontage to Worsley Road would be maintained with the exception of the removal of four trees to facilitate the site’s vehicular access, and that the housing development would be set back from Worsely Road beyond areas of green space and landscaping. On the basis of the parameters defined within the Principles and Parameters Document taken together with the screening afforded to Drywood Hall from mature trees and vegetation on both the north and south frontages to Worsley Road, it is considered that there would be very limited impact upon the setting of Drywood Hall and its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Drywood Lodge is a detached dwelling which lies approximately 30m to the west of the site. It dates from the mid/late 19th Century and was built in the gothic revival style with a Tudor gothic entrance, steep pitched roofs and Elizabethan diamond chimneys. It was originally constructed from brick but has now been rendered and has a thatched roof. It is set within a woodland setting and has been included on the city council’s local list of heritage assets because of its age and aesthetic value. As such, it is considered to be a non-designated local heritage asset.

The submitted Principles and Parameters Document identifies that the woodland area which lies within the north west corner of the application site would be retained as part of any future development. This woodland currently provides the backdrop to the setting of the Lodge when viewed from Worsley Road looking in a south easterly direction. As this area of woodland is to be retained, the proposed housing development site is unlikely to be visible and therefore there should be very little, if any, impact upon the setting of the Lodge. As such it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact upon the significance of the Lodge.

Worsley Village Conservation Area lies approximately 120m to the west of the application site. Worsley Village was designated as a conservation area in 1969. In the context of the separation distance between the site and the nearest part of the conservation area, taken together with the screening of the development that would be afforded through the retention of the woodland area which lies within the north west corner of the application site, it is considered that there would be no significant detrimental impact upon the setting of the conservation area and no impact upon its character.

As such, the application proposal is considered to be in accordance with UDP Policies CH2 and CH8, and the relevant provisions of the NPPF in this regard.

ii. Archaeology

NPPF paragraph 128 states that where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

An archaeological assessment is contained within chapter 16 of the submitted Environmental Statement. This assessment is based on the archaeological desk based assessment and geophysical survey that was prepared

$ulfkzamv.docx

for the previous application (13/63157/OUTEIA) which reflected a larger site area. The assessment identifies that the archaeological interest of the site relates to the line of the Manchester to Wigan Roman Road, former field boundaries, possible ridge and furrow, and the sites of some early buildings shown on the OS 1848 map that lined Worsley Road. It identifies that a bronze bowl of undetermined date has come from the northern part of the proposal site. The assessment concludes that, despite geophysics and Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) analysis, the line of the Roman road is ill-defined but is likely to run through the development area.

The submitted documents have been reviewed by Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS). GMAAS has confirmed that subsequent to the undertaking of this archaeological study, they has been made aware by the Roman Roads Research Group of a Lidar image that appears to show the earthwork remains of the Roman Road, together with a range of other features including former field boundaries.

GMAAS concur with the conclusions of the archaeological assessment in that there are no nationally significant remains demanding preservation in situ and that archaeological interests can be dealt with through a planning condition should consent be granted. GMAAS consider that the new Lidar image, together with previous archaeological investigations, should be used to inform a programme of archaeological trial trenching to determine the location, extent, depth, date, function and relative significance of archaeological remains. The results should be matched against proposed development ground works and where archaeology is to be adversely impacted then further more detailed archaeological excavation would be required. The results of the investigations should be analysed and presented in report form, and should also be disseminated to the local and wider community at a level commensurate with their significance.

As such, GMAAS raise no objection to the proposed development subject to a programme of archaeological works being secured through an appropriate planning condition. Within their response, GMAAS confirm that they would monitor the implementation of the archaeological works on behalf of the Council, and that once archaeological site works are complete the site could then be released for development ground works.

Subject to the imposition of an appropriate planning condition requiring a programme of archaeological works it is therefore considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and UDP Policy CH5 in this regard.

Sustainability credentials

The Sustainable Design and Construction SPD seeks to ensure that sustainable design and construction measures are integrated into new developments. The application was accompanied by a Sustainability and Energy Statement and a sustainability checklist. However, during the course of the application’s consideration, the applicant has revised their approach, and in doing so has now confirmed their commitment to achieving Zero Carbon status in relation to the proposed development, with the aspiration of making this an exemplar project within Salford.

In December 2006 the then Government introduced a commitment that from 2016 all new homes would be required to achieve the Zero Carbon standard. This was requirement was however formally withdrawn in 2016 via the Housing and Planning Act, and there are no current proposals for its reintroduction. The revoked Zero Carbon standard envisaged that all new homes would be required to mitigate, through various measures, all of the carbon emissions produced on site as a result of regulated energy use. This included energy required for space heating and cooling, hot water, fixed lighting, pumps and fans. There were three core requirements that would constitute a Zero Carbon home: An energy efficient building fabric and services to reduce heat loss and energy use to an optimum level; The use of low and zero carbon technologies such as solar photovoltaic cells or air source heat pumps to

further reduce carbon emissions to an ‘optimum on-site carbon reduction target’, and Any remaining CO2 emissions would be offset via ‘allowable solutions’, which allowed for a range of options

including off-site abatement and carbon offsetting (such as contracting with a third party provider for them to deliver abatement measures, or making a payment direct to a fund investing in abatement projects), in order to deliver CO2 savings by the most cost efficient and effective mechanism.

The applicant has identified that in relation to the application proposal, they would achieve Zero Carbon homes through a combination of both on-site solutions and allowable solutions. In terms of on-site solutions, the applicant has identifies that they will target the optimum on-site carbon emission reduction of 19% above the current Building Regulations (Part L 2013) through a combination of fabric efficiency improvements, other

$ulfkzamv.docx

energy efficiency measures (such as energy efficient lighting), and on-site renewable energy technologies. They highlight that the precise energy strategy for the new dwellings would be confirmed at the detailed design stage as part of any future reserved matters application, but identify that it is likely that a combination or one or more of the following technologies may be utilised; roof mounted solar photovoltaic cells, roof mounted solar thermal cells, air or ground source heat pumps, and waste water heat recovery systems. The applicant highlights that if having maximised the use of feasible on-site solutions there remain any residual regulated emissions, these would be mitigated through allowable solutions, which could include the following; the use of certified CO2 mitigation scheme or CO2 offsetting through the creation of new green infrastructure (such as the planting of trees and other green infrastructure), supporting specific carbon reduction projects such as the installation of solar photovoltaics on other buildings within Salford, carrying out energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings in the local area or at other developments, or funding projects that could displace CO2 emissions equivalent to the quantum required.

The proposed achievement of Zero Carbon status across the proposed development exceeds policy requirements in this regard and as such represents a benefit of the scheme to be accorded weight. The proposed development would be in accordance with the NPPF, UDP Policy EN22 and the relevant policies in the Sustainable Design & Construction SPD. It is considered that the commitment to achieving Zero Carbon status could be secured by an appropriately worded condition attached to any grant of consent.

Planning obligations

The application proposes the development of up to 165 dwellings on the site. Given the scale of the development, an assessment of its impact on nearby transport infrastructure, public realm, open space and education provision is required in accordance with UDP Policy DEV5 and the Planning Obligations SPD. If considered necessary, planning obligations will be sought to mitigate the impact of the development.

It is noted that, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 204) and the statutory tests set out within Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Following negotiation between the applicant and the Council, heads of terms have been agreed which include: Education – in the event that there is no capacity in local schools and no other sites have come forward by

the time the proposed housing is delivered, the applicant commits to provide, at no cost to the Council, 1.1ha of land at Broadoak North to facilitate delivery of a primary school, together with a financial contribution to the cost of delivering the additional school places that the development would generate in line with the formula based approach set out within Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD;

Affordable housing – the provision of 30% affordable housing on site (up to 50 affordable homes). Of this, the first 20% (up to 33 affordable homes) would be in full compliance with the requirements of Policy OB1 of the Planning Obligations SPD with regard to the tenure mix. The tenure mix of the additional 10% provision (up to 17 affordable homes) which would be over and above the policy requirement has not been confirmed at this stage and would be subject to ongoing discussion as part of any future s106 legal agreement negotiations; and

Off-site open space provision – a financial contribution towards off-site provision of sports pitches and youth and adult facilities, in accordance with the formula based approach set out within Policy OB2 of the Planning Obligations SPD.

Subject to any grant of approval, these heads of terms would be secured via legal agreement.

Through the provision of on-site works, the scheme would make a significant contribution towards the delivery of green space and public realm through the provision and improvement of a total of 4.15ha of green infrastructure, including amenity space, a LEAP, ecological mitigation and sustainable urban drainage measures, and a woodland trail play area. The scheme would also deliver highway improvements including improvements to the M60 J13 eastern roundabout (Worsley Courthouse), and highway works to Worsley Road including the instatement of highway footway along the southern side of the road affording improved connection to the existing westbound bus stop. In addition, there would be improvements to a number of defined public rights of way which lie outside of the application site boundary, involving the surfacing of the routes as rolled stone paths.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Other issues

i) Prematurity

The Planning Practice Guidance provides specific guidance in terms of in what circumstances it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. The guidance states that “in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development – arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both:

(a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or neighbourhood planning; and

(b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.”

As set out above, taking into account paragraph 216 of the NPPF in terms of the weight that may be given to emerging plans, it is considered that the Draft GMSF and Draft Local Plan carry very limited weight in the determination of this planning application. Both plans are at an early stage of plan preparation and there are unresolved objections to policies that are relevant to this application (in relation to both the proposed designation as Green Belt and the proposed designation as Local Green Space). In this context, refusal of planning permission on the grounds of prematurity is not considered to be justifiable in this instance.

ii) Impact on property values

The impact of a proposed development on property values is not a material consideration that can be taken into account in the determination of a planning application.

iii) Effect of construction activity in terms of amenity for residents and visitors

Construction activity is a necessary corollary to development. Whilst a level of disturbance would result, this would be limited to the construction phase (the submission documents indicate that a three year construction phase is anticipated) and it is considered that the impacts of construction activity in terms of the amenity of surrounding residents and users of the public rights of way network could be mitigated to acceptable levels via a Construction Method Statement which could be secured via condition.

Planning balance and conclusions

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 requires the determination of this application to be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, the Development Plan for Salford comprises the following documents: -

The saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies The Greater Manchester Joint Waste Development Plan Document (Waste DPD) The Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Development Plan Document (Minerals DPD)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and is the most recent expression of Government policy. Whilst the NPPF does not change the legal status of the Development Plan, it constitutes an important material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The NPPF constitutes the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF makes clear that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council’s most up to date five-year supply position covers the period between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021 and is fully set out in a report that was published in November 20164. This report concludes that in determining planning applications for new housing development, the Council will apply a housing requirement based on the latest household projections (2014-based) with a 5% buffer. On this basis, the Council considers that there is an 8.7 years supply of deliverable sites for housing over the period between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021 and as such a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites can be demonstrated.

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court (10 May 2017) in Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and anor Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and anor v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] UKSC 37 has confirmed that a narrow interpretation should be taken regarding what is meant by "policies for the supply of housing" in paragraph 49 of the NPPF. The Court saw no justification for interpreting this as policies affecting the supply of housing. As such saved UDP Policies EN2 and R4 should not be considered as relevant policies for the supply of housing. Notwithstanding this, as set out above, the Council considers that a five-year supply of deliverable sites can be demonstrated and as such the implication of the second limb of NPPF paragraph 49 is not engaged.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. Paragraph 14 confirms that for decision-taking this means: “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission

unless:o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; oro specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

For the reasons set out above within this report, it is considered that the application proposal would be contrary to the provisions of saved UDP Policies EN2 and R4. As such, the first limb of paragraph 14 does not apply, as the proposal does not accord with the development plan. The development plan is not absent or silent, and it is not considered that the relevant policies are out-of-date. As such, the second limb of paragraph 14 is also not engaged.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the determination of this application to be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As set out above, it is considered that the application proposal would be contrary to the provisions of saved UDP Policies EN2 and R4 and as such does not accord with the development plan. In terms of assessing other material considerations, one test to assess other material considerations is to assess the application against the three dimensions of sustainable development as set out within paragraph 7 of the NPPF; namely economic, social and environmental. The Framework advises that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent, and that to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously.

An economic role

NPPF paragraph 19 states that, “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” The Government has identified the delivery of housing as a key driver of future economic growth and stimulation of the economy.

The development would deliver economic benefits both during the construction period through the creation of employment opportunities, and following occupation of the proposed dwellings where a proportion of household expenditure can be expected to be spent within the local economy. In addition, the development would generate

4 Salford City Council (November 2016) Salford’s five-year housing land supply position: 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2021

$ulfkzamv.docx

additional Council Tax revenue and New Homes Bonus payments to the Council to support investment within the city.

The development would also result in wider economic benefits through the provision of high quality, family housing. The provision of family housing would contribute to a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area and would support the objectives for continued economic growth of the city.

As such, it is considered that the proposed development would contribute positively to the economic role of sustainability.

A social role

NPPF paragraph 7 refers to the social dimension of sustainable development, supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing. The need to widen the choice of high quality homes is reiterated in paragraph 9 and in Section 6 of the NPPF ‘Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes’.

As set out above, it is recognised that the provision of family housing would contribute to a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area. The proposed development would also deliver affordable homes which would contribute towards meeting the identified shortfall of affordable housing (an annual need has been identified by the Council of around 760 homes per annum) and would contribute to the creation of mixed communities recognising that there is more limited provision of affordable housing within the Worsley area. The applicant has confirmed that the first 20% of provision (up to 33 affordable homes) would be in full compliance with the requirements of Policy OB1 of the Planning Obligations SPD with regard to tenure mix, and that the tenure mix of the additional 10% provision (up to 17 affordable homes) which would be over and above the policy requirement would be subject to ongoing discussion as part of any future s106 legal agreement negotiations. The first 20% of provision should therefore be given positive weight in the determination of the application, as it would deliver up to 33 affordable homes that would assist in meeting the identified need for affordable housing. In relation to the additional 10% provision that is proposed over and above the policy requirement, regard must be had to Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). The affordable housing provision would need to be secured via legal agreement, and Regulation 122 confirms that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission where it meets three tests. The first test it that the obligation would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The provision of an additional 10% of affordable units (up to 17 affordable homes) exceeds the Council’s policy requirement in this regard, and as such it is considered that under Regulation 122 this should not be given any weight in terms of the determination of this planning application. Notwithstanding this, if an alternative view were to be taken that Regulation 122 did not prevent the additional 10% provision being taken into account in the determination of this application, then it is considered that relatively limited weight should be accorded to this additional 10% on the basis that the proposed approach to tenure and mix has not been confirmed at this stage, and as such the extent to which this element would address the city’s affordable housing need cannot be fully assessed.

The proposed development would also contribute towards the provision of a primary school through the provision of a 1.1ha site at no cost to the Council together with the provision of a financial contribution towards the cost of delivering the school. It is recognised that there is limited capacity within existing primary schools within the local catchment, and that there are very limited opportunities to increase primary school capacity within the surrounding area. As such, the provision of land to facilitate the delivery of a one form entry primary school would create significant additional capacity over and above the pupil place requirement that a development of this scale could be expected to generate, and as such this is a social benefit that can be afforded considerable weight.

The development would also deliver green space with enhanced formal recreation provision in terms of a LEAP and a woodland trail play area, which would be accessible to both residents of the proposed development and residents across the wider area. It is however considered that these benefits in terms of green space provision would be offset by the significant impact of the proposed development on the amenity and recreation value for users of the public rights of way which surround and cross the application site, where the existing open vistas and semi-rural character of this part of the Worsley Greenway as enjoyed from these routes would be largely lost.

$ulfkzamv.docx

Whilst the benefits in terms of affordable housing provision and the setting aside of land for a primary school are significant benefits to which considerable weight should be accorded, this needs to be balanced against the negative impact in terms of the harm to the value and recreation function of the public rights of way which surround and cross the application site. On balance it is considered that the proposed development would contribute negatively overall in terms of the social role of sustainability.

An environmental role

NPPF paragraph 7 refers to the environmental dimension of sustainable development, as being the contribution to protecting and enhancing the natural, historic and built environment. Part of this is to help improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently including mitigating and adapting to climate change.

For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the development would fragment the openness and continuity of the Worsley Greenway, and would result in unacceptable harm to its character and its value as an amenity and open recreation resource. As such the development would fundamentally conflict with UDP Policy EN2 in this regard.

The proposed development would result in a degree of harm to the function of this area of land as a wildlife corridor due to the introduction of residential development which would further narrow and bifurcate the existing resource together with an increase in the presence of domestic predators as well as human disturbance. However, it is not considered that the proposed development would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna in this regard, and that the proposed ecological mitigation works via the provision of landscaped buffers around the development parcels and the creation of replacement marshy grassland and wetland habitats would in part offset the harm in this regard.

The proposed development would also result in the loss of 4.2 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land, however it is recognised that the agricultural value of this land is necessarily constrained by its isolation from other areas of agricultural land.

The applicant has confirmed their commitment to achieving Zero Carbon status across the proposed development. This would exceed policy requirements in this regard and as such represents a benefit of the scheme and is accorded moderate weight.

Taking all of these issues together, it is however considered that the proposed development would result in significant harm in environmental terms, which should be accorded very substantial weight in the overall planning balance.

Overall conclusions

It is recognised that the application proposal would contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, together with a range of other substantive benefits including the provision of up to 50 affordable homes, the provision of land at no cost to the Council to accommodate a one form primary school together with a financial contribution towards its construction, and other wider economic benefits.

It is however considered that the adverse impacts of the proposed development in terms of the fragmentation and loss of openness of the Worsley Greenway and the harm to its character and its value as an amenity and open recreation resource would fundamentally conflict with UDP Policy EN2. It is considered that the harm that would result from the proposed development in terms of fragmenting the openness and continuity of the Worsley Greenway, and harming its character and its value as an amenity and open recreation resource, would result in a fundamental conflict with UDP Policy EN2. In addition it is considered that the proposed development would conflict with UDP Policy R4 in that the development would not protect and enhance the existing and potential recreational use of the area, nor would it protect and improve the amenity of the area.

The Council considers that it can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and through the Draft Local Plan and the Council’s role in informing the preparation of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, the Council is working to ensure the provision of a balanced supply of new housing across the city via the plan-led system. Whilst the Draft GMSF and Draft Local Plan can carry very limited weight in the determination of this planning application due their early stage of preparation, it is clear that the intention of UDP Policy EN2 in terms of protecting the openness and continuity of the Worsley Greenway is proposed to be carried forward and further strengthened by the policies within these emerging plans.

$ulfkzamv.docx

In the context of Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, it is not considered that the application is in accordance with the development plan and other material considerations do not outweigh this conflict and the resultant harm in this regard.

It may be argued that the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date in the context of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, on the basis that the UDP plan period is 2004 – 2016. One interpretation may be that the relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered out of date given that there are no saved policies within the development plan which define Salford’s housing requirement, and as the majority of housing allocations under UDP Policy H9 have now been developed out. In relation to the relevant UDP Policies EN2 and R4, it is not considered that these policies are out-of-date, as their status as designations is not time limited. However, if it were to be considered that the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date, then the second limb of paragraph 14 of the NPPF would apply. This makes clear that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. The adverse impacts and the benefits of the proposed development are discussed extensively within this report, and it is considered that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. As such, if this alternative interpretation were to be pursued, the same conclusion would be reached in relation to Section 38(6) of the Act in that the proposed development would not be in accordance with the development plan and as material considerations do not indicate otherwise, permission should be refused.

Recommendation

Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would be contrary to the provision of saved Policy EN2 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan in that the development would fragment the openness and continuity of the Worsley Greenway, and would result in unacceptable harm to its character and its value as an amenity and open recreation resource. The proposal would be contrary to saved Policy R4 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan in that the development would not result in the protection and enhancement of the existing and potential recreational use of the area, or the protection and improvement of the amenity of the area.