The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

The application related to an outline planning application for the erection of 57 dwellings, with all matters reserved, except for access, with associated access off Cringle Road, car parking, landscaping and other associated works.

Officers reported that a previous application for planning permission had been refused by the Committee on 24 August 2017 and was the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal was subsequently dismissed. From the findings of the appeal hearing, the Planning Inspector had considered that there was very limited recreational activity associated with the site which also held no formal recreational status and had not been designated within the City Council’s ‘open space study’ in 2009. The Planning Inspector had considered that there would be no harm to the landscaped character of the wider area as a result of development at the application site. The reason for the decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the grounds that there had been no suitable mitigation agreed between the Council and the applicant to minimise the wider impacts on Highfield Country Park. On this basis the proposal was deemed to be in conflict with policies EN9 and EN10 of the Core Strategy and saved policy LL3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Local residents from the area attended the meeting and a spokesperson addressed the Committee on their behalf to explain their objection to the proposal. The spokesperson said that the ecology report which informed the planning report was based on incorrect information and bats have been regularly spotted on the site. Also, none of the buildings on the site had been accessed as part of the ecology survey to check for the presence of protected species. An independent ecology report produced by a bat specialist had suggested that the buildings on the site had moderate potential to support roosting bats. The spokesperson referred to Planning Inspectors report and did not accept the suggestion that the site should not be regarded as a recreational facility as described in Policy EN 10 of the Manchester Core Strategy 2012. The spokesperson stated that the community had regularly accessed the farm area but following the agreement made with the site owner and the developer involved in the application, the farm had been purposely run down over a three-year period. The spokesperson said that the Inspector had based their decision on the current state of the site and had not recognised the site as a valuable community facility which was regularly accessed by the local community. The spokesperson stated that the Planning Inspector had concluded that there would be significant harm to the country park as result of the development. Also, the sale of the land was believed to be contrary to government guidance on the sale of land by a non-profit organisation that had received contributions from the local community. The spokesperson referred to the existing problems caused by traffic congestion in the area and the impact that the development would have on the health and wellbeing of future generations from the loss of green space.

The agent for the applicant was present at the meeting and spoke in support of the proposed application.

Councillor Noor spoke as Ward Councillor in opposition to the application and raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on the local area as a result of the loss of a valued ‘community green space’. Also, the increase in the amount of traffic generated by the development would add to the existing traffic congestion problems and the addition of new families moving into the properties would increase pressure on the existing local infrastructure.

Officers reported that the ecology report had included an assessment of buildings on the site and concluded that no bats or other protected species were present at the site. The GM Ecology Unit had reviewed and had accepted the findings. If agreed, the planning permission would include a note that would require development work to stop, if bats or other protected species were found to be living on the site, other national legislation would also apply on the protection of wildlife. Associated traffic calming measures would be introduced on the highway, as part of the development scheme and these would be funded by the developer.

The Committee referred to the financial contribution by the developer and the 20% affordable housing provision and asked for further details on how this would be determined and how the allocation of the affordable properties would be managed. Concern was expressed over the loss of the green space and how a financial contribution would not address this. The point was made that the farm site had been in private ownership at the time of the open space study in 2009, which made it inappropriate to refer to the area as recreational land. The Committee commented that the report was problematical in that the site had previously been used for landfill and concern was expressed that using the site for residential development may result in remedial action being required.

Officers reported that there would be a financial contribution, for the loss of the open space, from the developer to mitigate impacts to Highfield Country Park and to improve accessibility to the park. The 20% affordable housing on the development would be a shared ownership arrangement and this would be retained into the future. A Registered Provider would manage the shared ownership and properties, as part of a S106 legal agreement. Any subsequent changes made to the final arrangements would be subject to negotiation and agreement with Executive members and the Director of Housing. The arrangements are in accordance with current local and national policy. The developer was in negotiations with a Registered Provider that would work closely with the Council and nomination rights would be applied in accordance with their existing procedures.

Officers reported that the principle of the development of the site had been deemed acceptable based on the findings of the planning inspector and this was now a material consideration. The current recommendation was against the previous planning recommendation to the Planning and Highways Committee that had been refused, however, after the appeal process, the Council considered the inspectors report and what the mitigation between the Council and developer should be. It was determined that the mitigation would be the financial contribution to enhance Highfield Country Park, which had been negotiated through relevant officers within the Council. The Inspector, in conducting the appeal, had balanced the policies of the Council against the merits of the proposed development and did not consider the weight of the policies to be sufficient to merit a refusal of the application.

Decision

Minded to refuse the application for the reason that the proposed financial agreement between the Council and the applicant is insufficient to mitigate against the loss of green space and infrastructure and conflicts with policies:

• EN9 – Maintaining green infrastructure;
• EN10 – Safeguarding open space, sport and recreation facilities;
• Saved Policy LL3 - Environmental Improvements and Protection.

(The Head of Planning has been requested to submit a report which addresses the concerns raised and whether there are reasons for refusal which could be sustained.)