THE SPEAKERS PANEL ITEM NO.5 Meeting on 27th May 2015

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

The list of background papers relating to the reports on this item may be inspected at the Planning and Building Control Reception, Level 1, Council

Offices, Wellington Road, Ashton-under-Lyne. For reports contact Mr A Cush extension 3126

KEY TO APPLICATION SUFFIX CODES

Full Application FUL Outline Application OUT Reserved Matters REM Advertisement Consent ADV Conservation Area Consent CON Listed Building Consent LBC Local Authority R3D/R4D Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development CAD Crown Development Circular 18/84 GOV

KEY TO PAGES Ashton-under-Lyne Pages 1-14 Denton None Audenshaw None Droylsden None Dukinfield None Mossley Pages 15-21 Hyde Pages 26-36 Stalybridge None Longdendale None

PLANNING APPLICATIONS – GENERAL GUIDANCE

For Members of “Speakers Panel (PLANNING)”

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out the factors to be taken into account in the determination of planning applications. This provision has been modified by Section 143 of the Localism Act 2011 to read as follows: In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. You must NOT prevent, inhibit or delay development, which could reasonably be permitted. You should only refuse permission where this serves a sound and clear planning purpose. Decisions must be based only on material planning considerations and not influenced by immaterial considerations (e.g. whether the Ward Councillors do or do not support it, or who the Applicant is) or direct or indirect personal interest. Each application must be considered on its merits. If Speakers Panel refuse permission the reasons for refusal must be complete, precise and relevant to the application. Firm evidence must be available to substantiate the reasons for refusal, costs may be awarded against the Council. If in doubt seek advice from the Borough Solicitor or the Head of Planning.

SPEAKERS PANEL

27th May 2015

SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Page No.

Application Number and Name Of Applicant

Site Address and Proposal

Recommendation

ITEM 1 1-6 15/00159/FUL Land Opposite St Peters C Of E

Primary School Off John Street East Ashton-under-Lyne Tameside

Approve

Abacus Services (uk) Limited

Three, four-bedroom terraced houses

ITEM 2 7-14 15/00227/FUL Land Next To 72 Hazelhurst Road

Ashton-Under-Lyne Tameside Approve

New Charter Housing Trust Group

Erection of 5 new 2-bedroom, 4-person dwellings on land between 72 and 74 Hazelhurst Road, and new landscaped amenity space on former garage site rear of 56-72 Hazelhurst Road.

ITEM 3 15-21 14/00707/FUL Land And Buildings Bounded By Hart

Court Smith Street And Lees Road Mossley Tameside

Approve

Seddon Homes Ltd Proposed partial replan of approved residential development to add 2 additional dwellings and the inclusion of a new house type

ITEM 4 22-25 15/00280/FUL Unit 201 Warmco Industrial Park

Manchester Road Mossley Approve

Regional Steels Ltd Erection of flue - RETROSPECTIVE ITEM 5

26-30 15/00067/FUL 24 West Park Hyde Tameside SK14 5EW

Approve

Mr Lee Rawsthorne Garden terrace ITEM 6

31-36 15/00074/FUL Werneth Bungalow Werneth Low Road Hyde Tameside

Refuse

Mr Tony Pagett Erection of replacement dwellinghouse.

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material withthe permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controllerof Her Majesty's Stationary Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecutionor civil proceedings.

Scale 1/1250 Date 15/5/2015

Centre = 392943 E 398076 N

1

Application Number: 15/00159/FUL Photo 1 Photo 2

2

Application Number

15/00159/FUL

Proposal Three, four-bedroom terraced houses Site Location Land Opposite St Peters C Of E Primary School Off John Street

East Ashton-under-Lyne Tameside Applicant Abacus Services (uk)

Limited 651A Mauldeth Road West

Chorlton Manchester M21 7SA

Recommendation Approve REPORT DESCRIPTION The application relates to a roughly rectangular plot of land at the junction of Hamilton Street and John Street East in the west end of Ashton. This section of Hamilton Street is now a short no-through road that ends where once it formed a cross roads with Stockport Road to the north. Historic maps, dating from the 1980s, show that a terrace of four houses once stood on the plot but these have been cleared and the land is now grassed, and contains a couple of bushes, and forms an area of informal amenity space. The proposed houses would face out on to Hamilton Street towards a terrace of four existing houses, the end one of which is side on the others and is accessed from John Street East. The proposed houses are designed to reflect the appearance of the existing houses across Hamilton Street, including plinth details, window heads and sills and a hipped gambrel, or mansard-style, roof on the terrace. The house would however include a third storey by utilising the roofspace. At the rear of the site a narrow and unmade lane separates the plot from the side of a 2-storey outrigger and yard at the rear of an otherwise 3-storey, end-terrace house facing on to Trafalgar Square. That half of the lane immediately behind the plot would be utilised to provide one car parking space for each of the proposed houses. The proposed terrace of houses would be attached to the rear gable of a house in Trafalgar Square. St Peters C of E Primary School is across John Street East. The proposed houses would be set-back from the footway in Hamilton Street behind small front gardens, and relatively small yard or garden areas, including space to store refuse bins, would be provided at the rear. UDP Unallocated.

3

POLICIES Policy 1.3: Creating a Cleaner and Greener Environment Part 1 policy 1.12: Ensuring an Accessible, Safe and Healthy Environment. Policy H1: Housing Land Provision. Policy H2: Unallocated Sites. Policy H4: Type, Size and Affordability of Dwellings. Policy H10: Detailed Design of Housing Developments. Policy OL4: Protected Green Space. Policy MW11: Contaminated Land. OTHER POLICIES National Planning Policy Framework. Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. It is not considered there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application. CONSULTATIONS Six individual objections have been received from neighbours, four of which are from the same household, together with a petition bearing the signatures of seven individuals, three of whom have submitted individual objections also. The reasons given for objecting are over-looking and over-shadowing of existing neighbouring houses; increased road safety hazards, particularly with cars parking and manoeuvring in the lane, which children use to walk to school, behind the plot; that the applicant did not consult with neighbours before making the application and that this fails to mention the loss of the shrubbery on the site; that the proposal constitutes over-development by reason of the inappropriate scale of the houses, the lack of adequate garden space and insufficient car parking provision that would be provided; the houses do not make provision for disabled access; and, the loss of the green space. The application is presented to the Panel at the behest of Councillor Bray who objects on behalf of Councillor Bowerman and himself on the grounds of the lack of private amenity space for what are obviously family homes. The Head of Environmental Services - Highways has asked that a condition regarding a dilapidation survey in respect of any footway reinstatements necessary and, postal addresses be attached to any permission. The Head of Environmental Services - Environmental Protection has suggested that a conditions requiring that a survey to ascertain whether the land is contaminated and any necessary remedial measures, restricting the hours of construction work and requiring the provision of facilities for the storage and collection of waste be attached to any permission.

4

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - SUSTAINABLE GROWTH'S COMMENTS The arrangement of the proposed houses is similar to that that existed previously on the site. At the front, in Hamilton Street, the distance of 13 metres between the proposed houses and the existing houses on the opposite side of the road would be one metre below the normal spacing requirement of 14 metres. Similar sub-standard spacing has however been allowed in a number of instances, particularly in the nearby west-end housing renewal area where this reflects the situation in surrounding streets. At the rear, the habitable room windows in the outrigger of the neighbouring house are at ground-floor level and are screened by an existing 2.4 metre high yard wall and are covered by a canopy and so are protected from any undue over-looking from the proposed houses. The design and appearance of the proposed houses is in-keeping with the surroundings. The houses would be set-back from the footway in Hamilton Street so as to provide some defensible space at the front and the relatively small gardens at the rear would provide some break-out, outdoor space from French-windows. Whilst the site is not specifically allocated as protected green space, it might be considered as such. The openness of the site is however not particularly important in breaking-up the built-up area in the vicinity, given the proximity of the neighbouring school grounds, nor in providing recreational space, given its size and the presence of Oxford Park, some 118 metres along John Street East. The level of car parking provision and arrangements proposed are adequate. Whether these would impinge on any rights of way are not matters to influence the decision on the planning application, but if they do the matter would have to be addressed before the development could be implemented. Should schoolchildren want to avoid the lane an alternative, and already safer, route that is hardly any greater distance is available along Hamilton Street. In terms of highway requirements the Council's requirements are satisfied. In conclusion, the relaxation of the normal spacing standards and the limited, but adequate outdoor amenity space proposed, would allow for more efficient use of the land without impinging unduly on any existing amenities and the proposal would make a positive contribution to the Borough's housing land requirement. The recommendation is therefore for approval. APPROVAL subject to the following conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning

with the date of this permission. 2. No development shall take place until samples or a full specification of the materials to

be used in the external finishes to the building have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

3. No development shall take place unless and until full details of the treatments to the

site's boundaries with Hamilton Street have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details..

5

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification, express planning consent shall be required for any development referred to in Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of that Order.

5. During construction no work (including vehicle and plant movements, deliveries, loading

and unloading) shall take place outside the hours of 07:30 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays. No work shall take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

6. Prior to commencement of work on site the applicant shall undertake a condition and

dilapidations survey of the highway fronting the site and giving access to the site and prepare and submit a report to the Engineering Operations Manager. The developer will be responsible for making good any damage caused to the highway by the development works or by persons working on or delivering to the development. Any damage caused to the street during the development period shall be reinstated to the full satisfaction of the Highway Authority prior to the occupation of any part of the development.

7. Development shall not commence until the following information has been submitted in

writing and written permission at each stage has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

A preliminary risk assessment to determine the potential for the site to be contaminated

shall be undertaken and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any physical site investigation, a methodology shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include an assessment to determine the nature and extent of any contamination affecting the site and the potential for off-site migration. Where necessary a scheme of remediation to remove any unacceptable risk to human health, buildings and the environment shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation. Any additional or unforeseen contamination encountered during development shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority as soon as practicably possible and a remedial scheme to deal with this approved by the Local Planning Authority. Upon completion of any approved remediation schemes, and prior to occupation, a completion report demonstrating that the scheme has been appropriately implemented and the site is suitable for its intended end use shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The discharge of this planning condition will be given in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of the development and once all information specified within this condition and other requested information have been provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and occupation/use of the development shall not commence until this time, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans: the location plan and that ref. 2015/01/01, received on 23/02/15.

6

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material withthe permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controllerof Her Majesty's Stationary Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecutionor civil proceedings.

Scale 1/1250 Date 15/5/2015

Centre = 395952 E 400601 N

7

Application Number: 15/00227/FUL Photo 1 Photo 2

8

Photo 3 Photo 4

9

Application Number

15/00227/FUL

Proposal Erection of 5 new 2-bedroom, 4-person dwellings on land

between 72 and 74 Hazelhurst Road, and new landscaped amenity space on former garage site rear of 56-72 Hazelhurst Road.

Site Location Land Next To 72 Hazelhurst Road Ashton-Under-Lyne Tameside Applicant New Charter Housing

Trust Group Cavendish 249

Cavendish Street Ashton Under Lyne OL6 7AT

Recommendation Approve REPORT DESCRIPTION The application relates to two parcels of land, on the south side and north side of Hazelhurst Road, referred to as Site 1 and Site 2. Site 1 is a rectangular area of grassland immediately behind the footway in Hazelhurst Road that is used as an area of informal recreation space. The site rises eastward towards the end of a terrace of houses and on its western side it abuts the access track to Site 2, which is immediately behind traditional, two-storey houses arranged in terraces of four in Hazelhurst Road and is a roughly triangular site situated at the top of the hill at Hazelhurst. Whilst the site is flat the land beyond falls steeply down towards Lowfield Avenue and Ladysmith Road. The hard standings of garages that once stood on the site are still evident and its appearance is unkempt. It is proposed that Site 1 be developed to accommodate five houses arranged as a pair of semi-detached houses and a terrace of three. Each of the houses would be 2-storey and 3-bedroomed and have a standard, brick-built appearance. Both of the semi-detached houses and the first of the terraced houses would be provided with two off-street car parking spaces in front, with driveways off Hazelhurst Road. The other two terraced houses would each have one car parking space in front and another space each behind and these would be accessed from the track leading to Site 2. The proposal is that Site 2 would be upgraded to form an area of informal amenity space. This would involve the site being grassed and mounded, native species tree planting with bat boxes, a wild flower area along the western boundary and raised planters along the south-eastern boundary. UDP Both sites allocated as forming parts of a wider area of protected green space.

10

POLICIES Part 1 policy 1.3: Creating a Cleaner and Greener Environment. Part 1 policy 1.8: Retaining and Improving Opportunities for Sport, Recreation and Leisure. Part 1 policy 1.10: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Environment. Part 1 policy 1.12: Ensuring an Accessible, Safe and Healthy Environment. Policy H10: Detailed Design of Housing Developments. Policy OL4: Protected Green Space. Policy OL8: Informal Recreation and Countryside Access. Policy T10: Parking. Policy C1: Townscape and Urban Form. Policy N3: Nature Conservation Factors. MW11: Contaminated Land OTHER POLICIES National Planning Policy Framework. Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. It is not considered there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application. CONSULTATIONS Twenty-four letters of objection have been received from neighbours. The reasons given for the objections are as follow. It was found by the Inspector at a Public Enquiry to designate the land as a Village Green that the public have a Statutory Right to use the whole of the land for lawful recreational purposes as they had done for in excess of 20 years and this was accepted by the Council when the findings were reported. The land is designated as protected green space and should remain as such and a safe area where children can play. There is no guarantee that the upgraded area (Site 2) will not be developed for houses at a later date. The new houses will over-shadow those across the road and lead to a loss of views. The loss of the wildlife habitats that the land provides. The increased traffic that the new houses will generate. There is no need for more houses in the locality. Councillor Drennan has objected to the loss of the play area. The Head of Environmental Services - Environmental Protection has suggested that conditions requiring that a survey to ascertain whether the land is contaminated and any necessary remedial measures and restricting the hours of construction work be attached to any permission.

11

The Head of Environmental Services - Highways has asked that a number of conditions and notes regarding the provision of adequate access arrangements, traffic management measures and postal addresses be attached to any permission. United Utilities has no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions regarding site drainage. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - SUSTAINABLE GROWTH'S COMMENTS In September 2008 a planning application (ref. 08/00173/FUL) to develop social housing on two sites, including Site 2 in the current application, was refused for three reasons. On what is now described as Site 2 it was proposed to build a terraced building consisting of a block of four flats at the south-western end attached to which would have been a row of six houses running towards the north-east. The front of the block would have faced towards the rear of the houses on Hazelhurst Road. The block was to be built on the brow of the hill so that at the lower level at the rear there would have been four storeys in the block of flats and three storeys in the houses. On the level ground at the front the flats would have risen to three storeys and the houses to two storeys In relation to Site 2 the reasons for refusing the previous application were: by reason of its scale and appearance, the development would constitute an incongruous feature, paying scant regard for the character of its surroundings, in this prominent location set against the background of traditional two-storey houses; and, the proposed access road would not be of an adoptable standard. The other site to which the previous application related is a smaller area of uneven grassland, surrounded by terraced houses, to which access is taken from an existing, narrow road that rises up from Hazelhurst Road and serves a nearby garages court. As in the current application, both of the sites included in the previous application constituted areas of `protected green space'. Generally, built development is not permitted on areas of `protected green space', but this policy does allow for exceptions. In the previous instance it was considered that development of the sites could be justified due to the number and type of greenspaces within easy reach of the two pieces of land, their limited amenity value and that the remaining amenity space south of Hazelhurst Road would be large enough to provide sufficient open amenity space for the surrounding residential area. An analysis of the surrounding area identified 8 formal and informal open amenity sites within 800 metres of the application sites. Neither site had any significant ecological value. In determining the previous application the principle that small areas of 'protected green space' in this locality could be developed was accepted. The application was refused on matters of detail only. In the interim there have been no material changes in circumstances that indicate that the development of the small area of 'protected green space' included in this application is inappropriate and so the same principles apply. Moreover, the loss of the one area of 'protected green space' would be compensated for by the upgrading of the other. The design and appearance of the proposed houses is in-keeping with the surroundings. Each would be provided with adequate garden areas and car parking provision. Policies designed to prevent over-looking and over-shadowing of neighbouring properties are satisfied. The new houses would therefore constitute an acceptable addition to the streetscene. Meanwhile, the development of small sites not specifically identified for residential use, known as 'windfall' sites, would make a positive contribution to the Borough's housing land requirement. The proposed works to Site 2 are appropriate and rights of way across the site would be unaffected.

12

APPROVAL subject to the following conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning

with the date of this permission. 2. No development shall take place until samples or a full specification of the materials to

be used in the external finishes to the building and to the treatment of the site's boundaries have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

3. During construction no work (including vehicle and plant movements, deliveries, loading

and unloading) shall take place outside the hours of 07:30 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays. No work shall take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

4. Unless agreed otherwise in writing with the local planning authority, the houses hereby

approved shall not be occupied until the approved works to Site 2, as defined on the approved plans have been completed.

5. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the approved plans a clear view shall be

provided on both sides of the site access where it meets the footway in Hazelhurst Road. It shall measure 2.4metres along the edge of the site access and 2.4 metres along the footway. It must be clear of anything higher than 600mm above the access, except for vertical iron railings to a design that includes rails of not greater than 15mm diameter spaced at not less than 100mm intervals.

6. Prior to occupation, the car parking indicated on the approved plan shall be provided

and thereafter kept unobstructed and available for its intended purpose. These areas shall be maintained and kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times.

7. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied/brought in to use until the road

works and traffic management measures necessary to secure satisfactory access to the site have been completed in accordance with details having been agreed in writing previously with the local planning authority.

8. Development shall not commence until the following information has been submitted in

writing and written permission at each stage has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

A preliminary risk assessment to determine the potential for the site to be contaminated

shall be undertaken and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any physical site investigation, a methodology shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include an assessment to determine the nature and extent of any contamination affecting the site and the potential for off-site migration. Where necessary a scheme of remediation to remove any unacceptable risk to human health, buildings and the environment shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation. Any additional or unforeseen contamination encountered during development shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority as soon as practicably possible and a remedial scheme to deal with this approved by the Local Planning Authority.

13

Upon completion of any approved remediation schemes, and prior to occupation, a completion report demonstrating that the scheme has been appropriately implemented and the site is suitable for its intended end use shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The discharge of this planning condition will be given in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of the development and once all information specified within this condition and other requested information have been provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and occupation/use of the development shall not commence until this time, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

9. Prior to the commencement of any development, details of the foul drainage scheme

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Foul shall be drained on a separate system. No building shall be occupied until the approved

foul drainage scheme has been completed to serve that building, in accordance with the approved details.

This development shall be completed maintained and managed in accordance with the

approved details. 10. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme and

means of disposal, based on sustainable drainage principles with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The surface water drainage scheme must be restricted to existing runoff rates and

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly.

The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the

approved details. 11. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans: those ref. 411158 01 P2, 411158 03 P6, 411158 04 P3, 411158 05 P2, 411158 06 P2 and that showing the amenity green space (rev. A).

14

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material withthe permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controllerof Her Majesty's Stationary Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecutionor civil proceedings.

Scale 1/1258 Date 7/4/2015

Centre = 396887 E 402625 N

15

Application Number: 14/00707/FUL Photo 1 Photo 2

16

Photo 3

17

Application Number

14/00707/FUL

Proposal Proposed partial replan of approved residential development to

add 2 additional dwellings and the inclusion of a new house type Site Location Land And Buildings Bounded By Hart Court Smith Street And

Lees Road Mossley Tameside Applicant Seddon Homes Ltd Birchwood One Business Park

Dewhurst Road Birchwood Warrington Cheshire WA3 7GB United Kingdom

Recommendation Approve REPORT DESCRIPTION The application site is part of a larger site granted planning consent for 43 dwelling houses under planning application reference 12/01025/FUL. This application seeks consent for a proposed layout change to increase the viability of the overall site which includes the re-design of 10 previously approved dwellings and the addition of two units to the overall layout. The original layout provided four pairs of semi detached dwelling houses and two detached properties and this application seeks consent for a revised layout having two pairs of semi detached properties, a detached property, a terrace of three properties and a terrace of four properties. All properties will be two storey with only the single detached property not having accommodation within the roof space. These properties will have roof lights to the rear with a modest size dormer to the front elevation facing into the development site. Construction on the site is underway to implement the 2012 approved development with work on the approved housing adjacent to part of the western and southern boundaries stalled pending the outcome of this application and a separate application for the construction and retention of a retaining wall along the western boundary. The site is close to the centre of Mossley and is accessed from Lees Road which is alongside the site eastern boundary. Along the site southern boundary is Smith Street, an unadopted road where there is a single storey building in commercial use adjacent to the site. To the west of the site and at a lower level is Brooklands Close where a row of four houses and a pair of semi detached properties back onto the main site. A closed footpath separates these properties from the development site. To the north of the site are bungalows and existing two storey residential development together with a former Mill site granted consent for residential development in both 2006 and 2007 with both applications including this site. UDP Unallocated

18

POLICIES Part 1 1.12 Ensuring an Accessible, Safe and Healthy Environment Part 2 H2 Unallocated Sites H4 Type, Size and Affordability of Dwellings H10 Detailed design of Housing Developments C1 Townscape and Urban Form MW11 Contaminated Land OTHER POLICIES National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance Residential Design SPD Brookbottom Development Brief CONSULTATIONS Two letters received following the neighbour consultation exercise. One letter objects on the following grounds; - the height of the land has been raised to behind Brooklands Close and the impact this will have on objectors property. - proposal to build a 2.7 metre concrete retaining wall on top will sit a 1.8 metre wooden fence with 3 storey houses being built only 11 metres beyond the fence. The combined height of the retaining wall and fence is 4.5 metres and height of objectors property is 5 metres. - with only 11 metres between property and 4,5 metre wall there will be loss of privacy with house and garden being overlooked. - loss of light and overshadowing as a result of properties planned. - height and proximity will be oppressive from all adjacent properties on Brooklands Close with adverse effect on residential amenity. - open aspect once benefitted from will be lost. - Three photographs attached showing view from lounge window prior to the development and now which demonstrates how oppressive the development will be. - two additional properties on the site will amount to overdevelopment making it too dense with their inclusion of these properties exacerbates the issues raised above. One letter received confirming no objection to the addition of two dwellings but unhappy if three storey houses were built directly behind rear of the properties on Lees Road especially if the ground is elevated. United Utilities have no objections Head of Environmental Services - Environmental Protection has no objections subject to conditions restricting hours of construction. Head of Environmental Services - Highways has no objections subject to conditions regarding vehicular access, road works and parking requirements. ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS _ CONDITIONS/INFORMATIVES The retaining wall and boundary treatment referred to by the objector are the subject of a separate application and should not be considered as part of the assessment of this proposal which only relates to a part of the southern section of the larger development site.

19

The photographs submitted with the objection from number 27 showing a 'before and after' view, shows a large amount of spoil above the existing garden fencing. This however, is not reflective of the proposed finished ground level but has resulted from the temporary stock piling of excavated material during the course of the redevelopment of the larger site. Site levels will remain as previously considered in the original 2012 application. The NPPF at paragraph 49 requires applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The framework sets out three dimensions to sustainable development which are an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. It is considered the NPPF would support further residential development of this site given its sustainable location and the regeneration of a previously developed site. The framework would also support residential development on previously developed land where such development would be a valuable addition to meeting an adequate five year supply of housing and will provide significant environmental improvements whilst providing an interesting mix of properties reflecting most of the different scales and styles of the dwelling houses in the vicinity of the application site. The development therefore will be compliant with UDP policy H4 and the NPPF. UDP policy H10 generally requires good design, suitable arrangements for parking, suitable landscaping, no unacceptable impact on neighbours and a safe and secure environment. Aligned with this policy, more detailed policy criteria is contained within the Residential Design SPD. In protecting the amenities of both future and existing occupiers of residential properties, minimum separation distances are provided between such properties in order to help ensure this is achieved. The minimum distances are confirmed within the SPD policy RD5 which also makes allowances for degree of angle, height of buildings and ground levels. The policy confirms a minimum separation distance between habitable room windows on two storey developments of 21 metres where they directly overlook. It is open to discretion as to how close a particular development should align with the requirements of this policy and a balanced judgement will need to be made on individual site and development circumstances. Separation distances are considered necessary in cases where it is appropriate to ensure privacy due to overlooking of windows and gardens might be significant if otherwise not taken into account. It could be argued there would be no overlooking issues regarding Brooklands Close due to accommodation within the roof space as there will be only roof lights; however account is also taken of overshadowing hence the additional separation distance for stories over two storey. The nearest part of the proposed re-design and layout, will result in the development being approximately 28 metres and at an angle from the nearest existing dwelling on Brooklands Close. If the re-design properties are taken as three storey, then the base separation distance of 21 metres will also need to include a further 3 metres for the additional storey. The approximate ground level difference of 2 metres will also need to be added. Therefore the necessary separation distance would be 26 metres without reducing this distance as a result of the degree of angle. Although Brooklands Close is at a lower level, it is considered the separation distance and angle will ensure the proposed development exceeds the minimum requirements of the residential design SPD and reduces significantly any potential impact the development may have on the properties on Brooklands Close. The elevation changes due to the introduction of a new house type, are considered acceptable and will complement the new street scene and previously approved house types.

20

The site is subject to the Brookbottom Development Brief SPG which guides development of the site and this document confirms the Council's belief the most effective and appropriate proposal in principle would be redevelopment for residential development. The proposal is broadly in compliance with the SPG and is consistent with previous decisions for redevelopment of the site. A bespoke section 106 Agreement was signed and attached to the 2012 development which took account of the viability of the site for redevelopment for housing, Submitted with this planning application is a statement from the applicants requesting the original section Section 106 in place remains unchanged together with the required developer contributions therein as the additional two units will not have a large effect on what remains a significantly unviable scheme and will not provide the financial flexibility to increase any likely developer contributions. On balance, it is considered the proposed development will comply with local and national policy and will add to the Boroughs housing supply and will regenerate a site close to Mossley town centre and one which is within a sustainable location. It is considered the regeneration benefits are significant to outweigh any potential dis-benefits the proposal may have and the development will not have any significant impact on local residents by virtue of over looking or loss of amenity. As the site is central to the main development site and towards the southern boundary where there are no adjacent existing residential properties in proximity, the development is therefore considered acceptable and recommended for approval with conditions. APPROVAL subject to the following conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning

with the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the plan and the Design and

Access Statement submitted on 22nd July 2014 and the location plan number 1196-BR.LP.01, Proposed site plan number 1196-BR.SP.01, drawing 1196-BR.HL.01, house type drawings 1196-FIR-01, 1196-CHE-01 and 1196-KEL2-01 received on 2nd July 2015

21

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material withthe permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controllerof Her Majesty's Stationary Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecutionor civil proceedings.

Scale 1/789 Date 12/5/2015

Centre = 397837 E 402793 N

22

Application Number: 15/00280/FUL Photo 1

23

Application Number

15/00280/FUL

Proposal Erection of flue - RETROSPECTIVE Site Location Unit 201 Warmco Industrial Park Manchester Road Mossley Applicant Regional Steels Ltd Unit C5

Centre Court Waggon Road Mossley OL5 9HL

Recommendation Approve REPORT DESCRIPTION This application relates to a flue which was erected on the side of the industrial unit by Regional Steel. The flue is attached to a plasma cutter machine which is used to cut metal. A complaint was made to Planning Enforcement and following lengthy discussions with the applicant and Environmental Health this planning application was submitted to legalise its position. The industrial units around the site are predominately used as general industry (Use Class B2) and storage (Use Class B8). This application is being presented to the Panel at the request of one of the objectors and Councillor Travis. UDP Established Employment Area POLICIES UDP Part 1 Policy 1.12 Ensuring an Accessible, Safe and Healthy Environment UDP Part 2 Policy E6 Detailed Design of Employment Developments OTHER POLICIES It is not considered there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application. CONSULTATIONS Eleven letters of objection have been received as a result of neighbour notifications from 33 Duke Street, 88, 201, 333, 335, 339, 341, 343, 345 Manchester Road, Healthy Step Ltd and GTS Steam Cleaners objecting on the following grounds;

24

- the fumes blow into the units and settles on the window tops, - past improvements to the flue have been unsuccessful, - the flue does not disperse fumes enough and the fume falls to the ground around the building, - the roof next to the flue is now rotting from the dust and fumes that fall on it and this will be a hazard if it were to collapse, - it is quite often that the fume will billow downwards in certain wind conditions and be at a level when human inhalation is possible, - the units are frequently in the path of the fume and there are occasions where window and doors need to remain closed to prevent the fume from entering our premises, - the colour of the fume is concerning, - there have not been any tests carried out to see if the fume exiting the flue is toxic or carrying toxic gases into the air, - general concerns about the fume affecting human health, - concerns about the heavy metals from the fumes having a serious impact on health, - concerns about the fume smelling, - the fume emits particles/dust which settles in the nearby houses and gardens, - local residents are unable to open their windows or enjoy their garden because of the fume/dust settling in their houses and gardens. Environmental Health do not object to the retention of the flue. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - SUSTAINABLE GROWTH'S COMMENTS Several complaints have been made to Environmental Health starting from 14.06.2013 about the coloured fume coming from the chimney and its impact on health. In April 2014, a flue extension and Venturi cowl were fitted to prevent the fume from coming onto the ground however more complaints were made to Environmental Health. Between April 2014 and January 2015 around twenty Environmental Health Officer visits have been made to the site to observe the fume discharge and of those visits where fume was observed, it was being dispersed satisfactorily. A further visit by Environmental Health Officers was made in March 2015 to inspect the additional in-line bag filter which had been fitted to the flue to further reduce the particles it emits. The arc-plasma cutting of mild steel does not require a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2012 so no mandatory conditions can be applied. Guidance provided by the Health and Safety Executive recommends the use of a water table to reduce the fume and discharge of the fume into the atmosphere. These controls are in place. The applicant has provided copies of documents from the Health and Safety Executive who confirm that the relevant controls are in place. It is the Council's opinion that the fume does not constitute a Statutory Nuisance to nearby industrial units or residents based on the observations from the site visits and on recent case law. It is not considered that the appearance or location of the flue on an industrial unit has a negative impact on the character or appearance of the area or on neighbouring industrial units or nearby residential houses and therefore the flue is considered acceptable. Recommendation: Approve

25

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material withthe permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controllerof Her Majesty's Stationary Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecutionor civil proceedings.

Scale 1/1250 Date 14/5/2015

Centre = 395178 E 392772 N

26

Application Number: 15/00067/FUL Photo 1 Photo 2

27

Photo 3

28

Application Number

15/00067/FUL

Proposal Garden terrace Site Location 24 West Park Hyde Tameside SK14 5EW Applicant Mr Lee Rawsthorne 24 West Park

Hyde Tameside SK14 5EW

Recommendation Approve REPORT REPORT DESCRIPTION 24 West Park is a two storey detached property with a driveway to the front and garden areas to the front, side and rear. Levels fall significantly towards the side and rear boundaries of the site. To the east of the site is 26 West Park which is situated at a higher level to the application site. To the west is 22 West Park which is at a lower level to the application site. The property has an open aspect to the south. The application seeks planning permission to create a raised garden terrace on the side and rear elevations of the existing property. The garden terrace will create a level seating area on what is currently a sloping site. The terrace (as amended) will project 5 metres from the existing rear elevation and will be supported by a retaining wall with integral planter which will have a maximum height of 1.96 metres above the existing ground level. The terrace will project approximately 14 metres from the side elevation and will be within 3 metres of the rear garden boundary. Steps will provide access from the terrace to the garden area below. In addition a balcony is proposed above an existing flat roof extension on the side (southern) elevation of the existing property. This is enclosed with chrome balustrading and glazing. The balcony measures 5.5 metres in width by 5.5 metres in length. UDP Unallocated POLICY H10 Detailed Design of Housing Developments SPD Residential Design CONSULTATIONS Councillor J Bell has requested that the application be determined by Speakers Panel. One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of 22 West Park. Main points raised: - Design and appearance of wall which will look unsightly when viewed from the objector's property. - Overlooking, loss of privacy and poor outlook from bedrooms, conservatory and garden area. - Devalue property.

29

HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE GROWTHS COMMENTS There are no objections in principle to the proposed development. In accordance with saved UDP Policy H10 and the Councils adopted SPD: Residential Design, the main issues raised by the proposal relate to the detailed design of the garden terrace and impact on residential amenity for adjoining occupiers. These matters are considered in more detail below. With regard to the design of the garden terrace, this is acceptable and in keeping with the modern style and design of the existing dwelling house. Details of the materials to be used for the retaining wall have not been provided but could be secured by a planning condition. This is in order to ensure a satisfactory standard of external appearance. The main impact on residential amenity, from the proposal will be from potential overlooking when the terrace and or balcony are in use. The main impact will be on 22 West Park. This property is approximately 5 metres lower than the application property and has several main windows on its side gable which face the application site. The proposed raised terrace area will be approximately 21 metres away from the side gable of 22 West Park. This separation distance is considered to be acceptable and whilst it is noted that the terrace will be in an elevated position to 22 West Park, it is not considered that any overlooking which may result will be significantly greater than what currently exists. The balcony is a significant distance away from 22 West Park and there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity resulting from this part of the proposal. With regard to impact on 26 West Park, this property is sited at a higher level to the application site. It is considered that the existing boundary treatment and site levels will ensure that there is no undue overlooking or loss of privacy to the occupiers of this property from either the garden terrace or balcony. With regard to the issues raised from the adjoining occupier, the matters relating to overlooking have been addressed above. The design of the wall retaining the terrace is considered to be acceptable and at some 21 metres away from 22 West Park will not have such a significant impact on outlook for the occupiers of this property to warrant the refusal of this application. The impact on property values is not a material planning consideration. APPROVAL subject to the following conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning

with the date of this permission. 2. Samples of all external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority before any work commences. The development shall be constructed with such approved materials.

3. The development hereby approved relates to the red edged site location plan received

by the Council on 16th February 2015 and the amended drawing reference 1055 02 Rev A (Plans and Elevations - General Arrangement) received by the Council on 7th May 2015.

30

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material withthe permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controllerof Her Majesty's Stationary Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecutionor civil proceedings.

Scale 1/1250 Date 14/5/2015

Centre = 396525 E 392957 N

31

Application Number: 15/00074/FUL Photo 1 Photo 2

32

Photo 3

33

Application Number

15/00074/FUL

Proposal Erection of replacement dwellinghouse. Site Location Werneth Bungalow Werneth Low Road Hyde Tameside Applicant Mr Tony Pagett 31

Berry Brow Manchester M40 1GR United Kingdom

Recommendation Refuse REPORT DESCRIPTION The application site comprises a detached dormer bungalow and detached garage situated off Werneth Low Road, Gee Cross Hyde. To the front of the property is a driveway with a garden area to the side. The property sits in the north eastern corner of the site area. The site is enclosed with a two metre high brick and stone wall on the front, side and rear boundaries. Access into the property is from Werneth Low Road. The site is adjoined by Werneth Low Golf Course on its north and eastern boundaries. A public Right of Way adjoins the western boundary of the site. The site lies wholly within the Green Belt as allocated on the UDP Proposals Map. The application seeks planning permission to erect a detached two storey dwelling house following the demolition of the existing dormer bungalow and garage. The dwelling house will be sited in a revised location in the central part of the site area. An additional access point into the property is proposed from Werneth Low Road. The accommodation provided comprises 4 bedrooms, a utility room and garage at ground floor with a kitchen, living rooms and a balcony above. The materials proposed comprise local stone and rendered panels. The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application states that the new dwelling will be highly insulated and energy efficient in its construction with PV Cells installed and a 'living sedum roof'. UDP Green Belt POLICY OL1 Protection of the Green Belt OL2 Existing Buildings in the Green Belt H10 Detailed Design of Housing Developments OTHER POLICY SPD Residential Design National Planning Policy Framework

34

CONSULTATIONS Councillor A Kinsey supports the proposal and has requested that the application be determined by Speakers Panel. 4 representations have been received 3 of which are generally in support of a replacement dwelling house on this site although comments regarding an improvement to the design have been made. Included in the representations supporting the proposal is Werneth Low Golf Club. 1 objection has been received, main points raised: - Modern design is a 'monstrosity' - The proposal will completely damage the entire vista for users of the Country Park. Head of Environmental Services (Highways) - No objections raised. United Utilities - Comment regarding drainage on site and confirm that there is a public sewer clips the South West corner of this site and UU will not permit building over it. They will require an access strip width of 6 metres, 3 metres either side of the centre line of the sewer which is in accordance with the minimum distances specified in the current issue of "Sewers for Adoption", for maintenance or replacement. HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE GROWTH'S COMMENTS The site lies wholly within the Green Belt as allocated on the UDP Proposals Map. The main issues raised by the proposal therefore are as follows: - Whether the proposal is inappropriate development for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and UDP Policies. - Secondly, the effect of the proposal on the openness and the visual amenities of the Green Belt and - Finally, if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Saved UDP policy OL1 and OL2 reflects the advice in the NPPF and expresses a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The NPPF and Policy OL2 advise that the replacement of a dwelling need not be inappropriate development provided that it is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. Policy OL2 further states that the form, bulk, general design and external materials of the building should be in keeping with the surroundings and retain the inherent character and scale of the original building. The proposed replacement dwelling house will have a larger footprint and higher eaves height than the existing building. Furthermore its modern two storey design will have a greater mass and bulk, particularly at first floor level, than the existing dormer bungalow. The volumes of the existing and replacement house put forward by the applicant suggest a percentage increase in volume of around 22% over the existing dwelling. As a result of the above, and given that the existing dormer bungalow has had numerous additions since it was originally built, it is considered that the proposal would result in a dwelling that would be materially larger than that it would replace. As such the proposal would represent inappropriate development which would be contrary to policy OL2 and the advice contained in the NPPF. Added to the harm of being inappropriate development is the impact that the proposal would have in diminishing the sense of openness of this part of the Green Belt.

35

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness. The application site occupies a prominent position fronting Werneth Low Road and a public right of way runs along the side boundary. Long range views of the site are also afforded from the adjoining golf course. It is considered that the increased bulk and mass of the dwelling house would be readily visible from the surrounding public vantage points. Furthermore the proposed dwelling would result in a building materially larger than the dwelling it would replace and as a result would reduce the openness of this part of the Green Belt. With regard to impact on visual amenity, the design of the proposed dwelling house is considered to be out of keeping with the general form and style of other properties in the area surrounding the site. Given the prominent location of the application site, and the position and scale of the property, it is considered that the proposal would appear as a dominant feature on the landscape and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed dwelling house does not raise any issues in respect of residential amenity and highway safety. To conclude it is considered that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenities of the surrounding area. There are no other considerations which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt to justify the development on the basis of very special circumstances. The proposal is therefore contrary to advice contained in the NPPF and UDP Policy OL2. REFUSAL for the following reasons 1. The proposed replacement dwelling by virtue of its increase in floor area, height, bulk

and mass will result in a dwelling which is materially larger than the existing dwelling on the site. This represents inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. Furthermore, the increased height, bulk and mass will have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. As such the proposal is contrary to advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and UDP Policy OL2.

36