Styal Road and Shadowmoss Road

Transcription

Manchester City Council
Wythenshawe Area Committee
Application Number
102834/FO/2013/S2
Item 5
22 August 2013
Date of Appln
11th July 2013
Committee Date
22nd August 2013
Ward
Woodhouse Park
Proposal
Development of a 9,000 space long-stay surface car park accessed off
Styal Road and Shadowmoss Road for use in connection with
Manchester Airport, with associated environmental mitigation including
landscaping, lighting and residents, Metrolink and aeroplane spotters
car parking facilities.
Location
Land Bound By Styal Road, Ringway Road And Shadowmoss Road To
The NE Of Manchester Airport, Woodhouse Park, Manchester.
Applicants
Manchester Airports Group, Olympic House, Manchester Airport,
Manchester, M90 1QX.
Agent
Mr Alistair Andrew, Manchester Airports Group, Olympic House,
Manchester Airport, Manchester, M90 1QX.
Description
The application site is approximately 28½ hectares in size and made up of a number
of fields that have previously been leased for grazing purposes. It is bounded to the
north by the Ringway Trading Estate, Atlas Business Park and the remainder of the
former Ferranti works, while to the south of the site stand dwellinghouses on
Ringway Road. To the east of the site lies Trenchard Drive and Styal Road, while to
the east is the airport Metrolink line, which is under construction and beyond that is
Shadowmoss Road and associated dwellinghouses. The site used to be in the
Green Belt but this designation was removed following adoption of the Core Strategy
in July 2012, following the submission of evidence to support the exceptional
circumstances linked to the Airport.
The site is relatively flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 75m AOD in the
south to 70m AOD in the north. The site is partitioned by hedges, most of which are
deemed to be poor quality and there are approximately 50 individual trees within the
application site. The majority of the individual trees are located around the perimeter
of the site and only one has been identified as having the potential to house roosting
bats. In addition to the individual trees there are two areas of “plantation woodland”,
both of which are which are centred on two water-bodies. One of these “plantation
woodland” areas is considered to have a number trees with potential for bat roosts.
Within the site boundary is the Manchester South Air Quality monitoring station.
There are other pieces of Airport operational infrastructure within the site in the form
of the landing lights for the main 23R/05L runway. In addition, part of the site lies
within the Public Safety Zone, development within which is governed by Department
for Transport Circular 01/2010: Control of Development within Airport Public Safety
Zones. Being directly under the flight-path also means that much of the site falls
within the restrictions imposed by Airport Obstacle Limitation Surfaces.
The applicants are proposing to:
Page 1 of 32
•
Item 5
22 August 2013
Create a 9,000 space off-airport car park on the site. The car park would be
constructed from loose bound granular material, while the access and
circulatory roads would be hardsurfaced.
Access to the proposed car park would be via two new vehicular access
points. The main access road would be off Shadowmoss Road, opposite nos.
31-33 Shadowmoss Road, reflecting the predominant passenger numbers
accessing Manchester Airport from the west via the M56 direction. A
secondary access would be provided off Styal Road, diagonally opposite the
junction of Styal Road and Longstone Road. Access for vehicles would be
restricted by electronic barriers operating with an Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) system.
The car park would be divided into four sections which would allow for
elements to be closed down in times of low demand (typically between
November and March for long stay parking). Though these four elements
would be separated by landscaped belts, approximately 10 metres in width,
they would be linked by an estate road which would allow for circulation
throughout the site, not just by customers vehicles but also the shuttle buses
needed to take customers to the terminal buildings.
The proposed car park would be illuminated, have CCTV coverage and
enclosed by a perimeter weld mesh fence 2.4 metres in height. Close boarded
wooden fencing would supplement the weld mesh fencing on those
boundaries where car headlights have the potential to cause disamenity.
•
Create a) a residents’ car park for use by residents of Shadowmoss Road; b)
a car park for use by Metrolink passengers; c) a car park for plane spotters,
all of which are to be provided within a landscape belt which is to be located
between the Metrolink line and the proposed car park. Access to these three
car parks would be via the main car park access road off Shadowmoss Road.
•
Create a landscaped pedestrian walkway, also within the landscape belt
between the Metrolink line and the proposed car park.
•
To the south and east of the proposed car park the applicants are proposing to
provide a landscaped belt between the dwellings on Ringway Road and
Trenchard Drive.
•
Install two underground surface-water storage tanks
Consultations and Notifications
The applicants’ pre-application consultation exercise began on 6th February 2013 and
public exhibitions were held at the Lifestyle Centre on that day, as well as on 15th
May 2013. The applicants issued 475 invitations for the first exhibition and 424
invitations for the second event.
Following submission of the proposal the City Council issued 1,200 notification letters
to local residents and businesses within the area edged red overleaf (the application
Page 2 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
site is hatched yellow). The proposal has also been advertised in the Manchester
Evening News and site notices have been erected around the site as the application
is a major development.
Local Residents – 33 letters of objections have been received from local residents,
the main point are outlined below:
•
•
•
•
All the open land in this semi-rural location is being eaten away to create a
noisy urban concrete environment. This site has been a source of pleasure for
many people and provides a pleasant outlook and means of escape for
residents. The land in question is not poor quality as stated by the applicants.
Noise levels (doors slamming, engines revving, car alarms set off by
aeroplanes) will increase to such levels that local residents will be unable to
open windows.
Light pollution from headlights and the danger of headlights blinding incoming
pilots as they make their descent is an issue.
It would be more appropriate to use the Ferranti site to the north and other
vacant areas around the airport as opposed to destroying more green belt and
wildlife.
Page 3 of 32
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item 5
22 August 2013
Replacing working farmland with surface car parking is an extremely poor
trade-off in terms of benefit to the wider community. Tarmacing over fields is
an easy and cheap option, the long term and environmental answer would be
to build a multi-storey car park within the Airport City site. This would be more
easily accessible from the motorway network and have less impact upon the
locality.
This proposal would lead to the destruction of green belt land. This field was in
full use as an agricultural pasture & supported badgers, foxes, field mice, frogs
& nesting birds. It was not scrub land, it was part of a buffer zone from the
industrial park adjacent and its use as a car park is another destruction of
green belt land in Wythenshawe.
The roads around Shadowmoss Road, Styal Road and Ringway Road are
already heavily congested most of the time. With the building of the Metrolink
how can Manchester Airport justify clogging the roads even further with 9,000
cars plus passenger buses to and from the Airport?
There is already a car park off Styal Road and Finney Lane which was only
built in the last few years and is not used.
The proposal will lead to an increase in traffic in the area. This will increase air
pollution and congestion to the detriment of local residents’ amenity.
One of the proposed entry points to the car park will be adjacent to the
Longstone Road/Styal Road junction. The location of a proposed entry point
here will make the existing junction and Styal Road itself much more
hazardous, due to the changes in road layout and the increase in road traffic.
The proposed entrance off Shadowmoss Road is better as it emerges on to a
lesser road.
The traffic survey does not give an accurate representation of the use of the
proposed junction as development along Longstone Road is still being
undertaken.
Experience shows that during both morning and evening rush hour periods the
build up of traffic on Styal Road is extremely heavy. It can take two and
sometimes three changes of lights to clear the Styal Road/Simonsway/Finney
Lane junction. The additional traffic generated by vehicles going in and out of
the car park at the Styal Road entrance will be immense.
Adding a ghost island on Styal Road, opposite the junction with Longstone
Road, will become a hazard to traffic exiting right from Longstone Road. At
this point Styal Road is narrow, being sufficient for one lane of traffic in each
direction. It is also on a curve making visibility currently difficult for traffic
exiting from Longstone Road.
The loss of views and the huge eyesore created by the car park will devalue
property near the site.
The applicants already have 22,000 parking spaces, more spaces are not
needed.
This plan goes against the policy of encouraging public transport to the airportthe train, the new metro and the buses, all of which are environmentally better
than promoting a car park that goes against the kiss and fly policy.
The proposal will encourage plane spotters to the area who will then park in
residents’ spaces. The proposed spotters parking on Shadowmoss Road will
increase traffic in the area.
Page 4 of 32
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item 5
22 August 2013
Building the car park will have an impact upon nature. Birds of prey hunt over
the fields and it is believed that newts come from the fields.
The airport has expanded enough already. Those people living on Ringway
Road, who once lived near the airport, will now be living within it if this
application is approved.
The car park will cause misery to local residents with the noise and constant
dirt and dust in the house, on cars, windows and washing.
The proximity of the proposed car park to Trenchard Drive may encourage
people who choose not to use the new facilities to park on Trenchard Drive as
they could then use the Airport’s free shuttle service.
If the correct fencing/mounding is not used along the boundary of the site with
Trenchard Drive then this road could see an increase in plane spotters parking
there as the mounding would afforded them a better view of the aeroplanes.
The most terrifying part of this latest scheme is the idea of lining the final
approach to runway one, which the Airport inform us, handles 80% of inbound
traffic, with nine thousand unrestricted vehicles, (these vehicles pass through
no security checks) or in other words nine thousand fuel tanks and associated
combustibles. Airfields by their very nature are extremely dangerous places
and it is, or should be, the duty of all concerned to manage and minimise any
and all possible risk. The final approach is the last possible refuge for an
Aircraft in distress and to add to the danger by placing 9000 vehicles in its
path would be tantamount to an act of criminal irresponsibility.
An aeroplane crashing into the proposed car park would be ten times as
worse as the crash in 1950’s.
The proposal would devalue property in the area.
Two petitions objecting to the proposal, containing 103 and 130 signatures
respectively, accompanied two of the objection letters.
TREMAR Residents’ Association – This residents’ association is comprised of
residents from Trenchard Drive, Emerald Road and Maroon Road. The residents
association object to the proposal on the following grounds:
•
•
•
This application is already a ‘done deal’ in that this planning approval
procedure is merely going through the motions. There is no doubt that the
Council will approve their own plans for the airport car park.
The major disruption and imposed removal of the residential amenity for the
communities surrounding the car park will be sacrificed to the commercial
interests of the Council and its Airport.
The impact of this planning approval on all those communities surrounding the
airport car park will be:
1) the visual impact of the development is unacceptable to residents,
2) the loss of the green fields views and semi-rural ambiance adjacent to a
green belt area,
3) the enjoyment of a view is an important part of the communities
residential amenity, its loss will have an adverse impact on the existing
levels of residential amenity,
Page 5 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
4) property values will be further blighted and reduced as a consequence
of the development,
5) increasing and extreme traffic flows and congestion
6) with increasing disruptive parking issues by airport users dumping their
cars in the environs of Shadow Moss Road, Ringway Road and Trenchard
Drive,
7) the monumental increase in risk to people and property by the removal
of this aircraft public safety zone
8) the 24-7 increase in noise levels of car alarms/flashing headlights
triggered by aircraft either landing or taking-off as well as the coming and
goings
9) the increased concerns in respect of security and crime to our
properties as a result of people trying to access the car park to steal car
contents as well as parts etc. while at the same time thieving from our
houses.
•
It is considered that this project will be implemented irrespective of any
objections by any of the local residents immediately affected or any other
parties but consider that further initiatives can be taken to alleviate the
disadvantages to residents. We wish to make the following comments and
recommendations to amend MAG’S Airport car park plans:
1) The submitted report states that the site is a worthless area of
scrubland of limited ecological value when in reality it is good productive
farmland “heavily grazed by cattle”. It claims that there is “No evidence of
badger activity was noted” yet a number of residents on Ringway Road
claim that they regularly visit their gardens at night. They trigger the motion
sensitive security lights and make for interesting observations. We believe
that this matter needs further investigation.
2) Noise – the proposals already refer to high mounds and sound
deflecting fences but it is not clear where those areas will be. It is
requested that these do apply to the Trenchard Drive side of the proposal
and any other area as requested by residents.
3) Parking – the proposal make no reference to the on-street parking that
blights Trenchard Drive, Ringway Road and Shadow Moss Road which will
increase as a consequence of this plan. It is well known that a) people find
the Airport parking charges too expensive therefore opt to park within its
environs and b) ‘holiday parkers’ dump their vehicles on these three and
surrounding roads for periods of a few days up to 3 or 4 weeks.
4) The airport has their own Parking Warden service which they
sometimes use in the environs of the airport when they wish to restrict
plane spotters and unauthorised parking, the most recent occasion being
when the inaugural visit of the new Dreamliner aircraft. It is suggested that
the Airport should extend their parking warden service to include the Moss
Nook area surrounding this new proposed car park to aid the residents with
the serious problem.
5) Lights – the proposal is for the proposed lights and CCTV cameras to
be 12 metres high which is 9 metres higher than the screening mounds,
Page 6 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
thus they will be clearly visible across the whole site to all residents
surrounding the car park. These are unacceptable and very intrusive and
need to be reduced significantly.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) – There is no reason to disagree with
the assessment of the site provided as part of the application; that is, that the site is
of limited ecological value. Therefore there is no fundamental objection to the
scheme on nature conservation grounds.
However the scheme, if permitted, will result in significant losses of open green
space and losses to habitats including ponds, hedgerows and broad leaved trees.
These are priority habitats as listed in the Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action
Plan and compensation for losses should be sought. Some limited compensation is
offered by creating a landscape buffer around the margins of the site although there
do not appear to be any proposals for pond/wetland recreation. It is recognised that
the site is located directly in the flight path of one of the main airport runways and
that pond recreation and significant tree planting may not be appropriate on the
application site itself, but the Airport owns and manages large areas of land in the
area, particularly to the south, where it may be possible to recreate these habitats, or
at least enhance existing habitats, in a way that would offer appropriate
compensation for habitat losses caused to this scheme.
Aerodrome Safeguarding Officer – The proposed development has been
examined from an aerodrome safeguarding aspect and the Safeguarding Authority
for Manchester Airport has no safeguarding objections to the proposal subject to the
imposition of conditions designed to protect aerodrome safeguarding.
SEMMMS Project Team – No comments on the proviso that the proposal does not
include direct access/egress with the proposed A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road
(A6MARR) scheme and the proposed car park is deliverable pre- and post- A6MARR
scenarios.
Environmental Health – Suggests the imposition of conditions designed to protect
residential amenity.
Environment Agency – No objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a
condition concerning the submission of an acceptable surface water drainage
scheme.
Capital Programmes and Property (Flood Risk Management) – The Flood Risk
Management team have made the following comments:
•
•
•
•
Discharge at greenfield runoff rate (5l/s/ha) is acceptable.
Discharge of all flows to Gatley Brook is acceptable, subject to (a) the Council
checking culvert capacity immediately downstream and (b) checking if
Stockport are aware of any problems (brook may cross the boundary).
The Council will need to review the detailed design once available.
The design will need to include something to ensure the ridges at the sides of
the valleys do not get worn away by routine maintenance, as this would alter
Page 7 of 32
•
•
Item 5
22 August 2013
the flow path of attenuated water and could increase risk of flooding inside the
site.
Low points of the proposed site should be moved away from adjacent
properties, to protect them in the event of a catastrophic failure, meaning that
any flood for extreme events should be contained within the site boundaries.
Discharge consent will be required, this takes up to 28 days.
Highway Services – Having discussed the scheme with the applicant in some detail,
Highway Services are content the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon
the local highway network, therefore there is no objection to the proposal.
Contaminated Land Section – Suggests the imposition of the standard
contaminated land condition.
Neighbourhood Services (Arboriculture) – Suggests that the following native
species are used to replace those trees that will be lost as part of the development:
•
•
Open landscape areas – English Oak, Sessile Oak, Scots Pine.
Screening/shrub beds/hedgerows – hawthorn, silver birch, wild cherry and
rowan.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) –The applicant makes reference to security in
the Design and Access statement and states that matters of detail can be addressed
by conditions. It is suggested that any such condition should require the applicant to
provide a crime prevention plan detailing the proposed management measures, the
physical security features of the proposals, including reference to the layout of the
development and its potential effect on neighbouring areas and premises and how
any identified impacts can be minimised.
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) – No objections to the proposal, subject
to the imposition of a number of conditions designed to safeguard the future
operation of the Metrolink line.
Issues
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – The NPPF was published on
the 27th March 2012 and replaces and revokes a number of Planning Policy
Guidance (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) previously produced by
Central Government. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities
and decision-makers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in
determining planning applications. It does not change the statutory status of the
development plan, i.e. the Core Strategy, as the starting point for decision making
and it states further that development that accords with an up-to-date local plan, such
as the Core Strategy, should be approved unless other material considerations
indicate otherwise.
The NPPF states that the planning system must contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development and that there are three dimensions to this: economic,
social and environmental. It has introduced a set of 12 Core Principles that should
Page 8 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
underpin both plan-making and decision-taking, these 12 principles are that planning
should:
• Be genuinely plan-led,
• Not simply about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to
enhance and improve places,
• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the
homes, businesses/industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that
the country needs,
• Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity,
• Take account of the different roles and character of different areas,
• Support the transition to a low carbon future,
• Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing
pollution,
• Encourage the effective use of land,
• Promote mixed use developments,
• Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance,
• Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public
transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations
which are or can be made sustainable,
• Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and
cultural well being for all.
The Manchester Core Strategy was adopted on 11th July 2012 after having been
found to be sound after an Examination in Public. It represents the most up to date
planning policy position as will be outlined later on in this report.
In specific reference to development at airports the NPPF states (para 31) that local
authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to
develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support
strategies for the growth of airports.
Core Strategy Development Plan Document – The Core Strategy Development
Plan Document 2012 -2027 ("the Core Strategy") was adopted by the City Council on
11th July 2012. It is the key document in Manchester's Local Development
Framework. The Core Strategy replaces significant elements of the Unitary
Development Plan (UDP) as the document that sets out the long term strategic
planning policies for Manchester's future development.
A number of UDP policies have been saved until replaced by further development
plan documents to accompany the Core Strategy. Planning applications in
Manchester must be decided in accordance with the Core Strategy, saved UDP
policies and other Local Development Documents unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. Relevant policies in the Core Strategy are detailed below:
Policy SP1, Spatial Principles – This states that the key spatial principles which will
guide the strategic development of Manchester to 2027 are:
Page 9 of 32
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item 5
22 August 2013
The Regional Centre will be the focus for economic and commercial
development, retail, leisure and cultural activity, alongside high quality city
living.
The growth of Manchester Airport will act as a catalyst for the regional
economy, and will also provide the impetus for a second hub of economic
activity in this part of the City.
Beyond these areas, the emphasis is on the creation of neighbourhoods of
choice, providing high quality and diverse housing around district centres
which meet local needs, all in a distinct environment. The majority of new
residential development in these neighbourhoods will be in the Inner Areas,
defined by the North Manchester, East Manchester and Central Manchester
Regeneration Areas.
The City is covered by regeneration areas including the City Centre. All
development should have regard to the character, issues and strategy for
each regeneration area as described in the North, East, Central and South
Manchester and Wythenshawe Strategic Regeneration Frameworks and the
Manchester City Centre Strategic Plan.
The City's network of open spaces will provide all residents with good access
to recreation opportunities. The River Valleys (the Irk, Medlock and Mersey)
and City Parks are particularly important, and access to these resources will
be improved.
New development will maximise the potential of the City's transport
infrastructure, in particular promoting walking, cycling and use of the public
transport. The extension to the Metrolink network through the Oldham and
Ashton lines will create key corridors for new development.
Core Development Principles, Development in all parts of the City should:-
Make a positive contribution to neighbourhoods of choice including:i) creating well designed places that enhance or create character.
ii) making a positive contribution to the health, safety and wellbeing of
residents
iii) considering the needs of all members of the community regardless of age,
gender, disability, sexuality, religion, culture, ethnicity or income.
iv) protect and enhance the built and natural environment.
• Minimise emissions, ensure efficient use of natural resources and reuse
previously developed land wherever possible.
• Improve access to jobs, services, education and open space by being located
to reduce the need to travel and provide good access to sustainable transport
provision.
•
Policy DM1, Development Management – This policy states that all development
should have regard to specific issues for which more detailed guidance may be given
within a supplementary planning document. Of relevance to this application are:
•
•
Appropriate siting, layout, scale, form, massing, materials and detail.
Impact on the surrounding areas in terms of the design, scale and appearance
of the proposed development. Development should have regard to the
character of the surrounding area.
Page 10 of 32
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item 5
22 August 2013
Effects on amenity, including privacy, light, noise, vibration, air quality, odours,
litter, vermin, birds, road safety and traffic generation. This could also include
proposals which would be sensitive to existing environmental conditions, such
as noise.
Accessibility: buildings and neighbourhoods fully accessible to disabled
people, access to new development by sustainable transport modes.
Community safety and crime prevention.
Design for health.
Vehicular access and car parking.
Effects relating to biodiversity, landscape, archaeological or built heritage.
Green Infrastructure including open space, both public and private.
Flood risk and drainage.
Existing or proposed hazardous installations.
Policy DM2, Aerodrome Safeguarding – This policy states that development that
would affect the operational integrity or safety of Manchester Airport or Manchester
Radar will not be permitted.
Policy DM3, Public Safety Zones – This policy states that within the Public Safety
Zones as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority, development or changes of use will
not be permitted, except where that development conforms to that set out in
Paragraphs 11 & 12 of DfT Circular 01/2010 or any replacement guidance.
Policy MA1, Manchester Airport
Strategic Site – This policy, which
designates the Airport as a
Strategic Site, states that growth of
Manchester Airport to 2030 will be
supported and sets out the policy
context for development at the
Airport. It identifies areas for
expansion
and
shows
the
amendments to the Green Belt
required to deliver that expansion. It
specifically identifies the application
site, area no 5 (North of Ringway
Road) on the plan to the side, as
being suitable for " Surface access
and Car Parking with new vehicle
access to Ringway Road and Styal
Road."
Page 11 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
It states further that all development proposed as part of the Airport expansion should
seek to ensure that any environmental effects of development are assessed at the
planning application stage to ensure any impact is acceptable. It will be necessary to
mitigate or compensate any negative effects. In particular, development should:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
minimise any adverse impact on areas of international or national
conservation, ecological and landscape value. In particular, development
should avoid the Cotteril Clough SSSI. Where it is not possible to avoid harm,
mitigation measures to compensate for any adverse impact will be necessary.
Development within the expansion areas must implement the mitigation
measures agreed with the Council,
be informed by an up to date environmental assessment,
support the retention and preservation of heritage assets. Detailed proposals
which impact upon heritage assets within or close to the site, including listed
buildings, will be required to show they have met the tests within PPS5.
Development which has a detrimental impact on heritage assets should be
necessary to meet operational capacity requirements, taking account of the
availability of preferable development options within the Airport site.
retain or relocate the allotments.
include surface access and car parking arrangements which encourage the
use of public transport, walking and cycling, and satisfactorily manage impacts
on the highway network,
seek the maximum possible reductions in noise through compliance with the
Manchester Airport Noise Action Plan and Manchester Airport Environment
Plan.
demonstrate that the number of people affected by atmospheric pollution is
minimised and the extent to which any impact can be mitigated.
improve access to training and job opportunities, particularly for people in
Wythenshawe.
Policy EN8, Adaption to Climate Change – this policy states that all new development
will be expected to be adaptable to climate change in terms of the design, layout,
siting and function of both buildings and associated external spaces. In achieving
developments which are adaptable to climate change developers should have regard
to the following, although this is not an exhaustive list:
•
•
•
•
•
Minimisation of flood risk by appropriate siting, drainage, and treatment of
surface areas to ensure rain water permeability
Reduction in urban heat island effect through the use of Green Infrastructure
such as green roofs, green walls, increased tree cover and waterways
The need to control overheating of buildings through passive design
The opportunity to provide linked and diverse green space to enhance natural
habitats which will assist species adaptation
Developers will be permitted to use green infrastructure elements such as
green roofs, green walls, street trees and waterways to contribute to
compliance with CO2 mitigation under Policy EN6, subject to sufficient
evidence to quantify their contribution to compliance.
Page 12 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Department for Transport Circular 01/2010, Control of Development in Airport
Public Safety Zones – The Circular states in paragraph 10 that there should be a
general presumption against new or replacement development, or changes of use of
existing buildings, within Public Safety Zones. In particular, no new or replacement
dwellinghouses, mobile homes, caravan sites or other residential buildings should be
permitted. Nor should new or replacement non-residential development be permitted.
However, the Circular also states that certain forms of new or replacement
development, which involve a low density of people living, working or congregating,
may be acceptable within a Public Safety Zone, one such example being :
(iv) long stay and employee car parking (where the minimum stay is expected to
be in excess of six hours);
The plan below shows the Public Safety Zone (in blue) in relation to the application
site (edged in red).
Draft Aviation Policy Framework, Department of Transport – The Government
introduced its draft aviation policy on 12th July 2012 and sent it out for consultation,
with the consultation period expiring on 31st October 2012.
The framework states that the Government’s primary objective is to achieve long
term economic growth, that the aviation sector is a major contributor to the economy
and that growth is supported within a framework which maintains a balance between
the benefits of aviation and its costs, particularly climate change and noise.
Page 13 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
It continues stating that the Government recognises the very important role airports
across the UK play in providing domestic and international connections and the vital
contribution they can make to the growth of regional economies.
In referring specifically to Manchester, the framework states that Manchester Airport
is a key component of the Greater Manchester Strategy and contributes £3.5 billion to
the UK economy, providing direct employment to 26,000 people and supporting a
further 50,000 jobs”.
Manchester Airport Master Plan to 2030 (Land Use Plan) – Appendix 2 of the
Master Plan contains site assessments of all the areas proposed for adding to the
Airport Operational Area setting out: site description, development principles,
environmental impacts and mitigation and identifying possible future uses. The site
subject to this application is identified as ‘Area B – Land to the North of Ringway
Road’. It suggested that the site would, because of its location under the flight path
and largely within the Airport’s Public Safety Zone, be suitable for a mixture of Airport
car parking and the possible extension of Ringway Trading Estate. It acknowledges
that any development of buildings or structures on the site is limited in height
because of the protected surfaces. It also states that surface car parking is
considered appropriate and that it would provide a replacement for displaced parking
closer into the airport site.
Manchester Tree Strategy – This Tree Strategy was developed in response to
community interest about how trees are managed across Manchester. It is a key
environmental strategy of the City Council and as such will influence all of the City
Council’s policies and operations that affect trees. One of the key fundamental
policies of this strategy is the requirement for a 10% net increase in new tree planting
on all new developments.
Environmental Impact Assessment – A screening opinion has been undertaken in
accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. While it is acknowledged that
the proposal is likely to have an impact upon local residents it is considered that
these impacts are unlikely to be of more than local significance and are predictable. It
has therefore been concluded that Environmental Statement is not required.
Principle of the Proposal – The applicants’ Development Strategy to 2005, which
was published in 1991, identified the application site as being appropriate for car
parking and this has been consistently reiterated in their Draft Development Strategy
to 2015, published in 2003 and the Manchester Airport Master Plan to 2030 issued in
2007. These aspirations were cemented in the Core Strategy (policy EC11, detailed
above) with its adoption in July 2012, following the submission of evidence to support
the use which was subsequently subject to an Examination in Public by an
independent Inspector.
Given the above it is considered that the principle of this development is acceptable.
Notwithstanding this, consideration must be given to the proposal's impact upon
existing levels of visual and residential amenity, the highway network and
ecology/nature conservation. These issues and others will be addressed below.
Page 14 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Need for Parking – The latest CAA data on passenger modal share has shown that
the off-airport parking market has shrunk between 2009 and 2011 by 3% (in 2009 it
accounted for 13% of passenger access to the Airport, in 2011 it was down to 10%).
Many of the off-site operators utilise sites some distance from the Airport and the
longer transfer times involved creates uncertainty in the minds of passengers. To this
end on-airport parking has seen a growth commensurate with the decline in off-site
parking. Additional measures such as those to restrict the operation of valet parking
operations from the Airport’s forecourts have had an additional effect on increasing
reliance upon on-airport parking.
The need to utilise apron currently used for car parking and to fully implement the
scheme to extend apron over the Terminal 1 and 3 long stay car park will grow in the
short-term. The Terminal 1 and 3 long stay car park currently provides approximately
4,000 spaces, the area of apron currently used for car parking provides
approximately 2,500 spaces. Over the next four years this capacity will be lost.
The development of the application site will allow the applicants to carry out the
apron recovery/development. In addition, the site of Jet Parks 1 & 2 long stay car
parks forms the site of the Airport City development. Permission for this scheme was
granted in 2012 and it forms the centre-piece development site of the Greater
Manchester Enterprise Zone. Development of this site is scheduled to commence
with the provision of road infrastructure later this year. This significantly eats into the
capacity of Jet parks 1 & 2 that currently contribute 3,155 spaces to the Airport’s long
stay parking capacity. Spaces will continue to be available on these sites during the
development of Airport City but at a diminishing rate. The application site will provide
the necessary replacement capacity for the spaces lost to the Airport City
development and apron expansion programme.
Residential Amenity – The impact of the proposal upon the levels of residential
amenity enjoyed by local residents has been assessed, specifically in relation to
noise generated by the use and the visual impact of the development itself.
Noise levels, car park usage – In respect of the car park use itself, the applicants
undertook noise measurements at two sites, no. 8 Wynfield Avenue and Yew Tree
House, Styal Lane, as there are the two closest residential properties to the
development at approximately 60 metres and 30 metres respectively.
The assessment of car park noise at no. 8 Wynfield Avenue and Yew Tree House,
Styal Lane was undertaken using measurements of noise data from similar activities.
The measurements include manoeuvring into a space, car door slams, engine
starting and driving off. These measured noise levels were then corrected for
distance and number of events (i.e. number of parking manoeuvres) to simulate the
situation at the proposed site, at the closest approach.
The predicted noise levels at the closest residential property for car park related
activities were below the World Health Organisation’s daytime guidance value of 50
dB to ”avoid minimal moderate annoyance”. The predicted night-time noise levels
level for car park activities at the closest residential property was 3dB below the
night-time 60 dB limit. However, there is an assumption that these predicted noise
levels occur at the nearest parking space to the residential properties, a worst case
Page 15 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
scenario, since the spaces closest to the bus route pick up points, are likely to be
used more frequently. It is also considered that due to the location of the nearby
residential properties to Manchester Airport, there will already be a number of
instances when the noise levels measured at these properties exceed the predicted
worst-case noise levels from car park movements as a result of aircraft movements.
Noise levels, road traffic – The proposal has the potential to impact on traffic flows on
the road network surrounding the site once operational. The Highways Agency’s
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges states that a change in 18-hour traffic flows of
less than +25/-20% results in a change in traffic noise levels of less than 1 dB and
that this is considered to be a negligible change. It is generally accepted that
changes in road traffic noise levels of 1 dB or less are imperceptible and that
changes of 1 to 3 dB are not widely perceptible. An increase of 10 dB is generally
perceived as a doubling in loudness.
Predicted road traffic data on surrounding roads was provided in the form of 18 hour
Average Annual Weekday Traffic flows and this data was analysed in terms of the
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges criteria to establish which roads would
experience a change in traffic flows of -20% or +25%, and hence a possible change
in noise levels of more than 1 dB. The assessment of the operation of the proposed
car park indicated that the percentage increase in traffic flows was well below 25%,
resulting in a change in noise levels of less than 1 dB. Therefore, the submitted
assessment shows that predicted traffic flow changes on all of the roads in the study
area were considered to have a negligible effect in terms of noise generation.
In light of the above findings, it is not considered that the use of the site as a car
park, along with the associated increases in vehicular traffic, will lead to perceptible
increases in the levels of noise experienced by the residents of those properties that
adjoin the site.
Visual Impact – A visual impact assessment has been undertaken to consider the
visual effects associated with the proposed development upon local residents. This
assessment was centred around a study of the site taken from the five viewpoints
detailed below, as well as the standard of the existing landscaping and the proposed
landscaping scheme:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
from Ringway Road, close to the southwest corner of the site, looking north.
from The Tatton Arms, Trenchard Drive, looking north.
from Styal Road, looking west.
from Styal Road, looking north.
from Ringway Trading Estate, looking south/southeast.
In visual terms, the effects arising from the proposed development would be localised
and contained as there would not be views from large number of houses or large
areas of settlement. There would be some limited views towards the proposals from
Ringway Trading Estate, some surrounding roads and The Tatton Arms PH, though
the visual effects arising would be limited in extent and not significant.
The main impact would be upon the views from those dwellings, largely on Ringway
Road, Wynfield Avenue, Shadow Moss Road and Trenchard Drive, that would
Page 16 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
overlook the site. To mitigate against this, the applicants are proposing to implement
a landscaping scheme designed to shield and/or filter views of the proposed car park
from local residents.
To reduce the visual impact of the scheme the applicants are retaining and improving
the landscaped belt to the north of the Ringway Road and associated culs-de-sac
and to the west of Trenchard Drive and Styal Road. The improvements works will
consist of additional tree planting and mounding and be between 27 to 125 metres
wide behind the Ringway Road properties and 25 to 37 metres wide to the west of
those properties on Trenchard Drive. This landscaping belt will help to filter views of
the car park from these properties, though it is acknowledged that it will not fully
screen the development, particularly when viewed from first floor windows.
Those dwellings on Shadow Moss Road that overlook the site are approximately 85
to 93 metres away from the edge of the car park. To minimise any visual impact
another landscaped belt is proposed which again includes additional tree planting
and mounding. It is within this landscaped belt that the applicants are also proposing
to site the car parking facilities for local residents, Metrolink users and plane spotters.
Given the differences between the existing and proposed uses, i.e. grazing land and
car parking, there is no doubt that there will be some level of visual disamenity
arising from the proposal. However, it is considered that the proposed landscaping,
which will be discussed in the next section, will help to mitigate against any such
impact.
Overall it is not considered that the proposal will have an unduly detrimental impact
upon the levels of residential amenity enjoyed by those residents nearest to the
application site.
Landscaping Treatment – The main purpose of the proposed landscaping scheme
is to shield and/or filter views of the proposed car park from the occupants of those
dwellings that adjoin the site, as well users of the surrounding highway network. The
landscaping scheme comprises of a mix of mounding, hedging, trees and associated
planting, further details are given below:
Landscape corridor to the Ringway Road and Trenchard Drive Properties – This
broad area will stretch around the south and east perimeters of the site and will
typically vary in width between 25 metres and 125 metres. The area will include the
conservation of existing boundary hedgerows and trees and areas of existing
grassland. The landscape proposals would include new mounding stretching around
this perimeter area. In this area and to the rear of the Ringway Road properties, the
landscape buffer would remain essentially as existing, with open grassland situated
beyond the conserved boundary hedgerow and trees to the adjoining properties. The
secure fenced boundary to the parking area would be located approximately 50+
metres from these properties and would include new hedgerow planting to screen
and filter views of the fence and the cars beyond.
East of the landing lights, a newly created mound would gradually rise to
approximately 3.5 metres above existing ground level close to the southeast corner
of the site (close to the public house (Tatton Arms). Sited along the higher parts of
Page 17 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
this rising yet relatively low mound would be some tall shrubs/ low tree planting.
These would be strategically sited to maintain the safety requirements of the airport
yet also screen and filter views towards the car park from the Ringway Road
properties.
The use of low mounding and limited strategically sited planting would continue
around the eastern perimeter of the site and alongside Trenchard Drive. This would
also seek to provide some filtering and screening of views towards the car parking
from those nearby and adjoining properties.
Some new tree and hedgerow planting to the Styal Road boundary would
complement retention of the existing roadside trees at this location, again with
thought being given to the usage of appropriate species so as not to prejudice
aerodrome safeguarding.
Landscape corridor to Metrolink and Shadow Moss Road – Alongside the Metrolink
proposals, the landscaping scheme would include a number of new landscape
components along the western site perimeter. It should be noted that some of these
proposals form part of this planning application and some lie outside the scope of this
application.
The landscape proposals to the western side of the site have been designed to
address specific issues in relation to the Metrolink scheme; access to the Shadow
Moss Road properties; and also to suitably aid the integration of these different
transport corridors into one co-ordinated landscaped belt.
The landscape proposals along this edge of the site would combine low mounding
with limited new shrub and low tree planting. It would also include new boundary
fencing; a new pedestrian path linked to the Metrolink parking; a small planting and
open space area at the southern end of Shadow Moss Road); and a viewing facility
(including car parking and viewpoint area) for “spotters”.
Landscape perimeter to the northern boundary – A relatively narrow landscape
boundary would be established around the north of the site, adjoining the Ringway
Trading Estate, Atlas Business Park and the remainder of the former Ferranti works.
This boundary would include some hedgerow planting and a minimal number of small
trees. Existing or new secure fencing would also extend through this boundary
length.
Landscape corridors within the proposed car parking area – A small number of
landscape corridors comprising grass and hedgerows would extend through the car
parking areas and would offer suitable landscape links and a sub division of the
overall parking area. A small number of trees would also be planted within these
corridors although generally towards the outer parts of the site and away from the
more sensitive area on the landing approach.
Notwithstanding the indicative details that have been submitted by the applicants, it is
considered appropriate in this instance that a detailed landscaping scheme is
submitted. This will be enforced by condition.
Page 18 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Trees – Approximately 20 individual trees and 2 groups of trees are proposed to be
felled to facilitate the proposal. While the loss of the trees is regrettable it is
considered that the extensive planting which would form the landscaped belts around
the perimeter of the site would compensate for their loss. Though the submitted
landscape plan is only indicative it does illustrate that approximately double the trees
lost will be replanted. A condition requiring the submission of a detailed landscaping
plan is suggested in this instance.
Air Quality – Under the requirements of Part IV of the Environment Act (1995) the
Council has carried out a phased review and assessment of local air quality within its
boundaries. This review and assessment of local air quality identified a number of
sensitive areas within the City that have now been declared as Air Quality
Management Areas due to the levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter
exceeding air quality objectives. This includes an AQMA at areas near to Manchester
Airport, but not including the area around the proposed car park.
Exhaust emissions from both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles affect the
concentrations of the principal pollutants of concern (nitrogen dioxide and particulate
matter) at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the application site. As a result, the
applicants focused on these pollutants and established air quality sensitive receptors
at 1 Boundary Terrace, 2 Ringway Road, 7 Emerald Road, 15 Copgrove Walk and 50
Carsdale Walk.
The applicants’ assessment of the annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide
and particulate matter revealed a baseline that is below and just below the air quality
objective value at all locations in the study area. This is consistent with the area
around the application site not being designated as an Air Quality Management Area.
The applicants’ assessment of the proposed car parks impact upon air quality is that
there will be an imperceptible change in annual mean concentrations of nitrogen
dioxide and particulate matter at all the receptor locations within the study area. An
imperceptible change in annual mean concentrations would not have the potential to
cause a significant effect on local air quality sensitive receptors, i.e. local residents.
Given the above, it is not considered that the proposal will have a detrimental impact
upon air quality levels within the vicinity of the site.
Increased Airport Activity - The overall growth of the Airport to 30 million
passengers, the extra flights, and the environmental impact, was considered as part
of the permission for Runway 2. The preparation of the Core Strategy included
consideration of airport expansion and this was found to be consistent with the
Council’s approach to sustainable development and climate change. Given this, it is
not considered that the development of the site as a proposed car park will in itself
generate an increase in aircraft movements and as a result, an increase in emissions
associated with aircraft movements.
Impact upon the Highway Network – The applicants have provided detailed
transport assessment work which confirms that the local highway network could
accommodate the traffic movements associated with the proposal. Highways
Services have reviewed this data and have confirmed that the proposed access
Page 19 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
points and the existing junctions within the vicinity of the application site can
accommodate the proposal.
Ecology and Nature Conservation – The applicant has undertaken habitat surveys
of the site in 2009 and 2012 in order to assess the ecological value of the site. The
findings of these surveys are outlined below:
Internationally or nationally designated sites – No internationally or nationally
designated sites were identified within 1km of the survey site, as a result no impact
from the development proposal is therefore predicted on any designated sites.
Sites of Biological Interest (SBI) – Big Wood SBI is located 260m to the north of the
application site. There is some connective habitat between both sites, in the form of
rough grassland and landscape planting, however, it is not considered that
development of the site would have a negative impact upon this area of woodland
habitat.
Great Crested Newts – There are two static waterbodies present within the
application site and these have been assessed for their potential to support great
crested newts.
The closest obtained record of great crested newt is approximately 365 metres to the
south of the site beyond Ringway Road, however this location is now an area of car
parking and no evidence of a pond remains. There is a record of great crested newt
within Big Wood SBI to north of the site. Connective habitat is present between the
development site and this area of woodland. There are a further two great crested
newt records over 500 metres to the southeast of the site.
The two waterbodies were assessed as having average and below average suitability
for great crested newt. However, due to the presence of suitable breeding and
terrestrial habitat within the site and the presence of great crested newt recorded
within the wider area, a potential impact on great crested newt cannot be ruled out.
As a result of these findings it is recommended that further surveys of the ponds are
undertaken prior to the commencement of the development, accordingly a suitably
worded condition is suggested.
Bats – The plantations, scattered trees and hedgerows offer potential foraging and
commuting opportunity for bats. Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and noctule
have all been recorded along Ringway Road, approximately 55 to 65 metres from the
site boundary. Some mature trees and the small air quality monitoring station have
been assessed as providing potential habitat for roosting bats. In light of this, it is
recommended that further bat activity surveys are undertaken between May and
September to ascertain if bats are indeed present and this will be enforced by
condition.
Badgers – Badger surveys of the site have not recorded any evidence of badger
habitation or activity within the application site. In addition, there are no records of
badger habitation within 1 kilometre of the site. It is therefore concluded that badgers
are absent from this site.
Page 20 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Birds – Certain features of the site, the woodland plantations, hedgerows, scrub and
scattered trees, have the potential to support nesting birds, while the large fields may
also provide suitable habitat for ground nesting bird species. The development of the
site therefore has the potential to affect a range of bird species through loss of
nesting habitat.
Desktop records and observations during the habitat survey noted a number of
species on site, namely fieldfare and redwing, that are Red listed on the Birds of
Conservation Concern list. However, these classifications only refer to breeding
status and not to wintering status and as these species are winter migrants and will
not breed in this area the loss of habitat in respect of these two species is not of
great concern. It should also be noted that these species are mobile and will utilise a
number of sites in the local area whilst over-wintering.
Water Voles – The short stretch of wet ditch onsite offers some foraging potential for
water vole, though it lacks connectivity to other watercourses and is considered to be
isolated from the wider landscape. The onsite ponds offer limited foraging habitat for
water vole and are also isolated from other water-bodies. Utilising GMEU’s species
data it has been revealed that there are no records of water vole within 1 kilometre of
the site. It is therefore not considered that the development will impact on water vole.
From the evidence provided it is apparent that no protected species, either flora or
fauna, inhabit the application site. A number of animals, namely bats and birds, have
the potential to use the site for foraging and while the loss of hedgerows and trees
will impact upon this habitat, it is considered that the proposed landscape mitigation
works will compensate for this short term loss of habitat.
Flood Risk and Drainage – The application site is located in Flood Zone 1 as the
risk of flooding from fluvial sources, i.e. rivers and brooks, is low. The primary flood
risk to the site is from surface water though occurrences of this are low given that the
site consists of a permeable greenfield surface. The laying out of the car park would
create a 24 hectare area that would be 100% impermeable, leaving only 4½ hectares
as permeable greenfield surface.
To compensate for the increased surface water run-off from the car park the
applicants are proposing a drainage strategy that would utilise land drainage, two
underground attenuation tanks and flow control through pumping. All surface water
will pass through large catch-pits to remove silt and oil separators and then
discharge to the attenuation tanks where it will be stored for gradual release at the
equivalent greenfield runoff rate. Open ponds were not considered to be an
appropriate solution due to aerodrome safeguarding issues and the potential for the
increased risk of bird-strike. Overall the drainage strategy is devised to accommodate
up to a 1 in 100 year storm and the effects of climate change.
The Environment Agency have advised that they have no objections to the proposal
subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the implication of an adequate
drainage system. In light of the proposed drainage system and the comments of the
Environment Agency it is not considered that creation of the proposed car park will
pose a flood risk.
Page 21 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Access for Disabled People – A proportion of spaces will be specifically allocated
for use by disabled drivers and passengers and these will be sited adjacent to bus
stops. Furthermore, the applicants have stated that if capacity of disabled bays at
the proposed car park is operating at, or near capacity, the car park control room can
intervene to allocate a suitable space in close proximity to the departure terminal.
Aerodrome Safeguarding – The Public Safety Zone associated with Runway 1 runs
through the middle of the application, as a result consideration must be given to
Circular 01/2010, Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones. This
circular states that there should be a general presumption against new or
replacement development, or changes of use of existing buildings, within Public
Safety Zones. However, the Circular also states that certain forms of new or
replacement development, which involve a low density of people living, working or
congregating, may be acceptable within a Public Safety Zone and that one such
example is long stay and employee car.
In addition to this, the proposed lighting columns will be designed so that light does
not spill above the horizontal plane and vehicles will be parked in such a manner so
that the headlights do not face the direction of approaching aeroplanes.
Given this guidance and the fact that the Aerodrome Safeguarding officer has no
objections to the proposal it is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse
impact upon aerodrome safeguarding.
Crime and Safety – The proposed car park has been designed to meet the Park
Mark standard set by the Association of Chief Police Officers Safer Parking Scheme.
This means that GMP will have to sign off the final design of the car park to ensure
that it has measures in place to create a safe environment, including quality
management, appropriate lighting, effective surveillance and a clean environment.
The applicant is proposing to install 2.4 metre high weld-mesh fencing around the
perimeter of the site, as well as incorporate lighting and CCTV surveillance to ensure
safe usage of the facility. In addition, access to the car park will be controlled by
ANPR activated barriers so the general public will not have access to the site. These
physical measures will be supplemented by regular patrols from both the applicants’
staff and the police based at the airport, as well as regular passing surveillance by
the bus drivers.
Given the above, and the fact that a condition requiring the applicant to achieve Park
Mark accreditation is suggested, it is not considered that siting the car park in this
location would lead to an increase in vehicle related crime.
On-Street Car Parking – Concerns have been raised that the proposed car park
would increase the instances of airport customers parking their vehicles on
Trenchard Drive and other surrounding streets, the rationale being that these
customers would then use the airports shuttle buses to travel to the terminal
buildings. While understanding these concerns it is considered unlikely that this
would actually happen as only people booking a space at the car park would be able
to use the shuttle buses, especially as access to the car park would be limited by the
ANPR activated barriers.
Page 22 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Public Rights of Way – No known public rights of way exist over the site.
Cultural Heritage – The site does not lie within a Conservation Area. Furthermore,
there are no listed buildings within the boundaries of the site and only two listed
buildings within 500 metres of its boundaries. Therefore, it is not considered that the
proposal will have an impact upon historic assets.
Security lighting and CCTV – The proposed lighting columns would be sited and
designed so as to minimise light spillage into local residents gardens, as well as
compromising aerodrome safeguarding. The proposed CCTV system will be
designed so as not to compromise the privacy enjoyed by local residents.
City Council Interests – Members should be aware that the City Council has a
landownership interest in this site. However, Members are discharging their duties as
the Local Planning Authority and must disregard any other interests the City Council
may have.
Positive and Proactive working – Officers have worked with the applicants in a
positive and proactive manner to resolve any problems arising in relation to dealing
with the planning application. Pre-application discussions were held with the agents
and no significant problems have arisen.
Conclusion
Whilst there would be some impact arising from the development it is considered that
the proposal has been designed to reduce the impact upon the levels of visual and
residential amenity enjoyed by the occupants of the nearby residential properties.
Furthermore, the associated landscaping treatment throughout the site will mitigate
against the loss of the existing poor quality landscape features.
Human Rights Act 1998 considerations – This application needs to be considered
against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applicants
(and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations)
have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full
consideration to their comments.
Protocol 1 Article 1, and Article 8 where appropriate, confer(s) a right of respect for a
person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material
considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Core Strategy and the
Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Planning has concluded that some rights
conferred by these articles on the applicant(s)/objector(s)/resident(s) and other
occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with
but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the
public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal.
She believes that any restriction on these rights posed by the approval of the
application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision
falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and
Country Planning Acts.
Page 23 of 32
Recommendation
Item 5
22 August 2013
As this application is of more than local significance
Wythenshawe Area Committee will not be able to determine it.
The views of Wythenshawe Area Committee are therefore
being sought before the application is placed before the next
available Planning and Highways Committee.
The Head of Planning recommends that the Wythenshawe Area
Committee are Minded to Approve (subject to referral to the
Planning and Highways Committee), planning application
102834/FO/2013/S2 on the basis that the proposal is
considered to accord with the following policies which are
summarised in the body of the report: SP1, DM1, DM2, DM3,
MA1 and EN8 in the Core Strategy Development Plan
Document;
1. Policy SP1, as the proposal is a vital component in the
growth of Manchester Airport, which is recognised as a
catalyst for the regional economy,
2. Policy DM1, as the proposal will not have a detrimental
impact upon residential amenity or highway safety.
3. Policy DM 2, as the proposal will not affect the
operational integrity or safety of Manchester Airport or
Manchester Radar.
4. Policy DM3, as the proposed use will comply with
Department for Transport Circular 01/2010.
5. Policy MA1, as the proposal is sited within the
Manchester Airport Strategic Site and is a recognised
aviation related use.
6. Policy EN8, the proposal has been designed to minimise
flood risk by appropriate siting, drainage, and treatment
of surface areas to ensure rain water permeability.
Finally, the proposal is considered to accord with the National
Planning Policy Framework and there are no material
considerations which outweigh the benefits of the proposal.
Conditions and/or Reasons
1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years
beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
following drawings and documents:
1. 5379-L-05 rev E
2. 47064871-AK-PL-001 rev P1
Page 24 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Reason - To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the
approved plans. Pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy.
3) No development that is hereby approved shall commence unless and until
samples and specifications of all materials to be used in the development, including
fencing, barriers, lighting and CCTV columns and associated street furniture, have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning
authority.
Reason - To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable to the City
Council as local planning authority in the interests of the visual amenity of the area
within which the site is located, as specified in policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core
Strategy.
4) No development shall commence until a detailed hard and soft landscaping
treatment scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council
as local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented not later
than 12 months from the date the development is first occupied. If within a period of
5 years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub or any
tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies,
or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or
defective, another tree or shrub of the same species and size as that originally
planted shall be planted at the same place.
Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme for the development is
carried out that respects the character and visual amenities of the area, in
accordance with policies SP1, EN9 and DM1 of the Core Strategy.
5) Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site,
based on sustainable drainage principles and the Area B South Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) from URS dated June 2013, has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be
implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is
completed.
The scheme shall also include:
1. details of volumetric run-off control as per CIRIA SUDS Manual C697with the
rate set at Qbar if no infiltration is provided.
2. details of exceedence event up to a 1 in 100 year including climate change
allowance
3. details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion
Reason –To prevent the increased risk of flooding and ensure future maintenance of
the surface water drainage system, pursuant to Policy DM1 in the Core Strategy
Development Plan Document.
6) Any trees to be removed to facilitate the scheme and considered to have high
potential to support bat roosts shall be inspected for the possible presence of bats
prior to any tree work commencing.
Page 25 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Reason - To ensure the protection of habitat of species that are protected under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or as subsequently amended in order to comply
with policy EN15 of the Core Strategy.
7) No part of the development hereby granted permission shall be commenced
unless and until a survey of the site in a form and carried out by a person previously
approved in writing by the local planning authority has been carried out and
demonstrates to the local planning authority's written satisfaction that great crested
newts do not inhabit the site. Should the survey reveal the presence of great crested
newts, a scheme for the protection of their habitat and/or their translocation to a
suitable replacement habitat shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the City
Council as local planning authority before the development commences, and
implemented in full in accordance with the approved details and to a timetable
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason - To ensure the protection of habitat of species that are protected under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or as subsequently amended in order to comply
with policy EN15 of the Core Strategy.
8) No development shall commence until details of the measures to be incorporated
into the development (or phase thereof) to demonstrate how Park Mark accreditation
will be achieved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council
as local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance
with these approved details. The development hereby approved shall not be
occupied or used until the Council as local planning authority has acknowledged in
writing that it has received written confirmation of a Park Mark accreditation.
Reason - To reduce the risk of crime pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core
Strategy and to reflect the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy
Framework.
9) In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree, shrub or hedge which is to
be as shown as retained on the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a)
and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the
occupation of the development for its permitted use.
(a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained
tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and
particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or
lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 5387
(Trees in relation to construction)
(b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall
be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and
shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning
authority.
(c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken
in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment,
machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the
development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus
Page 26 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any
area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those
areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written
consent of the local planning authority.
Reason - In order avoid damage to trees/shrubs adjacent to and within the site which
are of important amenity value to the area and in order to protect the character of the
area, in accordance with policies EN9 and EN15 of the Core Strategy.
10) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a
Construction Management Plan (CMP) with detailed method statements of
construction, including details of and position of any proposed cranes to be used on
the site, a detailed programme of the works and risk assessments, has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
CMP shall include agreed safe methods of working adjacent to the Metrolink Hazard
Zone and shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The CMP shall
provide for: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
the designated route for construction and delivery vehicles
the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
loading and unloading of plant and materials;
storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
construction and demolition methods to be used; including the use of cranes
the erection and maintenance of security hoarding;
measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction and;
a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and
construction works
Reason - In the interests of highway safety, to safeguard the amenities of the locality
and to ensure that the developer complies with all the necessary system clearances
and agrees safe methods of working to meet the safety requirements of working
above and adjacent to the Metrolink system, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 in
the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.
11) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved or any phase
thereof a Construction Environmental Management Plan must be submitted to and
be approved by the City Council as local planning authority and thereafter
implemented in accordance with those approved details. The Construction
Environmental Management Plan must show how the main construction effects of the
development are to be minimised, with include detailed mitigation measure such as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
details of construction and demolition waste management;
details of pollution prevention;
dust control measures;
details of any lighting scheme proposed during construction;
details of site access, working and safety zones, together with temporary fencing
proposals for the site access and site perimeter.
Page 27 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential
accommodation, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1
in the Core Strategy
Development Plan Document.
12) The installation of lighting shall not commence until full details of the schemes of
lighting required during construction and for the completed development have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation
with the Safeguarding Authority for Manchester Airport. The lighting scheme is to be
designed so as not to conflict with any safeguarding criteria and shall specify that
lighting is of flat glass, full cut off design with horizontal mountings and no light spill
above the horizontal.
Reason - To ensure that the lighting does not confuse or distract pilots and Air Traffic
Controllers in the vicinity of the aerodrome and to ensure the safe operation of
aircraft, pursuant to Circular 1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and
Military Explosives Storage Areas: the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded
Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002
and Policy DM2 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.
13) The car park shall not come into operation until the proposed landscaping has
been completed in line with a fully detailed landscaping scheme that has been
previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
detail of the landscaping scheme will require assessment of the potential to attract
bird species that are a risk to air safety, and should be designed so as not to
increase the level of bird activity at the site. Agreement should therefore be sought
with the Safeguarding Authority for Manchester Airport regarding species mix,
density of planting and any ongoing monitoring and maintenance measures that are
required.
Reason - To avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft through the attraction of
birds, pursuant to Circular 1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and
Military Explosives Storage Areas: the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded
Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002
and Policy DM2 in the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.
14) No element of the proposed planting shall be permitted to grow to a height that
breaches any of Manchester Airport's Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. Appropriate
future landscape management will be required to ensure the height of all planting
remains below the OLS.
Reason - To ensure that Manchester Airport's Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are
protected to avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft, pursuant to Circular
1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage
Areas: the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites
and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 and Policy DM2 in the Core
Strategy Development Plan Document.
15) No element of the development is permitted to infringe Manchester Airport's
protected Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (as set out in the CAA's licensing document
Page 28 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
CAP 168). This includes lighting columns, CCTV columns, fencing, bus shelters,
signage, earth mounding and planting.
Reason - To ensure that Manchester Airport's Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are
protected to avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft, pursuant to Circular
1/2003 Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage
Areas: the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites
and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 and Policy DM2 in the Core
Strategy Development Plan Document.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
The documents referred to in the course of this report are either contained in the
file(s) relating to application ref: 102834/FO/2013/S2 held by planning or are City
Council planning policies, the Core Strategy, the Unitary Development Plan for the
City of Manchester, national planning guidance documents, or relevant decisions on
other applications or appeals, copies of which are held by the Planning Division.
The following residents, businesses and other third parties in the area were
consulted/notified on the application:
Environment Agency
Transport For Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester Police
Manchester Airport Safeguarding Officer
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
SEMMMS Project Team
1-83 Lownorth Road, Manchester, M22 0JU
1-44 Cornishway, Manchester, M22 0LD
1-7 Dufton Walk, Manchester, M22 0JN
1-10 Badgers Walk, Manchester, M22 0JR
Flats at 1-5 Sheen Gardens, Manchester, M22 5LE
Flats at 32 Sheen Gardens, Manchester, M22 5LF
6-30 Sheen Gardens, Manchester, M22 5LF
15-117 Shadow Moss Road, Manchester, M22 0JT
Moss Nook Scout Group, Shadow Moss Road, Manchester, M22 6JT
1-38 Green Meadows Walk, Manchester, M22 0JS
1-12 Kepwick Drive, Manchester, M22 0JW
Dakota House, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22 0RR
Maple House, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22 5LA
Brabazon House, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22 5LA
Concorde House, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22 0SP
Eagle Court, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22 5LA
Caravelle Court, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22 5LA
Rowan Court, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22 0RR
New Mercury House, Concord Business Park, Threapwood Road, Manchester, M22
0RR
Willstream House, Longstone Road, Manchester, M22 5LB
59-186 Ravenscar Crescent, Manchester, M22 0JA
Page 29 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
31-72 Staithes Road, Manchester, M22 0HF
1-10 Harburn Walk, Manchester, M22 0LF
1-10 Lynside Walk, Manchester, M22 0HG
2-32 Braintree Road, Manchester, M22 0HH
1-47 Carsdale Road, Manchester, M22 0HQ
1-5 Copgrove Walk, Manchester, M22 0LG
1-8 Lismore Walk, Manchester, M22 0LJ
1-8 Foley Walk, Manchester, M22 0LL
1-8 Brading Walk, Manchester, M22 0LN
1-30 Swithin Road, Manchester, M22 0LR
1-10 Belleville Avenue, Manchester, M22 0HS
1-6 Beagle Walk, Manchester, M22 0LP
1-38 Robinsbay Road, Manchester, M22 0LT
2-36 Crispin Road, Manchester, M22 0LU
1-11 Alric Walk, Manchester, M22 0LW
1-30 Hazelwood Road, Manchester, M22 0AD
2-18 Carsdale Road, Manchester, M22 0HQ
1-56 Beaford Road, Manchester, M22 0AG
18-64 Patch Croft Road, Manchester, M22 5JS
243-249 Peel Hall Road, Manchester, M22 5HE
60-78 Simonsway, Manchester, M22 5HF
Chamber Hall Farm, Styal Road, Manchester, SK8 3UA
Unit 1-12, Ringway Trading Estate, Shadow Moss Road, Manchester, M22 6LX
Hewden Hire Centres, Shadow Moss Road, Manchester, M22 5LH
Pump Room, Ringway Trading Estate, Shadow Moss Road, Manchester, M22 6LX
Unit 12, Ringway Trading Estate, Shadow Moss Road, Manchester, M22 6LX
Atlas Business Park, Simonsway, Manchester, M22 5PR
Simon House, Atlas Business Park, Simonsway, Manchester, M22 5PR
Atlantic House, Atlas Business Park, Simonsway, Manchester, M22 5PR
11-44 Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5LZ
1-9 Maroon Road, Manchester, M22 5NB
2-100 Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5ND
1-8 Wynfield Avenue, Manchester, M22 5NE
1-7 Emerald Road, Manchester, M22 5WA
Sylverne, Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5WD
Newlyn, Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5WF
Oakfield, Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5WF
Cherry Tree Cottage, Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5WF
Rose Cottage, Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5WF
1-8 Croyde Close, Manchester, M22 5NT
17 Tedder Drive, Manchester, M22 5UB
Smithy Farm, Tedder Drive, Manchester, M22 5UB
Shadow Moss Farm, Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5WD
Moss Nook House, Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5NA
Yew Tree Cottage, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5TJ
Yew Tree House, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5TJ
Tatton Arms, Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5LZ
Stables Cottage, Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5LZ
Gateway House, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5WY
Manchester International Office Centre, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5WB
Page 30 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
Primrose Cottage Nurseries, Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5WF
Trident 1-3, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5WN
500 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5HQ
Renold House, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5WZ
Tatton Arms, Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5LZ
Yew Tree House, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5TJ
Yew Tree Cottage, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5TJ
Costain Oil And Gas, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5XB
9-13 Irvin Drive, Manchester, M22 5LR
2-20 Cunningham Drive, Manchester, M22 5LT
1-17 Brookash Road, Manchester, M22 5LU
1-9 Thorn Drive, Manchester, M22 5LX
1-13 Hazel Drive, Manchester, M22 5LY
Flats at Heald Green House, Irvin Drive, Manchester, M22 5LS
The Heald Green, Finney Lane, Manchester, SK8 3QH
Prestbury Court, Greencourts, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Capital House, 333 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Hale Court, Greencourts, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Adlington Court, 333 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Cognos Greencourts, 333 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Enterprise House, Greencourts, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Enterprise House Ground Floor, Greencourts, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
First Floor, Adlington Court, 333 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LG
Portman Travel, 333 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Adlington Court, 333 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Greencourts, 333 Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Greencourts, Styal Road, Manchester, M22 5LW
Unit 1-11, Longstone Road, Manchester, M22 5LB
Representations were received from the following third parties:
Environment Agency
Aerodrome Safeguarding Officer
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
SEMMMS Project Team
TREMAR Residents Association
5 Brading Walk, Manchester, M22 0LW
1 Croyde Close, Manchester, M22 5NT
6 Cunningham Drive, Manchester, M22 5LT
6 Firswood Mount, Gatley, SK8 4JZ
7 Hawthorn Road, Gatley, SK8 4LX
8 Lismore Walk, Manchester, M22 0LJ
32 Lownorth Road, Manchester, M22 0JZ
4 Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5ND
Page 31 of 32
Item 5
22 August 2013
38 Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5NF
48 Ringway Road, Manchester, M22 5NF
flat 7, 1 Sheen Gardens, Manchester, M22 5LE
flat 32, 2 Sheen Gardens, Manchester, M22 5LE
flat 134, 2 Sheen Gardens, Manchester, M22 5LF
30 Sheen Gardens, Manchester, M22 5LF
25 Shadowmoss Road, Manchester M22 0LQ
45 Shadowmoss Road, Manchester M22 0LH
21 Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5LZ
24 Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5NA
42 Trenchard Drive, Manchester, M22 5NA
1 Wynfield Avenue, Manchester, M22 5NE
3 x Address Not Known
Two petitions containing 103 and 130 signatures respectively
Relevant Contact Officer :
Telephone number
:
Email
:
David Lawless
0161 234 4543
[email protected]
Page 32 of 32

Styal Road and Shadowmoss Road

Transcription

Similar documents

2018 FIL Men`s World Championships

Community Care Workstream - NIHR CLAHRC Greater Manchester

For advance bookings or queries please call our

Medicine 2.0 Invention and Innovation in the 21st Century

Festival at Manchester Lakes

Coventry Local School District to Waterloo High School

Property Flyer

New Hampshire Jobs for America`s Graduates New - NH-JAG

chetham`s school of music